Blog
Facebook
AIM
Digg
Reddit
Stumble It
Email
Report- Volume Pills To Enhance Sperm Production
- Best Male Enhancement Pills Review And Products Comparison
- Free Reverse Phone Lookup Can Track The Owner Of Any Mobile Number?
- Free Cell Phone Lookup Directory Sites - Do They Work For Mobile Phone Searches?
- Vimax Volume, Top Rated Best Increase Semen Volume
- Volume Pills (Proven to Work) Best Sperm Pills Product
- Best Penis Enlargement Pills Review and Products Comparison
- Penis Pills Expert, Vimax Pills, Best Enlargement Products
- Best Penis Pills, Male Sexual Enhancement Product, VigRX Plus
- Male Enhancement Pills ( VigRX-Plus )
Prominent UCI professor/researcher Alexander McPherson is being threatened with suspension because he has officially refused to take sexual harassment training courses. The professor has brought in an incredible amount of funding to UCI through his research.
UCI has already relieved Alexander McPherson of his duties supervising scientists in his lab, where he studies proteins, the “building blocks of life.” The campus also ordered that his teaching responsibilities be reassigned, but the order was rescinded.
McPherson, who has generated about $20 million in research funding since joining UCI in 1997, says he won't attend the course, even if it leads to his suspension from a job that pays $148,740 a year.
"I consider my refusal an act of civil disobedience. I even offered to go to jail if the university persisted in persecuting me for my refusal. We Scots are very stubborn in matters of this sort.”
This guy is quite the off-shoot of what normally happens at the very systematic UC Irvine. He is going against the system and doing it with conviction without any regard for his position at the school. I like his style.
Search
Hot Links
Popular Posts
Dear Ms. Franke,
I read your essay and was impressed, but not with the balance and precision that you used to describe my perspective and my actions. My objection to compulsory training of any type by the state or the University has rather little to do, in fact, with sexual harassment or gender politics issues, but much to do, I believe, with defending the dignity and liberties of individuals within the system. I don't think this came through very clearly. One of the two items I have attached below is a short essay of mine that appeared on the mindingthecampus.com website of the Manhatten Institute last Monday. Hopefully that clarifies my circumstances and my position. I would like you to take particular note of the compromise solution that I offered to the University, with which they refused to agree. Perhaps you, as an attorney, can explain to me why. The University declines to offer any explanation.
There is one point in particular that you made with which I especially take exception. It read "It is difficult to understand how a program mandated by state law, covering hundreds of thousands of supervisors, could adversely affect one participants reputation". By that logic, it follows that if you offend and violate enough people, then you have not offended and violated anyone. That's nonsense. I am reminded of a very old Woody Allen movie from about 35 years ago (before he began channeling Kierkegaard) called, I think, Bananas. In one vignette there is a dictator, modeled after Castro, who becomes increasingly eccentric. Eventually, he issues an edict that everyone in his realm will wear their underwear on the outside of their clothes rather than beneath (Woody Allen was still funny in those days). Now I'm sure Il Lieder Maximo could have brought forth skilled attorneys to nod their wise heads and declare that the law indeed accorded with the Constitution and the best interests of all the people. The attorneys would have called forth knowledgeable experts in public health who would nod their sage heads and attest that this was, indeed, the more hygienic way to wear one's underwear, while in the background, chic fashion designers would applaud and testify that this was exactly the style the season called for. What happened though, was that the edict brought the realization to all of the individuals in the land that Il Lieder Maximo had gone over the edge. Now I know that according to your logic everyone should just have worn their underwear on the outside and no one would have felt any loss of dignity, experienced any embarrassment. I, on the other hand, feel that being compelled to take sexual harassment training is much like compelling me to wear my underwear on the outside of my clothes, and I donât really care if everyone else is doing it too.
Now you might suspect that I am simply one of those wild-eyed kooks who stir up trouble among the masses and, thankfully, there are not too many of them out there, or perhaps you think I am simply being arrogant. Arrogance is when you think yourself above the law and flout it. It is not arrogance to challenge the law openly if you think it wrong, as I have done. In any case, following my essay below, I present for your inspection a sampling of 14 letters (e mails) that I received (among a great many) from fellow wild-eyed kooks. You should look at them carefully, because all, except no.14, were written by women. These are women who do understand that my protest has little to do with sexual harassment and much to do with individual dignity. I can't resist including no.14, even though it is from a man. I have removed all the names from these to protect the innocent, but I will tell you that no.14 is from a professor emeritus (that means very old) at one of the largest campuses in the great state of California. I include that one to illustrate just how bizarre, almost grotesque, this foolishness can become. "I felt her arm". Can you imagine his humiliation?
