At the University of Denver where I once taught (and where Brian Kiteley still teaches), the answer, apparently, is yes:
The professor [Arthur Gilbert, Josef Korbel School of International Studies] made these anonymous complainants feel harassed by – get this – bringing an art deco vibrator into the classroom during a discussion of how sexuality was theorized historically and by discussing studies linking masturbation to prostate health. Of course, the course unit where these egregious offences happened was titled ”Drugs and Sin in American Life: from masturbation and prostitution to alcohol and drugs.” The prissy fools who find a scholarly discussion of masturbation to be intolerable could have chosen to skip the class. What fun would that have been, though? They chose to attend and feel harassed by the discussion.
This is a 75-year-old prof with an unblemished record who is being banned from campus and enjoined from having any contact with students because he talked about masturbation and showed an antique vibrator to graduate students. There was no formal investigation, the numerous pleas on behalf of this distinguished scholar by his peers at different institutions have been disregarded, the attempts by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to start a discussion with the university about this issue have been ignored […]
I suspect that professors like Mr Kiteley were quick to rally to the defense of Professor Gilbert (as they should have), citing as justification the need of academics to be willing to pressure certain bourgeois conventions in order to expand intellectual exploration.
— Unless the academic is classically liberal, doesn’t hew to collectivism, and is appalled with the usurpation of his liberties by a rapacious, overweening, and unconstitutional federal leviathan — so much so that he’s willing to run a public forum in which political questions are discussed, and political satire (by way of, say, a cartoon that engages in extended metaphor) is deployed.
In which case, well, fuck him.
It’s the cachet of appearing intellectually daring that so appeals to many contemporary academics — and they wear such protests (as they do their tweed, both actual and metaphorical) as a status badge and social marker. When it comes to right-wing politics, however, all bets are off — and to these ostensible defenders of intellectualism, freedom’s just another word for “we have every right to shut you up for the greater good.”
I’m reminded of a story I’ve told here several times now of a friend of mine who was brought before a DU tribunal for having the audacity to teach Faulkner’s “Barn Burning,” in which appeared the word “nigger.” He was saved from his academic lynching when a black female literature professor spoke on his behalf: once she gave the imprimatur, all was well; because in the hallowed halls of academe, academic freedom is now balanced against identity politics, political correctness, and the assent of the “authentic.” And in this case, the black professor knew that the white professor she was defending was one of her (liberal) tribe. Had he a history of writing conservative political commentary, I have no doubt that he would have been sanctioned.
Or, to put it another way, contemporary “academic freedom” has become a politicized sham, just like every other tenet of liberalism the institutional left has carpetbagged. And the upshot is that careers can often be made or broken by something so subjective and intellectually dishonest as the outcome of a battle between competing grievance narratives waged by competing identity groups. In the case if Professor Gilbert, the political power of “sexual harassment” was pitted against the “academic freedom” that appeals to those who fancy themselves warriors against bourgeois conformism and conventional priggishness. When in any real climate of academic freedom, the charges themselves would have been dismissed and the complainants reminded that they are adults.
But then, there is all that delicious tuition money to consider, too — which keeps the administration quite cautious about offending students. So complex, you see, are the ways of “academic freedom”!
My wife and I — both Denver University veterans — couldn’t be more proud!
Jeff, have you seen a copy of the syllabus? Were the “anonymous complainants” aware that they “were in a class called “Drugs and Sin in American Life: from masturbation and prostitution to alcohol and drugs”? Can FIRE do anything for this prof?
disregard errant quotation mark
Speaking purely hypothetically, if the good Doctorr, perhaps in a lame attempt at levity, had asked if one of the ladies in attendence would care to volunteer to demonstrate the proper use of the device in question, I could proabably see how that would be unappreciated.
Hard to know what happened or what the appropriate remedy should be when everyone is running around in confused circles, though.
I haven’t seen a copy, no. But if that’s the title of the class, it would appear that way during enrollment time. At least, such was the case for graduate classes in my department when I was there.
Stunning. The more you read the worse it gets. Anonymous denunciations. Secret proceedings. No right to counsel or to challenge an accusation. Tenured faculty banned from campus without a meeting.
Ernst —
Were that the case, it’s doubtful FIRE would be involved.
Sure you could!
University of Denver: Sexual Harassment Finding Violates Professor’s Academic Freedom in the Classroom
There seems to be a pattern of DU Professors sexually harassing anonymous people while teaching. Or something.
