University Of New Mexico Violates Own Sexual Harassment Policy With School Event, Learns Nothing From The Experience
from the we-admit-we-were-wrong-and-vow-to-double-down dept
The University of New Mexico's school policies are so vague and censorious that the school itself has managed to violate them. Here's the relevant part of its policies:
The University of New Mexico’s (UNM’s) Sexual Harassment Policy (PDF) states that “[e]xamples of sexual harassment which shall not be tolerated” include “suggestive” letters, notes, or invitations. The policy also prohibits “displaying sexually suggestive or derogatory objects, pictures, cartoons, or posters,” albeit with the vague disclaimer that such displays will be “evaluated for appropriateness such as art displayed in museums … .”As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) noted on October 1st, not only did the policy mute protected speech ("sexually suggestive" expression being one of those), but that the school itself violated this policy with events held by the university's Women's Resource Center.
UNM is no stranger to sexually suggestive expression. According to The College Fix, this week, September 29–Oct 2 is “Sex Week” at UNM—a weeklong series of programs for students including “Negotiating Successful Threesomes,” “O-Face Oral” and “BJs and Beyond.” Sex Week is sponsored in part by the university’s Women’s Resource Center. Sex Week also violates the university’s own speech codes, since even the titles of the workshops—and thus any Sex Week promotional materials—are “sexually suggestive.”These events were protested by offended students but the school defended its actions, claiming that the school was "dependent on the unfettered flow of ideas," some of which would undoubtedly cause discomfort in its attendees. But its declaration in favor of strong speech protections is undermined by its overly-broad sexual harassment policy.
By bringing this dissonance to the school's attention, FIRE hoped to push UNM into revising its harassment policy. After all, its own ordained Sex Week events were filled with "sexually suggestive or derogatory objects, pictures, cartoons, or posters." No such luck. The school apologized but LEARNED NOTHING.
UNM released a statement on Wednesday apologizing for “the inclusion of topics that are sensational and controversial.” Vice President for Student Affairs Eliseo Torres promises in the statement, “We will do a better job in the future of vetting and selecting programs offered through campus groups.” (Sex Week was hosted by the Women’s Resource Center and the Graduate and Professional Students Association.)The sexual harassment policy still stands. Even worse, the school now seems to be headed in a more restrictive direction, speech-wise -- something it definitely shouldn't do as a public university. Not only is it now going to work harder at curbing its students rights, it's going to do so in the pursuit of the unobtainable.
Well, if Torres’s goal is excluding all “controversial” topics from Sex Week (or, worse, from all of campus), we are here to inform him that that’s impossible. Sex and sex-related topics will always be controversial. And while some coverage of the matter emphasizes workshops on bondage and masochism, it’s absurdly naive to think that no one will object if Sex Week covers only “vanilla” sex-related topics. Perhaps Torres should have simply acknowledged that UNM doesn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable and declared that the university would give up on Sex Week altogether.You cannot please every student and you certainly can't even attempt to do so while still respecting their First Amendment rights. UNM is a public university and Constitutional rights take precedence over school policy. What should have happened -- a realization that its policies are too restrictive -- didn't. Instead, the school is now drifting in a more censorious direction, thanks to having its own inability to follow its policies pointed out to it. The school administration needs to do what it's trying to help its students do: grow up. The student body may be made up of unique individuals, but it is not composed of a few thousand centers-of-the-universe. The rest of the world doesn't need to adjust itself to please the complainers. And it won't, not once these students leave the artificial shelter provided by these policies borne of hand-wringing and apologies. Nothing about these policies do any favors for those they're meant to "protect."
Susan Kruth sums this ridiculousness up with the unofficial motto of FIRE:
[I]f you get all the way through your college career without being offended, you should ask for your money back.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, sexual harassment
Companies: university of new mexico
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Holy crap, this is too awesome to be true! Where do I sign in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wth
"a weeklong series of programs for students including “Negotiating Successful Threesomes,” “O-Face Oral” and “BJs and Beyond.”"
No way am I letting my kid go to a school that offers programs like the above. I realize sex and relationships are part of life, but I'm sending my kids to school to become scholars, not sluts.
" Yes Mr. Johnson, we here at the University of New Mexico offer a wide variety of extra curricular programs for your daughters education needs. O-Face Oral and BJs and Beyond are still accepting new members, those should fit her nicely... should we expect her to start winter quarter?"
I would STILL be kicking that guys ass.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wth
And what, you don't want your kids to have a happy and safe sex life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wth
And what, you don't want your kids to have a happy and safe sex life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: wth
Or is it that you disagree about the names? Because this way you know for sure if it is something you want to hear or not, instead of "learn how to please a banana".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wth
The point of this article is to point out the hypocrisy of the school, hypocrisy noted.... however, are we setting the correct educational environment in the first place for our young adults when we have "sex week" with courses in oral sex and threesomes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wth
So when you mention the traditional "we don't talk about it" way, and imply that that somehow relates to thought that is not free, you should be aware that the nontraditional way of "talking about it" also relates to thought that is not free in the same manner because neither state of mind is determined by a choice or preference the individual made or has any control over, but by the enviroment and culture they grew up in and how both interacted with the configuration of the neurons in their brains.
