Posted by
InchDeep on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:21:24 AM
It's nice to see some clarity of thought on the issue of sexual harassment. Much of it is, as the Third circuit said, is speech that "...might simply be offensive to a listener, or a group of listeners,
believing that they are being subjected to or surrounded by hostility." They believe they are being harassed so to it must be true. They go to the boss, who wants to cover his-and-the companies a$$, so the boss drags some innocent person on the carpet for it. I hope the looser appeals, or this ruling stands. That way we can get these " ill-defined" sexual harassment rules straightened out so it can't be used as a weapon against someone co-worker who just, pardon the term, rubs you the wrong way.
From www.thebulletin.us
By: Bradley Vasoli, The Bulletin
08/05/2008
A U.S. circuit court yesterday upheld a lower court ruling striking
down guidelines restricting the speech of Temple University students on
the basis they violate students' constitutional right to open discourse.
Christian DeJohn, a Temple military history graduate student, had
voiced to classmates and professors his opposition to women serving in
combat. Mr. DeJohn, who served in active duty in Bosnia, felt
professors' hostility to his views on military policy and the
university's broad rules against sexual harassment created a "chilling
effect" keeping him from candidly expressing his opinions.
The
university's rules read, in part, "all forms of sexual harassment are
prohibited, including ... expressive, visual, or physical conduct of a
sexual or gender-motivated nature, when ... such conduct has the
purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's
work, educational performance, or status; or ... such conduct has the
purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment."
Judge D. Brooks Smith, of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, wrote such a policy is too ill-defined to stand
as a measure strictly designed to prevent sexual harrassment.
"...
Some speech that creates a 'hostile or offensive environment' may be
protected speech under the First Amendment," Judge Smith wrote. "It is
difficult to cabin this phrase, which could encompass any speech that
might simply be offensive to a listener, or a group of listeners,
believing that they are being subjected to or surrounded by hostility."
David Hacker, an attorney with the nonprofit Alliance Defense Fund,
said the ruling represented an important triumph for free speech on
university campuses.
"It's really a significant victory for the
free speech rights for Mr. DeJohn and all students at Temple
University," Mr. Hacker said. "The fact that he was courageous enough
to challenge this policy and really take a stand for free-speech in
general is a testament to his character and will serve as a precedent
for years to come."
Mr. DeJohn has completed all the coursework
necessary to receive his master's degree, but his graduation remains in
limbo over administrative disputes between him and Temple he says are
the result of political intolerance on the part of department
administrators.
Temple could not provide comment as The Bulletin went to press.