Best Regards from a fellow merchant in the marketplace of ideas,
Alex McPherson
Manhattan Institute - mindingthecampus.com
The University of California raised no objection in 2004 when the California Assembly passed a law, AB1825, mandating that every employer of more than 50 persons provide sexual harassment training for all of its employees. Since then, I was occasionally advised that I was not in compliance with the law, and told to go with the flow like everybody else. I was warned that my supervisory and teaching responsibilities at UCI would be taken away if I did not comply.
I ignored the edict and the coercion, but also stated clearly that I was refusing to comply deliberately. I refused, on the basis of conscience and principle. I further made it explicit that they should consider my refusal an act of civil disobedience and offered to go to jail, but I would not be bullied into taking their training. Six weeks ago the University became more aggressive in the matter and informed me that supervisory responsibilities over my laboratory and students were to be turned over to other University officials and faculty. I continued to refuse to take sexual harassment training, and do so now.
A reasonable question is why am I so steadfast on this issue. Why not simply take the training and be done with it? First of all, the training is a ridiculous fraud. It is simple foolishness and an insult to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Any claim that this training will discourage anyone intent on inflicting sexual harassment on a student or co-worker, or aid in alerting faculty to its presence, is sheer nonsense. Evidence that this sort of âtrainingâ has any meaningful effect on reducing sexual harassment is non existent. Here is how one (female) colleague described the experience:
â¦. the whole on-line training is a joke. You go through the questions, hit any answer,then spend time away from the computer and hit finish about 2 to 3 hours
later. You don't have to get a single answer correct to pass. You can
also get one of your students to do it for you, once your have logged on.
If the training process is so inane, why does the University pursue it with such determination? And let us remember that the University is doing this at the long suffering taxpayerâs considerable expense. First, there is a powerful political/cultural interest group promoting this disgraceful process, and second, it relieves the University of liability in sexual harassment lawsuits.
I made a public statement that âThis edict is an offense to my sensibilities, it calls into question my character, my reputation, and my intelligenceâ. This perspective was shared, echoed, and amplified by many people across the country, including particularly academics, judging by the letters of support that I received. About 25% of these were from women who correctly see this conflict as having little to do with sexual harassment and much to do with civil liberties and the sanctity of the individual. The comments were rich with words like âdemeaning, oppressive, politically driven, dictatorial, indoctrinationâ. They were characterized by phrases such as âunctuous twaddleâ, âsanctimonious halfwitsâ, âloutish intimidationâ, and âtrampling over human dignityâ. Was I being too sensitive? The letters convinced me otherwise.
In my opinion, imposition of training bearing a political cast violates my academic freedom and my rights as a tenured professor. The University has already nullified the right to supervise my laboratory and the students I teach. They have threatened my livelihood, and ultimately my position at the University. This, for failing to submit to mock training in sexual harassment, a requirement that was never a condition of my employment at UC 30 years ago. Can the University now terminate any tenured faculty by simply contriving an arbitrary requirement with which a professor finds it unconscionable to comply?
I sought to find a reasonable means to resolve the impasse that had developed between myself and UCI. I proposed the following; I would take the training if the University would provide me with a brief, written statement absolving me of any suspicion, guilt or complicity regarding sexual harassment now, or at any time during my 30 year tenure at UC. I wanted any possible stigma removed from the training experience. The statement I requested is as follows:
The University of California, Irvine acknowledges that the sexual harassment training required of Professor McPherson by the State of California is a requirement for his continued employment at the University, and a condition he will fulfill only under protest. Fulfilling this requirement in no way implies, suggests, or indicates that the University currently has any reason to believe that Professor McPherson has ever sexually harassed any student, or any person under his supervision during his 30 year career with the University of California.
