Obama redefines sexual harassment to include Sex Ed classes

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there anybody in the current administration that actually understands critical thinking and unintended consequences? What will they do when an enterpising, and unscrupulous, lawyer gets a parent to sue the school over something they find offensive?

The Justice Department and the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights have now effectively defined dating and sex education as “sexual harassment.”
The definition is found in a May 9 Title IX Letter of Findings and Resolution Agreement involving the University of Montana. In a radical departure from Title IX jurisprudence, the federal government declares that “any” unwelcome sexual speech or other conduct is “sexual harassment,” regardless of whether it would offend a reasonable person, and regardless of whether it is severe, repeated, or pervasive. In its findings, it rejected narrower definitions rooted in federal court rulings, declaring that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.’” (The federal government has also effectively mandated “unconstitutional speech codes at colleges and universities nationwide,” notes the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.)
By contrast, the Supreme Court has ruled that to constitute illegal sexual harassment, sexual advances or other verbal or physical conduct must be severe and pervasive, create a hostile environment, and be “objectively offensive” to a “reasonable person.” See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). According to the Supreme Court, isolated instances of trivially offensive sexual speech are not illegal, and are not considered “sexual harassment” in even the broadest possible sense: that is, the “harassment” you are entitled to complain about under federal anti-retaliation laws, which allow employees to sue when they are disciplined for reporting what they in good faith believe to be sexual harassment, even if isn’t actually bad enough to be illegal. See Clark County School District v. Breeden (2001). If speech is not offensive to a reasonable person, it cannot even fall into the general category of “sexual harassment.”

» Obama Administration Officials Effectively Define Dating, Sex Education, and One-Time Flirtation as ?Sexual Harassment? - Col·lege In·sur·rec·tion

 

[tyroneweaver]

wasn't the guy that was the head of the sexual harassment bureau guilty of sexual harassment himself.

 

[OriginalShroom]

:::: Shaking Head :::::

Un-friggin'-Believable.

 

[Ragnar]

How many more posts until this thread becomes "hot"?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Pretty soon asking a girl out will be sexual harassment.

 

[francoHFW]

Only in the Pub dupe alternate universe lol...

 

[Ragnar]

Only in the Pub dupe alternate universe lol...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqQsDklQEM]Animal House - Remain Calm, All Is Well - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Clementine]

Pretty soon asking a girl out will be sexual harassment.

I think it already is if you look at her too long while you're asking.

 

[Agit8r]

Most companies that I have worked for have a conduct policy that guards them from having to contend with charges of "illegal sexual harassment." As such, their standards are set much higher than what will get them dragged into court.

It needs hardly be said that those who hold the purse-strings will have a disproportionate say in what is acceptable conduct, and for our colleges--public and private--their sugar daddy is Uncle Sam.

 

[TemplarKormac]

:::: Shaking Head :::::

Un-friggin'-Believable.

Wow, took the words right out of my mouth.