Quantcast The Red and Black
College Media Network

The Red and Black

Search the Archives

 

Legal Affairs head evaluates harassment

Abstract:
"I am a feminist," Stephen Shewmaker said as he spoke before a psychology of women class Thursday.

Shewmaker, executive director for the Office of Legal Affairs, lectured to the class about his role in the recent sexual harassment cases at the University....

  • Displaying 1 - 8 of 8

thanks

posted 4/07/08 @ 10:41 AM EST

I appreciate a man educating other men and women that a man can be a feminist. It also sounds like the definition of sexual (or any) harrassment needs to be changed - that might be part of the problem. I taught my kids that if someone says no or stop, the VERY NEXT TIME you do it is harrassment. In the case of sex, it's rape. The way the law books apparently state it, someone can harrass you in all kinds of ways and legally "get away with it."
Post a reply to this comment

D for Doil

posted 4/07/08 @ 12:17 PM EST

Let's see if I have this right about what we've learned in the case concerning Charlie Doyle, so-called associate professor. You mean statements to students such as "Oh your flowing golden hair" and "your the g-string" blah blah blah is protected speech? How absurd! I must have missed the memo, so NOTE TO SELF: objectify students left and right in emails whenever the fancy strikes me, because the self-proclaimed feminist Shewmaker says so.

Doyle is back in the classroom, yay, but anyone wonder about why he's even teaching? He's an English professor who can't spell in his snide defensive emails to authorities at the university. He's typical, associate prof deadwood who publishes very little, treats his job as a sinecure, and should be sent out to pasture. He'd never get tenure these days.

Some will come on here and say, "I'm a student of Doyle, and he's great; he's just eccentric and is no harasser, blah blah blah." I'm sorry to say that if that's your opinion, then you probably shouldn't even be dignified with the name "student," because you really don't know this man as well as others, and his consistent behavior since 2001 (and god knows, before) surprises no one who's in the know. If he resumes his usual smarmy activity on email, I sincerely hope he is terminated immediately.
Post a reply to this comment

D for Discussion

posted 4/07/08 @ 1:43 PM EST

Originally posted by

D for Doil

 Let's see if I have this right about what we've learned in the case concerning Charlie Doyle, so-called associate professor. You mean statements to students such as "Oh your flowing golden hair" and "your the g-string" blah blah blah is protected speech? How absurd! I must have missed the memo, so NOTE TO SELF: objectify students left and right in emails whenever the fancy strikes me, because the self-proclaimed feminist Shewmaker says so.

Doyle is back in the classroom, yay, but anyone wonder about why he's even teaching? He's an English professor who can't spell in his snide defensive emails to authorities at the university. He's typical, associate prof deadwood who publishes very little, treats his job as a sinecure, and should be sent out to pasture. He'd never get tenure these days.

Some will come on here and say, "I'm a student of Doyle, and he's great; he's just eccentric and is no harasser, blah blah blah." I'm sorry to say that if that's your opinion, then you probably shouldn't even be dignified with the name "student," because you really don't know this man as well as others, and his consistent behavior since 2001 (and god knows, before) surprises no one who's in the know. If he resumes his usual smarmy activity on email, I sincerely hope he is terminated immediately.


Yo! Dr Doyle was found in violation of the policy about 4 years ago for the behavior you mention, and he received a punishment, which resolved the case. Are you saying he should be re-punished this year?
Post a reply to this comment

D for Doil

posted 4/07/08 @ 4:12 PM EST

Sure, that'd be great in fact if he were re-punished. He is a serial offender (see docs), and there have been no escalating charges. Oh, I'm wrong. Video taping his classes! Whoop dee do. He's been coddled. He's been evasive. Read the docs. You're right that he has been punished, but the point is that he's been punished in a toothless way and Shewmaker's words are just proof of that. There's no reason why such a mediocre man, let alone an excellent one, should be appeased like this when the reputation of the university is at stake.

