You are currently browsing Angus Johnston’s articles.
The three faculty members suspended from Southwestern College after a budget protest two weeks ago returned to their jobs on Thursday, but the situation is far from resolved.
Earlier this week college officials floated the possibility that the profs might face criminal charges as a result of their actions, though police at the scene of the protest made no arrests and the only detailed eyewitness report available indicates that the entire event was peaceful and uneventful.
And yesterday the local blog Save Our Southwestern College reported that formal letters of reprimand are to be placed in each suspended professor’s file.
As SOSC notes, SWC has yet to provide any coherent public account of its seemingly erratic actions in the wake of the protest.
Meanwhile SWC president Raj Chopra, who went on vacation just hours after the suspensions were handed down, remains absent and incommunicado.
In the last two days German students have launched lecture hall occupations at the Universities of Heidelberg, Munster, and Potsdam in solidarity with the Austrian student protests that have been going on for the last two weeks.
The German student demonstrators’ website can be found here. (A Google translation can be found here.)
The site’s name, “unsereunis,” is taken from one of the slogans of the Austrian student movement, and translates as “our universities.” Alongwith #unibrennt, #unsereunis is one of the major Twitter hashtags for the movement.
More news as I get it.
East Georgia College has reinstated a professor it suspended in August, withdrawing charges of sexual harassment it had lodged against him. But it has reprimanded the prof for using “offensive language” in the workplace, and asked him to sign a letter of understanding that includes the statement that he is “expected to act in a professional manner at all times.”
Professor Thomas Thiebault’s suspension came after a faculty meeting about sexual harassment policy in which he described a recent a conversation with a female student. The student had, Thibeault said, complained about another professor’s habit of staring at her breasts, in response to which he told her that she had no right to complain because she was dressed provocatively. During the course of telling that story, he provided identifying details of, and gratuitously offensive comments about, the student’s appearance.
Update | It’s worth laying out what exactly Thibeault said, and how various news organizations and advocacy sites have characterized it.
Here’s Thibeault’s own account of his remarks:
Last week two students were talking to me in the hallway after class. One student said that she didn’t want to go to a professor’s office because he looked down her cleavage. The woman was wearing clothing that was specifically designed to draw attention to her cleavage. She even sported a tattoo on her chest, but I didn’t get close enough to read it. The cleavage was also decorated in some sort of sparkly material, glitter or dried barbecue sauce. I couldn’t tell. I told the student that she shouldn’t complain, if she drew such attention to herself. The other female student then said, and I hope you’re not offended by her actual words, ‘if you don’t want anyone looking at your titties, I’ll lend you a T-shirt. I have one in the truck.’ The first student then said, ‘No. I’m proud of the way I look.’ I left the conversation at that point.
The purpose of the anecdote is to ask the question “what provision is there in the Sexual Harassment policy to protect the accused against complaints which are malicious, or in this case ridiculous?”
Here’s how the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education characterized Thibeault’s comments:
Thibeault … related a story about another professor and asked, “What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the accused against complaints which are malicious or, in this case, ridiculous?”
Here’s the Chronicle of Higher Education’s take:
Mr. Thibeault said students’ complaints of sexual harassment could be frivolous, and as evidence he related an encounter he said he’d had with a young woman who he said was dressed provocatively, with her cleavage showing. Yet she complained to Mr. Thibeault that another professor always stared at her breasts, the instructor said.
Inside Higher Ed referred to Thibeault simply as
…an English professor who, ironically, had openly criticized the lack of protections for the falsely accused in its sexual harassment policy.
Conservative news site WorldNetDaily says Thibeault
…questioned the assertion – as he understood it – being presented by Mary Smith, the school’s vice president for legal affairs, that the feelings of the offended constituted proof of offensive behavior.
As I noted in my previous post on this case, I think the way that EGC treated Thibeault is reprehensible. But the nature of his public comments are relevant to the story, and it’s startling to me how far some have been willing to go to obfuscate them.
In late September the Student Government Association of the University of North Texas, under heavy pressure from UNT parents and alumni, voted down a bylaw amendment that would have allowed same-sex couples to run for homecoming king and queen.
Now the SGA is letting UNT’s students decide the issue for themselves.
In a 22-1 vote on October 21, the UNT student senate voted to call a student referendum on the bylaw change. Balloting will be conducted online from November 16th through the 20th.
The vote reportedly followed a protest at the SGA one week earlier, at which more than fifty students descended on a meeting chanting pro-equality slogans.
The original proposal to allow same-sex couples in the homecoming court deeply divided the student senate, who rejected it by a vote of 10-5 with 8 abstentions.
Update | Students rejected the proposal to allow same-sex homecoming couples by a margin of 58% to 42%. Thirteen percent of UNT students took part in the referendum.
Inside Higher Ed has a new piece up this morning on the Southwestern College fiasco, bringing the story pretty much up to date. Go check it out.
Also this morning, a source on campus sent me a copy of the latest memo from the administration. It says that hearings for the four suspended (or, to use SWC’s preferred phrasing, withdrawal-of-consent-to-be-on-campused) faculty members have been cancelled at the request of the faculty members involved.
“The Human Resources Deparment,” the memo continues, “is diligently moving to conclude the investigation on this matter in the hopes that it can be resolved and that the three individuals may be returned to campus this week.”
Yet another weird twist in a story composed exclusively of weird twists, in other words. But it gets a little less weird if you look at the text of the law under which the suspensions were authorized.
According to that law, a withdrawal of consent for an individual to be on campus automatically expires after fourteen days, and it cannot be renewed. An individual whose consent has been withdrawn may request a hearing, but the law says nothing about the format of such hearings, who conducts them, or what they are required or empowered to do.
Whether or not “the investigation on this matter … can be resolved” in the next few days, the three suspended professors will be back on campus by the end of the week. The SWC administration’s memo notwithstanding, there’s no “may” about it. On Friday they go back to work.
Assuming that there are no more weird twists, of course.
studentactivism.net 
Recent Comments