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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

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'm still interested to know how they present their answers. Do they have to provide a written reason for their choice?

If not, how does this reveal anything? Did they feel compelled to tick a box then write on the answer sheet "I WAXED MY VAGINA! THERE, ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?"




posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Who said the people who complained were young women?

It's 2017, who knows....



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: EvillerBob

Who said the people who complained were young women?

It's 2017, who knows....


Who said only women had vaginas?

It's 2017, who knows...



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Here is the question that should be asked:

These students who are so offended, why are they wanting to become attorneys in the first place? The reason why I am asking, is that the professor does teach about law, and often when one is an attorney, there are people coming in for advice and or an attorney where it goes around sexual things in nature, including inappropirate touching. So if this is something the 2 students are uncomfortable with, perhaps a career as an attorney is not the best thing to do.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

(good point)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Like I said, nobody is this dumb, especially the law students and the university admin. That's why this is unbelievable. I wouldn't put it past the tabloid to make the left look bad like many people do here.
Maybe the professor actually did something to be guilty of sexual harassment but then that wouldn't give the story "ooomph".
edit on 7/10/2017 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




nobody is this dumb


I would not make a bet on that.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Deaf Alien




nobody is this dumb


I would not make a bet on that.

We are talking about law students.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: bastion

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'm still interested to know how they present their answers. Do they have to provide a written reason for their choice?

If not, how does this reveal anything? Did they feel compelled to tick a box then write on the answer sheet "I WAXED MY VAGINA! THERE, ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?"


I used to read exams/assignments to a blind law lecturer. It'd have to be backed up with a full written explanation (possibly to a wordcount limit of 1000, 1500) but even then their personal choice of pubic hair has nothing to do with the law, case at hand or the legal precedents they should be citing.

Whoever has complained about this (and I imagine it'd be obvious to the lecturer) must be under some delusion that a queston on the legality/validity of a claim of sexual assault hinges on their own personal choice of public hair. Its by far a new level of stupidity from students and I've seen them cite Kramer vs Kramer in an exam before. I'd be suprised if this is real as the Mail has a history of inventing these stories.
edit on 10-7-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



Law students who have been exposed to the venom of (modern) liberalism.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Deaf Alien



Law students who have been exposed to the venom of (modern) liberalism.

That's an assumption on your part.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Logical guess, but you are right. Not a fact.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Howard University has found a professor of law guilty of sexual harassment in relation to a 2015 test question involving Brazilian waxing. At first blush, it’s the kind of case that might anger even modest professors concerned about the rising tide of what’s been called campus illiberalism, or student calls for censorship of emotionally discomfiting speech.

But Reginald Robinson’s full question about a client who fell asleep during a wax and later alleged improper touching is rather graphic, with references to a “landing strip,” hairlessness from “belly button to buttocks" and more. Still, some free speech and academic freedom advocates are calling Howard’s response excessive: mandatory sensitivity training for Robinson, prior administrative review of his future test questions, classroom observation and a warning that any further violations of the university’s sexual harassment policies may result in termination.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- which asked Howard to revoke Robinson’s sanctions, but reportedly did not hear back by a June 30 deadline -- said this week that the university’s “overreaction to a simple hypothetical question is a threat to academic freedom and a professor’s ability to effectively teach students.” The question "clearly does not constitute sexual harassment,” added Susan Kruth, FIRE’s senior program officer for legal and public advocacy.

Robinson’s attorney, Gaillard T. Hunt, said via email Thursday that it’s “silly but relatively harmless” if Howard’s law school “wants to treat its students as delicate snowflakes who must be protected from unpleasant hypothetical cases.” But when it makes a “formal finding that a professor is guilty of ‘sexual harassment’ because of a discussion in class, that’s libelous of him as an individual and debases the whole concept.” Howard did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Two students complained about Robinson's question, triggering the university's investigation, according to FIRE.


www.insidehighered.com...


It's true.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

If it's true then the professor has grounds to sue the university. He will win.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: essentialtremors

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.


I suppose in reparations I must now buy you a pony or a puppy, along with some blowing bubbles and a coloring book. If you're nice, I'll buy the 24 pack of crayons and not the crappy 8 pack.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No doubt, funny though, what I figured is it's more of a right wing fundie reaction to the question.
In any case if anyone in lawschool is that offended they might look to other careers.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No doubt, funny though, what I figured is it's more of a right wing fundie reaction to the question.
In any case if anyone in lawschool is that offended they might look to other careers.

Actually that would make more sense than the narrative that they are liberal snowflakes reacting to this question. You can be sure that that question will never appear at Liberty University law school.




edit on 7/10/2017 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

This is such an absurd case I looked out the information beneath, and in addition to, the Daily Mail story.

I didn't find anything so, if any has access to a local news report I may have missed please let me know. I really wanted to find the Howard Uni. version of events/judgement.

I did find this, however www.washingtonpost.com... b373-418f6849a004_story.html

Top and tail is, from the Washington post May, 2017 is...

"Howard University failed to respond quickly and equitably to sexual assault reports from female students, a federal lawsuit alleges.

The suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, centers on incidents that occurred from 2014 to 2016 at the private university in Northwest Washington."

These are real sexual assaults', not hypothetical questions in class.

So, cynic that I am, I suspect Howard University are playing games in view if the pending Federal law suit.

'To Kill a Mockingbird' and 'Never smart to cross a Law Professor' are two phrases that spring to mind.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Doxanoxa

I would not want to be on the college side of this law suit when it ends up in court.

This reminds me of zero tolerance policies.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
this reads like satire....



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join