Wait... I just jumped the shark on a freaking sex thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wth
The title of this article states "school event"... put on by the school, sanctioned by the school, I'm not splitting hairs... it's happening at the school, and they are allowing it.
"so everyone there is an adult, right?"
yes, they are adults, adults in the eye's of the law perhaps.. but most are just reaching maturity and are still working on their decision making abilities.... Call me old fashioned if you want, I just honestly don't think that school is the right place for them to learn how to solicit threesomes and/or perfect their oral sex skills.. call me old fashioned if you want.. idc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can only force a chick to stay in the nest for so long
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can only force a chick to stay in the nest for so long
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can only force a chick to stay in the nest for so long
As for the second half, I'm not really seeing it myself. Could a student, exposed to something new by the event try something they might otherwise not have? Sure, but so what? They might have encountered the same thing later on in life, and tried it then, or decided not to try it due to lack of interest, they're old enough they deserve to be able to make that decision themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can only force a chick to stay in the nest for so long
If you want to send your kids to a school that offers “Negotiating Successful Threesomes,” “O-Face Oral” and “BJs and Beyond.”, you are welcome to do so. My kids on the other hand, will be strongly discouraged from going to a school that offers those types of programs... and when I say discouraged, I mean financially discouraged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can only force a chick to stay in the nest for so long
Many non-helicopter parents encourage their offspring to select a place of higher learning rather than dictating to them as though they were still children. This, some claim, leads the young adult(s) to assume responsibility for themselves and thusly move on toward a fulfilling adult life. Some parents, however, find it hard to let go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can only force a chick to stay in the nest for so long
Really? American Taliban!!?? I wouldn't force them to go to any school, but I would remove some schools from the list. Life is full of compromises, they want me to foot the bill? Fine, then I'll have a say in it.. they want to go it alone? Then I would offer them advice, but they could do what they want. Either way, In the end, it would be their decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can only force a chick to stay in the nest for so long
If anyone disagrees that porn is corrupting our society, we're looking at the proof that it is. Do you really want to think of your daughters taking part in threesomes?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wth
You do realize that university funding was provided
"this is college -- so everyone there is an adult, right?"
In many areas of law, such those dealing with child-support payments, alcoholic beverages, and other matters, college-age people are essentially still considered minors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wth
Such as? I am unaware of any case where this is true, but I may simply be ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: wth
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/termination-of-child-support-age-of-majority.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wth
In any case, what we're talking about specifically here are events about sex. I am unaware of a single place in the US where the age of consent is older than 18.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting one's panties in a twist about these "events" is one thing, but complaints about poorly written policies is a completely different issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tee hee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Women's Resource Center
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservative columnist George Will had his speaking engagements cancelled as punishment for writing this article that criticized colleges 'progressivist' sexual attitudes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressi vism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rest assured, his freedom of speech was not infringed upon as a result of the school revoking the speaking arrangement. He is still free to speak his mind in the village square or elsewhere to his hearts content, but the school has no obligation to pay him for his opinions.
On a side note, did you actually read his ridiculous opinion piece or just the biased blather which supports it?
Sadly, the only type of sex approved by some conservatives is of the non-consensual type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We need to teach girls that it's okay to say no and to kick the creep out of our beds and send him on his way if he doesn't like it without feeling that we've somehow let our whole gender down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cognitive Dissonance
Almost anything is accepted
but
Nothing is allowed
I have no idea how the consent rules can actually be billed as "Yes means yes" when they clearly are really more like "Yes means yes until it means no and it can be changed to no at any time".
It is notable that while they apparently had lots of sessions on different sex activities, they didn't have one that discussed consent rules. That is because the consent rules are designed to be indescribable and impossible to logically comprehend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cognitive Dissonance
For you edification, it is note worthy that this particular institution of higher learning is located in New Mexico whereas the "yes means yes" law to which you refer was passed in California. These are, apparently, two separate states within the union each having little to do with laws in the other. I know this may be difficult to grasp, but please, do give it a go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cognitive Dissonance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like any college would EVER criticize one of those groups.
Of course, if it was a "Men's Resource Center" (if they ever allowed one to exist in the first place), they'd be throwing everyone in their Kangaroo court on "sexual assault" charges by the end of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you positive that this particular Women's group has not been criticized for this or other activites? What about other universities? Or maybe you are just full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And, by the way, the athletics department includes women's athletics. Just fyi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it would be better to just admit that you have no idea.
And, btw - women in the athletic dept are there only because the dept is forced to fund a few minor programs that will not interfere with the football team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no left anymore, and if there were you wouldn't be able to tell what the hell it was even if it bit you in the ass.
Hypocrisy is an interesting topic, I'm sure you are well acquainted with it. It knows no bounds, certainly not political bounds.
And opinions, about whether one group is worse than another in any particular category ... are like assholes - everyone has one and they all stink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cannot?
But if the workshops are successful they'll probably teach you to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]