 |
 |
In a message dated 08/17/2000 10:55:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: > Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, the procedure at the university concerned > outlaws, under threat of > dismissal, any action against any party involved in this type of dispute > that could be viewed as > retaliatory. A law suit would be judged to be a retaliatory action and a > violation of the > university rules. And in return for this abrogation of minimal civil and legal protections even in the face of extreme harrassment, what alternative protection does the university's procedure provide for those who are being harrassed in this way, duly subject to this death by a thousand cuts? A string of "not guilty" judgements like beads on a string stretching over the horizon? 1) Unlawful contracts are not enforceable. Everyone is responsible for injury deliberately done others, including that child of adult age playing the vindictive game you describe, who should not be protected past a point which seems to have been passed. If the administration won't end the farce with at least a severe reprimand, I should imagine it could itself become a party to an instructor's lawsuit if it attempted dismissal because an attempt to hold a student responsible for his or her own actions "could be viewed as" (not "was found to be") retaliatory. 2) the educational institution's obligation to "educate" a marginal student includes the obligation to teach him or her not to use protective procedures vindictively. What is it doing in this regard? That the instructor in question *feels* harrassed and unprotected and has no recourse signifies its own abrogation of responsibility, I should think. In my institution, there would be a single fact finding examination, and if the student persisted after a finding that there was no merit in the charge, there would be confidential review of only those facts by higher authority to assure that due process was followed and the conclusion seemingly justified. The student would then be informed to accept the judgement or leave. Administrations exist to enable the faculty to do what they are asked to do (teach, determine curricula and academic policies, research, and thereby advance their disciplines) undistracted by the routine oddities always encountered among students. Shouldn't they be doing their jobs? See David Mamet's play "Oleanna" for a paradigmatic case. I suspect that whatever the university thinks, the student *like the faculty member* is free to raise the issues yet again in civil proceedings, where if the facts are as represented, especially if "academic due process" was followed, it would be eventually dismissed though after further punitive exposure of the faculty member. This because a grade (like a job) can be defined as an earned property right, and an unjust grade deprivation of that property. In such a suit the university would probably be a party with the instructor. Has the student's behavior become a campus issue, with choosing up of sides and letters to the student newspaper, etc? Now THAT would be educational. Does the student have peer support or peer condemnation in the Great Court of Public Opinion where most such issues are in fact settled? What says the "Women's Caucus" (or whatever the equivalent feminist organization) about all this? Has the Chronicle of Higher Education found it yet? Or the AAUP? Does anyone care? Love, Vickie %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%