The University refused to provide any such statement. This raises the question, Why not? The statement is completely innocuous and unobjectionable, and the University should have been willing to write it for any faculty member whose record is as free of stain as is my own. Their reply was again that if I didnât comply with the law then I would be placed on unpaid leave. A simple and straightforward compromise was offered that would have resolved the problem entirely, and it was bluntly put aside.
The state, through the University, is invoking the issue of sexual harassment training to advance a particular political/cultural agenda. It is literally using the University, its faculty, and its students as political tools. Sexual harassment is a politically charged issue. The people of California have granted no authority to the state to impose narrow political and cultural proclivities on individual citizens. The disagreement between myself and the University has, I believe, broader implications. It is a question of personal freedom and civil liberties. I like to recall the words born by an ancient American flag that predated Old Glory. They warned, âDonât Tread on Meâ. Perhaps it is time for those concerned with the freedom of the individual to resurrect that flag.
Letters:
1.
Dr. McPherson,
My husband and I have read about your plight with UCI over your attending sexual harassment training. We respect your position and support you.
Our son attended UCI and graduated in 2006. We have donated to UCI in the past.
If you feel that you need funds in order to defend your position please let us know.
Our contribution would not be large but it may help.
2.
Dear Professor McPherson:
I just read an article about your refusal to undergo a sexual harassment training class and I felt compelled to write to you in support of your position. Kudos to you for not kowtowing to this inane policy and subjecting yourself to what you correctly called a "sham" course. I wish more professors, not to mention people in general, had backbones like yours!
3.
Dr. McPherson -
Just a quick note to let you know that I applaud the stance you are taking on the UC-Irvine sexual harassment training. My husband and a colleague's reputations were recently decimated as a result of a sham sexual harassment and hostile environment charge. Fortunately, they are doing very well in thier own consulting business now, but their psychological states will never be the same as a result of over 3.5 years of emotional torture.
More attention MUST be paid to the misuse of the sexual harassment and hostile environment laws. Too many good people - especially in academia - are being mobbed in the name of sexual harassment and hostile environments. Your calling attention to the sham training that is a direct result of the inmates running the asylum and the warden running scared, is one very positive step in highlighting the numerous major flaws in this system.
Thank you again for standing up for your belieefs. Please know that there are many of us out here who whole-heartedly support you.
4.
I applaud your stand on not attending sexual harassment training. Thanks for taking a stand against such nonsense. More people need to follow your lead.
5.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for standing up against the Sexual Harassment training. I am so sick and tired of every time something happens in this country the innocent are punished with more laws and in this case, training!! I am a middle school teacher in Nevada and am sick and tired of all the "training films" I have to view. You are my hero for sticking up to them and you are from California which makes it doubly impressive! I didn't think there were people like you in CA. lol..
Keep up the good work! You are an inspiration!
6.
Sir,
I applaud your principled stand. I was quit my job rather than submit to a similar class. It's not easy, and chances are no matter what happens to you nothing will change. But you offered them a very reasonable option with the disclaimer and they are now just throwing their weight around.
7.
Dear Prof. McPherson:
HELLO! Hope you are well and strong!
Keep up the good fight!
You have many more supporters than you may know. As Benjamin Franklin said: "Where liberty dwells, there is my country."
Thank you!
8.
Dear Dr. McPherson,
I read the article about you in the OC Register, via the blog Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/07/uci-professor-defies-law-on-awareness-training/)
âI have consistently refused to take such training on the grounds that the adoption of the requirement was a naked political act by the state that offended my sensibilities, violated my rights as a tenured professor, impugned my character and cast a shadow of suspicion on my reputation and career,â McPherson said. "I consider my refusal an act of civil disobedience. I even offered to go to jail if the university persisted in persecuting me for my refusal. We Scots are very stubborn in matters of this sort.â
and I would like to say, "Bravo, Dr. McPherson!"
Best wishes to you, sir.
9.
Dear Alex McPherson,
I came across your situation online & read your e-mail to your dean:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/07/uci
I am a retiree from UC⦠where I directed our campus's oral history program for 30 years. In the early 80s it was all the fashion to hire expensive "trainers," at $50K+ a pop, to run all-day sexual harrassment and "ethnic diversity sessions." Although at that time it was not legally mandated, it was made quite clear that participation was not optional.