There seems to be a pattern of ignoring faculty on these matters as well.
And even if that were the case, any remedy past “apologize for being a boor, you old goat” is overkill.
The Spanish Inquisition really is everywhere!
Perhaps the better question, since more useful, is: “Can one be enslaved by an Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity?”
They should make him take this.
Perhaps DU should tighten up its admission standards for graduate studies, starting with maturity.
As a side note, thank god for FIRE. Those people are awesome.
Perhaps, na ja. But on the other hand, it isn’t that hard to construct scenarios where the complainants are in the right. And really, isn’t that the problem here? And that in turn points to the problem with the “privacy/personnel matter” excuse: it protects wrongdoers and screw-ups from public scrutiny more than it protects the individual’s “rights” —especially if that individual is wrongly accused.
And yeah, FIRE is awesome, so if they’re involved….
”Drugs and Sin in American Life: from masturbation and prostitution to alcohol and drugs.”
I’m just trying to get over the fact that people pay lots of money to take classes like that. I need to open my own university, stat.
Wait. Is this guy a conservative?
Because we also hear tons of outrage over live sex acts being performed in graduate classes (FOR THE ACADEMIC INQUIRY!) and it’s defended as “edgy” and “transgressive” and the like.
But if “masturbation” is in the course title and a dildo ISN’T produced, isn’t that grounds for a refund?
I think it would be a better world were anonymous complainants were given the respect they deserve. None.
I mean, what happened to the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him?
wereThat was the policy of the engineering department I attended. Dunno about the humanities.
Had a prof — bit of a loon, but amusing — explain his theory that the human body is an antenna, with the genitalia at the focal point. This was physics class. Classical mechanics, at that. I don’t think it occurred to anyone to file a complaint. Another one — electrical engineering — liked to go on about “Millie and Minnie”, the unit prefixes, as if they were women.
Admittedly, I was more interested in getting through the courses than being offended, but I do know things got a bit… rough?… for the women in the program, but they were tougher than the guys and seemed to handle it well.
Pablo, I think you and Jeff are talking about the same case. Josef Korbel is a school at DU.
I’m a little disappointed in the Professor, to tell the truth. If I were 75 years old, with 50 years of seniority under my belt, you’d better believe I would put up such a stink at being railroaded like this that the University would be begging me to take a big check and go quietly away. Which, of course, I wouldn’t.
Bring out the slander and libel suits. Identify the complainants. Subpoena every communication between the administrators who found me guilty without a hearing. Sue the University for every charge my yellow-pages lawyer could come with.
In other words, get in their faces. Punch back twice as hard.
My first impression upon reading this account was “that can’t be right”…that it was leaving something out. Indeed it is, and that is the nature and content of the specific allegations made in two anonymous letters that resulted in Gilbert’s troubles.
The subject matter per se as listed in the course syllabus is not the basis of any action taken against Gilbert, though they did ask him to take that part out next go round, apparently because they believe he has taken and might take again liberties he should not within that subject matter.
I can’t say I disagree that he was not treated fairly, that he was not given a proper chance to respond or that any such allegations were handled in an appropriate way, but it is completely inaccurate to say he was harassing his students merely by covering the topic in the syllabus.
A clue about what was alleged is taken from a fairly balanced article in the Clarion http://www.duclarion.com/news/the-art-of-war-sex-and-academic-freedom-1.2687849?pagereq=3#.TxXIzSNlwftthat tends to side with Gilbert’s ill treatment, but more fully explains some of the allegations unseen (and which will remain unseen as the letters have not been made available to the public.)
The investigation by the ODEO found that there was “insufficient or no evidence” supporting the allegations that Gilbert shared intimate details about his sex life or prostate surgery – which occurred in spring 2011; that Gilbert discussed the relationship of food to addiction and “there was no evidence that his lectures on this topic were highly sexualized”; that Gilbert gave a female freshman student two condoms and “wished her luck on her date with a fellow student in the class”; and that Gilbert inappropriately touched female students.
However, the ODEO’s investigation did find that Gilbert often said that masturbation and ejaculation was good for men’s prostate health and that Gilbert “frequently” used the f— word. Yet other allegations, which contained sufficient confirmatory facts, could not be deemed relevant to the academic content of the Drug War course, ODEO said, because the considerations of the allegations to academic relevancy were “beyond the scope of this investigation.” These final allegations included Gilbert screening films and film clips that are “sexually graphic,” sharing a vibrator in more than one class and that his classes were “highly sexualized.”
