Professor Ends Standoff Over Sexual Harassment Training
April 7, 2009
A distinguished microbiologist has ended a six-month standoff with the University of California at Irvine over his refusal to take sexual harassment training. His decision was based on the impact his departure would have on colleagues and graduate students. (He has brought millions of dollars of funding to his department.)
Nevertheless, the dispute highlights the passivity with which most people accept veiled Communist-style political education, a form of control bound to increase as Castro, Chavez, Obama and Medvedev declare their common pedigree.
Although he has 30 years of service and tenure, McPherson was suspended from supervisory duties and threatened with loss of his $150,000 salary, proof that this program is a way of asserting political control over senior state employees.
"This is a violation of my principles," he told The Orange County Register. There is no more reason for this than training to recognize car theft or murder or any other crime, he said.
"The state is imposing this based on politics and that can't be allowed...." What's next? he asks. "A loyalty pledge, racial sensitivity training, free speech filtering...I would cheerfully go to jail in protest, as an act of civil disobedience. I am offended however that the university so poorly understands its priorities and confuses its duties that it threatens to interfere with classes and the students I teach, and to whom I have a moral obligation as their professor."
As part of the dispute, McPherson released emails from his Department Chair explaining that the training is state mandated for all supervisors and doesn't impugn his character. "I know this comes from politically motivated roots but it has been passed down to us like you know what flows downstream." The Chairman urged McPherson to see it as similar to "hazardous waste or animal handling training."
This was in reply to an email where McPherson affirmed that "the state has no right to inflict its narrow political social or cultural proclivities on me, an individual. This ...edict is a blunt political act...an offense to my sensibilities. It calls into question my character, my reputation and my intelligence. My greatest amazement is that so few of my colleagues at UCI and at other campuses have not spoken out against the offense. What is next? Kneel and kiss the ring of the State Assembly Leader?"
McPherson's stand was somewhat weakened by his willingness to compromise if the university would sign a statement saying it had no reason to suspect him of sexual harassment, past or future. The university refused, meaningful in itself. We are all guilty and need to be proven innocent.
McPherson was told by colleagues that they did the training online, by simply logging on for two hours, leaving and then returning to give random answers to questions later. But McPherson said his principles would not allow him to proceed in this way.
Cathy Laehon, a spokesman for Irvine, said the training serves a purpose even if someone wasn't engaged in inappropriate behavior. "If as a supervisor, something is happening in the workplace...I would be trained to recognize it."
Laehon is implying that the best and brightest minds in the US can't recognize when someone is being a nuisance. Please.
This is from the University of California sexual harrassment website:
Faculty, staff and students are urged to review the Policy itself to understand the different types of sexual harassment, which may include:
Unwelcome sexual propositions
Sexual innuendoes or other behavior, such as repeated, unwanted requests for meals, dates, etc.
Unwelcome sexual comments or jokes; questions or discussions about an individual's sex life; comments about a person's body or appearance
Unwanted touching or leering
Sending someone unwanted sexual materials
The behavior must be unwelcome. If sexual propositions or jokes are welcome, they do not constitute a violation of policy.
There is nothing wrong with this policy and the "training" is only two hours every two years. But it does insult the intelligence and represents more government intrusion into the private sphere. As a reader points out," if anyone you know suddenly decides things they liked were really unwelcome, presto your life can be destroyed."
Read the REAL Communist Manifesto, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -5. "We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects with new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties [enjoyed by the goyim] and our kingdom...[will be] in a position to wipe out any goyim who oppose us by word or by deed."
Now they have a ready-made, scandalous, hard-to-prove crime for selective use against dissenters. Indeed, I was falsely accused of "sexual harassment" when I put feminism up for debate in my university class. One feminist said she dreamed I raped her. I am no longer teaching.
This training also has a chilling effect on heterosexual relations where a man is expected to make an effort to win a woman's affections. The hidden agenda is to make heterosexuality seem both hazardous and pathological.
"Sexual Harassment Training" is part of a complex of programs (i.e. "Diversity" and "Inclusiveness" and other vague, fuzzy-sounding concepts) that try us for nameless crimes administered by a growing bureaucracy/industry of sexual harassment-diversity experts, the equivalent of Soviet political commissars. Their programs may seem innocuous but they can get down and dirty, as when school children are encouraged to experiment with homosexuality.
The characteristic of Communism is that nothing is what they say it is. They always have a hidden agenda which they always deny. Their standard practice is to make you disbelieve your own eyes.
Communism itself is a capitalist plot. Championing the downtrodden is just a pretext. Communism is really the ultimate in monopoly capitalism. It uses the state to concentrate all wealth and power in the hands of Lucifer-loving central bankers and their corrupt minions. They assume they can buy our acquiescence and so far they have been right.
We are like the whore who complains when the offer price is reduced to $1. "What do you take me for?" she demands. "We have already established that. Now we are haggling over price."
McPherson wonders about professors who seem more interested in financial security than individual freedom. Soon they may have neither.