So all of the staff of â¦â¦. Library met in a big conference room, perhaps 125 of us, for an 8 am to 5 pm "ethnic sensitivity training," which consisted of so-called "encounter group dynamics," small-group "sharing," and such drivel to rid us of our "racism."
I arrived at 8 am, filled with rage. The trainer gave her politically correct introduction and asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand, in front of that large group, including my supervisor and the University Librarian and let it all out. I was actually shaking with both rage and fear, imagining reprisals but also relishing this opportunity to confront this hypocritical, sham exercise in group think. Of course the UL was getting lots of brownie points with the Chancellor for initiating this BS.
I let it all hang out, and said that I felt I was being coerced to participate in this quasi, faux "therapy" session that violated my personal space and values, and as an adult I felt insulted and opposed to this sort of childish piece of theater. I really got into it. I am not usually as demonstrative as I was that morning. The trainer was truly shocked and so was everyone else in the room. You could truly hear a pin drop.
After hearing me out, the trainer invited me to leave if I felt "uncomfortable." I left, filled with relief and joy. In the next week two of my colleagues quietly let me know that they respected my response.
My supervisor was appalled as were others.
I think what you are doing is wonderful as UCI herds all these faculty and staff into this absurd McCarthyite joke.
Also, on another note, I am a licensed psychotherapist and knew at the time that these sorts of "trainings" have absolutely NO validity in affecting genuine change vis-a-vis racism or sexual harrassment. The empirical data is about zip. As far as I am concerned, and I have read a lot about it, this "industry" is filled with unlicensed, free-lancers, so-called "experts" in these areas, a bunch of HR types, with a political agenda and incompetence. Many were alumni of the misguided "human potential movement" which thrived in the 70s. Actually, snake-oil types. They're like those motivational speakers one sees on late-night teevee, charlatans. . .
Onward,
10.
Hi Alex -
There have been a few times that the information about the sexual harrassment classes at UCI flitted across my computer. To me, a sign that I needed to send you this email.
I've been in Human Resources for a long time and around the early 80s was when the harrassment charges started to break through, streaking into the chaotic, idiotic and near ridiculous situation that we're in now.
Primarily, it seemed that men could no longer tell a woman that she looked nice, or if something in the business world called for celebration the trend was getting to be 'hands off and stand back." Who could hug anymore?
People are nuts and they've taken all these things so far out of whack, in the real world and in business, that I think it's truly silly.
If I may, there's a tenuously fine line between flirting, friendly and harrassment and it all depends on how much you like the other person.
Take the class. It gives a cushion of protection.
All the best
11.
Dear Professor McPherson:
I was interested to read in the newspaper that you have refused sexual harassment prevention training. As a fellow Scot and retired employee of the University of California, I applaud your stand.
I myself made written protests at mandatory training on various subjects to do with ethics and morals since my own were not in question.
I wish you well and hope that other faculty and staff will join the protest.
12.
I don't know if the Dean can do what he threatens or not, but the whole
on-line training is a joke. You go through the questions, hit any answer,
then spend time away from the computer and hit finish about 2 to 3 hours
later. You don't have to get a single answer correct to pass. You can
also get one of your students to do it for you, once your have logged on.
I know it is the principle of the matter, but it will take less time to go
through the training than it will to complain.
13.
Dear Professor McPherson,
We thank you for your boldness in refusing to undergo sexual harassment training! We presume that it is true that your reputation and character are sound. It is obvious that your career is productive with millions in research money being generated by you.
I, too, have Scot background and appreciate your grounds for not attending such training courses. My hope is that changes can be made in this requirement by your action.
Respecting your boldness.
14.
Dear Dr. McPherson,
I read the article in The Orange County Register on your resistance to the AB1825 sham and submit to you a hearty, Bravo!
While at â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ State, no one explained why but all faculty were required to take "sensitivity training." We were commanded to pair with a professor of the opposite sex. Then we were commanded to feel each other. I refused on the grounds that as a married man I had no intention of feeling any woman except my wife. I was forced to feel the woman's arm or face disciplinary action. I felt her arm.
Does it strike you as illogical that we are commanded to feel women who are strangers, then laws are passed making it illegal?
Like you, I should have refused. Such nonsense only serves to convince us that the originators are likely daft or worse.
Bravo for doing what I should have done.
Best wishes. Posted 11/20/2008 10:19 PMReply