I have to admit I would be highly affronted by a professor offering me condoms for a date in front of the class, or creepy overdwelling on personal sexual health issues of the professor, or repeated use of unecessary vulgarisms related to sexual intercourse as if those vulgrisms were technical or medical language, or being touched in an inappropriate way by my professor.
I also concede none of it may be true, or there is perhaps insufficient proof or basis for acting on those allegations…but I wouldn’t be in a position to know that. However it is very much the case that simple discussion of masturbation or mores and attitudes through recent history is NOT the basis for action against him.
My tags failed: the direct quote in the article is this bit:
The investigation by the ODEO found that there was “insufficient or no evidence” supporting the allegations that Gilbert shared intimate details about his sex life or prostate surgery – which occurred in spring 2011; that Gilbert discussed the relationship of food to addiction and “there was no evidence that his lectures on this topic were highly sexualized”; that Gilbert gave a female freshman student two condoms and “wished her luck on her date with a fellow student in the class”; and that Gilbert inappropriately touched female students.
However, the ODEO’s investigation did find that Gilbert often said that masturbation and ejaculation was good for men’s prostate health and that Gilbert “frequently” used the f— word. Yet other allegations, which contained sufficient confirmatory facts, could not be deemed relevant to the academic content of the Drug War course, ODEO said, because the considerations of the allegations to academic relevancy were “beyond the scope of this investigation.” These final allegations included Gilbert screening films and film clips that are “sexually graphic,” sharing a vibrator in more than one class and that his classes were “highly sexualized.”
Compare and contrast to the promos CBS and Fox run to promote their prime time shows during NFL games. You wanna talk highly sexualized?
Would anyone fell sexually harassed if I mentioned that, if all this talk is true, I may have the world’s healthiest prostate?
As long as you don’t feel the need to Skype it for us, motionview.
What class are we talking about here: ”Drugs and Sin in American Life: from masturbation and prostitution to alcohol and drugs,” or “The Drug War,” or is the latter shorthand for the former? Is it a grad course or an undergrad course?
Maybe it’s safest to just shrug, enjoy the schadenfreude of the libtards eating their own, and then lament this latest example of how the Academy degrades and demeans itself.
And then there’s the old joke about how all the pretty girls in college sexually harassed me by constantly saying, “No.”
An interesting graphic on the aesthetic progenitors of Anonymous and the absurdist theater side of Progism.
So you’ve read the syllabus? Or are you referring to the course description, which is something else? That is, a syllabus is often broken down much further into each specific course lesson. And there may indeed been included in the syllabus discussion of prostate health, for all I know. Or it may have come up in the natural give and take during lecture questions.
Translation: it’s his course, he’s the expert on the interconnections between what is described as “sexually graphic” and how that would work in the context of the course material, and so it’s not the business of ODEO to decide relevance.
This isn’t what the writer of the essay argued, is it? She said that vindictive students using anonymous letters will often make these kinds of allegations for things like tough grading, and that in this case, the fact of the course material makes it easier for such allegations to seem dastardly, what with the sex being involved in all.
The point being, if we were grown-ups not living in a culture that invested such power in grievance politics, offended students might have more carefully documented the supposed incidents, or else just slapped the dude across the face and walked out, then dropped the class.
There is nothing “harassing” here. If you are uncomfortable with talk about sex, don’t take the class. Embarrassment is not harassment.
Incidentally, if the allegations are false or made up, it is entirely INCORRECT (at least, theoretically) to say that “it is very much the case that simple discussion of masturbation or mores and attitudes through recent history is NOT the basis for action against him,” because that could be exactly what he was doing in class. What with the allegations that he was doing other things having been made up and all.
I’m not sure how there’s a freshman in what was described as a graduate course. But then, Sarah has told us the writer of the entry is being dishonest (or maybe it’s me who is being so, I’m not sure) so I’ll defer to her.
This is correct.
This brings up a thought I’ve posted on a few times here.
Conservatives and liberals seem to have very different approaches to dealing with the mechanics of human sexuality. At bottom, classic liberals seem to have a broad understanding of the range and nature of human sexual experience and while arguing that there is an “ideal,” we note with humor we all fall short.
