It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

law professor guilty of sexual harassment for real world legal question about a bikini wax

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: seasonal
A couple students "feel" they were forced to reveal if they waxed ...

Snow flakes won this fight.

Sounds like they deserved 'a win' to me.

If some professor asked my wife if she waxed ... it would be me he would meet-up with in a dark parking lot.
If some professor asked my daughter if she waxed ... I'd be at his home ... where I would be introducing myself to 'his' family.


He didn't ask any such thing. Read the OP.




posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

So a question on a test equates to a professor asking if the students themselves had a bikini wax.


It's like this. . . .

If you ask this question on a test;

If Tom had 7 peanuts and you took away 3, how many would you have?

And the student has a peanut allergy. . . . this the teacher assaulted the student.

THE TEACHER TRIED TO KILL THE STUDENT!



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   
You can't do reports on George Washington Carver if any students have peanut allergies.

Hate crime right there. . . . .



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Clint Eastwood called it.





posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Never having had a bikini wax, I can't say for sure whether the question would make me feel self conscious about it.

Either way, these students should be commended for their grasp of the modern legal system in order to make a great big mountain out of this tiny molehill.

They will obviously go far in their chosen field.

All those who just got on with answering the question will probably be better off as DA's or some such.
edit on 24pMon, 10 Jul 2017 08:00:24 -050020172017-07-10T08:00:24-05:00kAmerica/Chicago31000000k by SprocketUK because: spellcheck stupidity



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
After reading the question my guess is they didn't understand anything, seen the word genitals and figured if they waved their arms and complained enough they could pass the test without needing to understand. Cause I guess they managed to at least learn being offended gives you a free pass these days.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

This can't be true. Nobody is this dumb, especially the admin at that university. It's Daily Mail so I wouldn't be surprised if it's fake or there's more to the story.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Never having had a bikini wax, I can't say for sure whether the question would make me feel self conscious about it.

Either way, these students should be commended for their grasp of the modern legal system in order to make a great big mountain out of this tiny molehill.

They will obviously go far in their chosen field.

All those who just got on with answering the question will probably be better off as DA's or some such.


The problem is that they completely failed to grasp the question as they got tied up in the intricacies of bikini waxing. You could cross out everything but the last two or three sentences as they are the only relevant part.

One of the goals of a scenario question is to separate out the students who pay attention from those who don't. The people complaining have shown, by the nature of the complaint they have raised, that they failed to pay attention or understand the question. It's a procedural question about the function and impact of a demur.


Edited to add: It's the equivalent of having a question like "Bill stabbed Ben with a carving knife screaming "Die, you bastard, die!". Bill entered a guilty plea on his first appearance at court. How might this affect his sentencing?", then having students complain that the use of the word "carving knife" makes vegetarians feel emotionally oppressed.


edit on Ev40MondayMondayAmerica/ChicagoMon, 10 Jul 2017 08:40:07 -05006112017b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

What t'hell happened to laughing when the professor said genitals?

Algebra teacher went to say x sub y and instead said sex sub y while looking at one of the hottest girls in school . The entire class lost it...
Laughter , red faces.
What did happen to the days ?



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Never having had a bikini wax, I can't say for sure whether the question would make me feel self conscious about it.

Either way, these students should be commended for their grasp of the modern legal system in order to make a great big mountain out of this tiny molehill.

They will obviously go far in their chosen field.

All those who just got on with answering the question will probably be better off as DA's or some such.


The problem is that they completely failed to grasp the question as they got tied up in the intricacies of bikini waxing. You could cross out everything but the last two or three sentences as they are the only relevant part.

One of the goals of a scenario question is to separate out the students who pay attention from those who don't. The people complaining have shown, by the nature of the complaint they have raised, that they failed to pay attention or understand the question. It's a procedural question about the function and impact of a demur.


Edited to add: It's the equivalent of having a question like "Bill stabbed Ben with a carving knife screaming "Die, you bastard, die!". Bill entered a guilty plea on his first appearance at court. How might this affect his sentencing?", then having students complain that the use of the word "carving knife" makes vegetarians feel emotionally oppressed.



Maybe you and me just aren't cut out to be highly paid legal experts?



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Wtf is FIRE and why do they have such pull in a university?
That is literally letting the crazies run the asylum.

Isn't there already an ACLU and student unions?
What the actual flick is FIRE and is this case their only justification for existence, or have they done other banal regressive shat that I'm woefully ignorant to?



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: seasonal

I have a vagina. Who's scared?

Well, obviously I am.

Please never make personal threats like again.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Maybe you and me just aren't cut out to be highly paid legal experts?


That might come as a surprise to the people who already pay me for my legal expertise



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Maybe you and me just aren't cut out to be highly paid legal experts?


That might come as a surprise to the people who already pay me for my legal expertise


I won't tell if you don't



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Your beilief is not required for this to be a real story.

That being said, I hope you are right, this kind of coddling and listening to hyper-hypersensitivity is doing no one any favors.
if true, the teachers need to have the Union take care of this. It was not done with malice or intent.


The only thing the admin is doing is trying to keep the absolute worn out and outdated 20th century scheme rolling for another year.

The profits got to keep rolling in, and offending the snow flakes, LGBTQ or BLM squads could cut into the bottom line, and that is not allowed.

Easier to screw a professor than offend the precious little D-bags and have riots.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Daily Mail is a known tabloid and a producer of fake news or news with information omitted.
That said this story is "probably" true in the sense that something did happen there, but the information is omitted. I see that all the time on Fox News.
I mean really how can the admin say that he is gulty of sexual harassment after hearing the evidence? It's just a question for goodness sake. There has to be more to it.
So sorry if I don't beileve it. If you or others can convince me then sure. ATS motto is "deny ignorance".



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I hope your right.

This is silly and unbelievable, but there are other things in life that are equally unbelievable. Gulf of Tonkin.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha
Sorry but I must report you to the moderators for using the word genitals. Whoops I can't now as I've just used the word genitals. Oh, my god I did it again.
These people are stupid morons. That's the students not you narcol..



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: seasonal
I mean really how can the admin say that he is gulty of sexual harassment after hearing the evidence? It's just a question for goodness sake. There has to be more to it.
So sorry if I don't beileve it. If you or others can convince me then sure. ATS motto is "deny ignorance".


I don't think that anybody is trying to convince you otherwise. If the article contains all the relevant information then the whole scenario - and especially the outcome - is ludicrous.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: seasonal
A couple students "feel" they were forced to reveal if they waxed ...

Snow flakes won this fight.

Sounds like they deserved 'a win' to me.

If some professor asked my wife if she waxed ... it would be me he would meet-up with in a dark parking lot.
If some professor asked my daughter if she waxed ... I'd be at his home ... where I would be introducing myself to 'his' family.


Not sure if sarcastic but he never asked that, hence the quotation marks. The question was whether the person who claimed they were groped had a case. I highly doubt he could care less about what kind of topiary their trousers hold and the kind of student who thinks a court would be interested in their ubic preferences clearly has no idea about courts and should never be let in one.

I used to cover court reporting when I was a journalist (UK doesn't have US style public/televised criminal trials) and it involves viewing and heaing in explicit detail some of the most abhorent, sickening acts a human could ever commit. Anyone who feel offended by the word genitals is unfit to practice, by definition the job requires people to defend and/or analyse far worse.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join