Please answer me this: You agree with Shewmaker that Doyle's free-speech rights include writing emails to students in which he imagines them in g-strings? Answering "yes" is just enabling Doyle. That was his excuse -- "free speech." Gimme a fricking break. The reason why he is expressing himself is not to enact the principles of free speech, but because he finds certain female students just too irresistible, so much so that he has to declare his yucky senescent desires to them in emails. They don't want to hear it. And it is harassment. And it just goes on and on and on.
Post a reply to this comment

D is for Discussion

posted 4/07/08 @ 4:58 PM EST

Originally posted by

D for Doil

 ... He's been coddled. He's been evasive. Read the docs. You're right that he has been punished, but the point is that he's been punished in a toothless way and Shewmaker's words are just proof of that. ...


Is your grievance with Mr Shewmaker? Did you read his definition of Sexual Harassment? Do you think Dr Doyle's case fits that definition? Do you think there are differing levels of harassment? If so, should they all be treated with the same level of severity?
Post a reply to this comment

Mary Ellen

posted 4/15/08 @ 4:47 PM EST

Originally posted by

D for Doil

 Sure, that'd be great in fact if he were re-punished. He is a serial offender (see docs), and there have been no escalating charges. Oh, I'm wrong. Video taping his classes! Whoop dee do. He's been coddled. He's been evasive. Read the docs. You're right that he has been punished, but the point is that he's been punished in a toothless way and Shewmaker's words are just proof of that. There's no reason why such a mediocre man, let alone an excellent one, should be appeased like this when the reputation of the university is at stake.

Please answer me this: You agree with Shewmaker that Doyle's free-speech rights include writing emails to students in which he imagines them in g-strings? Answering "yes" is just enabling Doyle. That was his excuse -- "free speech." Gimme a fricking break. The reason why he is expressing himself is not to enact the principles of free speech, but because he finds certain female students just too irresistible, so much so that he has to declare his yucky senescent desires to them in emails. They don't want to hear it. And it is harassment. And it just goes on and on and on.


"D for Doil", your anger may be justified, but it is misdirected. Shewmaker didn't invent the definition of sexual harrassment that is referenced in the article, it is the official definition set by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Shewmaker was only clarifying the rules so that students and faculty understand what the administration has to work with. If that definition angers you, then you should take action against the law, not Shewmaker. Don't kill the messenger, you know?
Post a reply to this comment

Post Your Resume

posted 4/08/08 @ 1:05 PM EST

Dear Steve,
It's great that you are a feminist, but U.GA. doesn't need helpers like you. You see, department heads know what's wrong, and they should be the ones to address these issues. You want to sell your "special legal knowledge" but it doesn't take a rocket scientist. Oh, and remember, U.GA. took this authority away from your office because ya'll allowed the complaints to linger for YEARS! The NEW idea, that another special committee will handle these complaints, will not work, of course, and is just another attempt by the authorities at the top to insulate themselves from the issue. You see, when they turn it over to some committee or even your office, they can then point to you in cases of "failure." This was always the point, really, anything to protect the top dawgs -- which has the odd but predictable consequence of NOT remedying faculty abuse! Oops. Best idea: Put those in charge back in charge; when they coddle, let the responsibility fall back on their heads. And when they overreact, and run-off half the faculty that's still left, let them face the music again. So you see, it's great you are a feminist, but we really don't need you! Sorry! Get a job, dude.
Your Friend,
BRJ
ps: You are invited to the pajama party!
Post a reply to this comment

Feminist Dawg

posted 4/15/08 @ 3:35 PM EST

Dear BRJ,

But you know, it is great to know that the only feminist on campus willing to come out is a man.

Go Dogs, Sic 'em (in a non-gendered way, of course)
Post a reply to this comment
  • Displaying 1 - 8 of 8

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

 

 

Advertisement

Poll

Hmm, what to make of Kentucky vs. Georgia:
Submit Vote

View Results



Advertisement