A guy like Thor thought he had a major card to be played here–a hammer if you will–when he would bring up details of his sexual experiences, or make wide-ranging sex references, and expect horror, anger and revulsion on our part. It played into the meme on the Left that the Right are appalled and disgusted (Margaret Atwood’s work is an example) at sex and sexuality.
I used to walk thru it with him: “Gee Thor, I’m sure you think youre shocking us with a reference to oral sex, or ejaculation, but there is a 100% certainty that everyone here has plenty of experience with it. Maybe another insult?”
Same thing with HappyFeet and “Cumslut.” Isn’t every woman engaging in intercourse a “cumslut,” at least technically? I mean the physics of the friction and all that–it’s an inevitable by product. A woman with 5/6 kids is a cumslut, I’d wonder, but a woman whose had as much sex but only three kids or one kid because of the Pill is not a cumslut, despite a greater than passing familiarity with it.
So now, its NOT transgressive to discuss these issues clinically; The Prof. didn’t, as far as I can see, require a demonstration or present it in a lurid, suggestive or mocking tone. It’s morally wrong, in other words.
Its just pretty difficult for people to handle sex, isn’t it?
Handling? Most people have a decent grasp, whether on themselves or others. It’s the discursive aspects in which they usually find their troubles.
Heh, sdferr.
Roddy, I have given some thought to this “cumslut” word, sad to say. I have arrived at the conclusion that this is a formulation of “prostitute”. I could be wrong, but I’m not going to spend anymore time on it.
I have to admit I would be highly affronted by a professor offering me condoms for a date in front of the class, or creepy overdwelling on personal sexual health issues of the professor, or repeated use of unecessary vulgarisms related to sexual intercourse as if those vulgrisms were technical or medical language [..]
Affronted? In a postgrad course on wanking? I could see how you’d find it inappropriate in a cookery course, but really, those are some bizarre sensibilities.
I handle it with a light grasp.
Jeff you might wanna update. I think the good professor’s name is Arthur Gilbert and he teaches (or taught) at the Josef Korbel School of something or other. In your post you refer to him as Professor Korbel.
“Josef Korbel School of International Studies professor Arthur Gilbert” is right. Maybe if I just re-arrange?
if we were grown-ups not living in a culture that invested such power in grievance politics, offended students might have more carefully documented the supposed incidents,
Oh sure. We’re all supposed to go around with video cameras in our pockets.
There’s also such a thing as TMI, and thor was not concerned with it at all.
Oh, I see. I did twice call him Prof Korbel. Fixed now, thanks.
thor was a lying liar who lied. A regular interwebs Walter Mitty.
Well, most of us have them now (not sure if you’re just being facetious), but at any rate, finding someone else in the class to go on record and corroborate the story doesn’t seem too out of line. Or using your own name.
So what does masturbation and prostate health have to do with “international studies”?
Maybe it all ties together, but I’m dubious.
This is also probably the weirdest artifact of the sexual revolution. It was in the universities that sex (and sexual deviance and other sex-related stuff) was deemed a legitimate object of scholarly inquiry, and anyone who thought otherwise was at minimum hopelessly square and probably really, really repressed and kept nasty secret things under the floorboards.
The university is where “free love” flourished, where hooking up became the default method for relating
romanticallysexually with other people, and where marriage and self-restraint were tossed aside as oppressive or worse, bourgeois.But as it intersected with certain strains of feminism, the definition of rape got all tangled up with “bad judgment,” and it became poor form to suggest that if a girl doesn’t want sex, she probably shouldn’t attend a frat party dressed as a pirate wench and then get totally blotto.
And THEN we got this weird little “consent” thing going, where every move a guy busted had to be preceded by express permission to do so. “May I hold your hand? May I put my arm around your shoulder? May I gaze dreamily into your eyes?”
So now we’ve got a professor who posts a course called “Drugs and Sin in American Life: from masturbation and prostitution to alcohol and drugs.” On the one hand, it would be a Sin Against Progress to complain about such a course being offered by a respectable institution. And on the other hand, as soon as the prof actually delves into the subject matter, everyone’s clutching their pearls.
What a mess. I hope they’re proud of themselves for setting up such a ridiculous mine field and then refusing to provide maps.
<facetious>Forgot the tags, sorry.</facetious>
I’ll just throw this in here: A friend of mine with a Chinese mother told me that her mom was extremely frustrated with English because all of the words that we use for bodily functions are either for babies (pee pee, poopy), starkly clinical (excrement, urine), or vulgar.
Whereas in Chinese they have words with quotidian connotations for these things. Furthermore, all Chinese women get three days off work per month, which means your entire workplace knows your business. (How many American women would be cool with that? Not I!)
It may be that the Chinese language also has a quotidian vocabulary (or mode) for talking about sex, whereas we have just the clinical and the vulgar. You can scream “Puritan” all you want, but if all you have to choose from are clinical (rarely used) and vulgar (widespread) modes of expression, silence easily becomes the only alternative for those who think of sex in neither of those terms.
Since he admitted having to pay for most of them all I remember him receiving was ridicule and dirision.
Have any of these students considered suing for overpriced yet worthless degrees?
Has nothing to do with this discussion, of course, but it is the first thing that popped into my head when I read the unit title.
If Arctic-dwellers have a hundred ways of describing snow, what does it say that the Chinese have a hundred ways of describing shit?
“Oh sure. We’re all supposed to go around with video cameras in our pockets.”
If you’re the accuser. Or maybe you mean everyone that interacts with the opposite sex?
I forget, where does the burden of proof lie?
You know who else had a lot of different ways of describing shit was the Thesaraus dude.
Huh?
What?
Oh. Nevermind.
Thesaraus Rex was my favorite dinosaur.
Leigh just sexually harassed me.
I have to admit I would be highly affronted by a professor offering me condoms for a date in front of the class,
Back in high school the “health” class was taught by one of the coaches. It was one semester long, coed, and fairly boring — we all had had enough science in middle school to cover all the regular body system — Digestive, circulatory, etc — and the real reason of the class – the reproductive system — was done in a fairly perfunctory manner –
However, my class was a first semester one and Easter Break 1970 (as it was known then before PC made it “Spring Break”) and I recall quite well when coach started looking each and every guy in class right in the eye with words to the effect
We girls tittered at the looks on the guys’ faces and not one of us thought to complain about being offended or sexually harassed.
Aw, JD. Who loves ya, baby?
If Arctic-dwellers have a hundred ways of describing snow,
(A) They don’t. It’s more like a dozen nouns.
(B) English may lack that many nouns for frozen precip, but we’ve got a buttload of adjectives, which serve the same purpose.
Not a matter of lexicon size but of available connotations.
“but we’ve got a buttload of adjectives”
“black ice” but don’t say it cause its the racist.
Chris Matthews says the very way Newt says “Juan” is raaaaaacist. A dog whistle, he says.
It’s the smiley-faced thug’s way of saying “FILTHY WHORE”.
Darleen, I wouldn’t think it was funny at all I’m afraid. Remarks about student’s sexual intercourse habits or the professor relating stories about his own sexual adventures are out of place even – maybe even especially even – a class like that. I don’t know that he even did any of those things alleged and am not in a position to investigate or act on it. But the allegations apparently made go beyond affront at the discussion of the material covered in the course syllabus. And I have a feeling the letters implied a one-off joke amongst friends was not the problem, either. Telling jokes to sexually embarrass is one thing, but the allegations were that he was making a lot of personal remarks and using foul language as if it were an academic necessity.
I wasn’t there. If I had been, and that happened – I might well have complained myself.
I’m sympathetic to the case that the college handled the allegations in a manner unjust to the professor. It’s just that there is more to the story than he talked about masturbation in context of known subject matter to be covered.
Oh, and also that touching thing. He was accused of unwanted touching in the letters. Dear professor, please do not touch me, and especially do not poke me with a vibrator.
The more to the story being the allegations that he did more than “talked about masturbation in context of known subject matter to be covered,” for which there was no corroboration, save for the rather trivial one that discussions sometimes digress.
I wasn’t there. If I had been, and that happened – I might well have complained myself.
If you signed the letter, and provided evidence and/or testimony in support of your accusations, I’d like to think this community would back you up. On the other hand, if you turned in an anonymous letter, with lots of wide-ranging accusations that the investigatory committee could not substantiate (because all the other grad students were terrified of the 75-year-old prof?), then I’m pretty sure you could expect a hell of a lot of skepticism on our part. Never mind the fact that one or two classes is hardly enough time to “establish a pattern” of anything.
A professor should not be banned from campus for four months on the basis of an anonymous letter containing unproven accusations. Period.
I had an idiot professor in grad school who thought himself a real ladies man and made several inappropriate remarks to me in his office. I told him to knock it off or I was telling the Dean that he was being a lecherous jerk. What’s so difficult about the direct approach?