Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Replies in a Notes conference are not the same as personal notes sent
    from one person to another.
    
    Could a reader infer sexual harassment from notes posted in this
    (or another) conference?  Yes.  What would the course of action then
    be?  I don't know; as always it would depend on specific circumstances.
    
    					andrew

.0 greatly oversimplified a very complex case. The fundamental issue was the
"reasonable person" standard. The standard for harassment has been that a
reasonable person would think it was harassment (with appropriate verbiage
wrapped around reasonable.) The argument in this case was that in the case of
sexual harassment "reasonable person" is an unreasonable standard - that women
are more often harassed than men, and that men - being less familiar with
harassment, are less likely to know it when it happens. Thus the standard should
be "reasonable woman" in the case of a woman being harassed. Actually the
case was more complicated than that - it said, not that a reasonable woman
standard must be imposed, merely that you cannot arbitrarily DISMISS arguments
that a different standard should apply. That is, not that a different standard
*should* apply, but that you can't a priori say that a different standard
*shouldn't* apply - which is what the lower court had said in affirming the
"reasonable person" standard, and rejecting the arguments that things were
different for a woman. It said that the court must at least consider that
harassment might be rightly judged differently by a woman and a man, that
in fact an action towards a woman might be harassment, but towards a man might
not be. Not *was* but *might* *be* and that we couldn't automatically assume
othewise, which the law has up till now.

The case was sent back to lower court for review.

Clear?

	-- Charles

    And yes, not only is it possible but it has happened that one
    person read a note in a conference and concluded that it
    constituted harassment, and filed a complaint.  Actually, this has
    happened a number of times.  Sometimes the connection existed only
    in the mind of the reader, other times it was more substantial.
    
    As Charles suggests, the recent case doesn't attempt to define
    harassment, but rather sets some rules for how it is to be
    judged.
    
    It has been made clear to me by those familiar with the process of
    investigating harassment complaints - harassment is "in the eye of
    the beholder".  Don't treat this subject too lightly.
    
    I may as well take this opportunity to restate something which is
    also in the introductory notes in note 1.  If you feel that you
    are being harassed via a notes conference (either by notes in the
    conference or by other contact which you feel was initiated due to
    something in the conference), please contact the moderators.  We
    will advise you of your rights, suggest courses of action, and serve
    as resources if a formal complaint is lodged.  Often we can manage to
    stop a problem before it gets out of control.  We're here to help.
    
    					Steve

    Certainly, harassment is in the eye of the beholder.  However, it does
    not necessarily follow that every claim of harassment is valid.  There
    must be a reasonable test.  For example, Digital's P&P defines
    harassment not in terms of the initial complaint, but in terms of
    repeated offences after a request to cease.  This seems to me, at first
    glance, a reasonable working definition.

Re: .4

Most certainly.  But "in the eye of the beholder" is enough to get a
complaint filed.  I know of a case, which involved one of the conferences
I moderate, where not even an UNreasonable person would have considered
a particular note harassment, but the offendee could and did get the note
author put on verbal warning because of this single note (which did not
name the offendee nor make it easy to identify them.)  It does not always
take a repeated offense to cause action to be taken, hence my cautionary
tone.

I'm not suggesting that everyone stop writing notes, but I do ask that
people think about what they write, try not to use the notesfiles (in
particular) as "weapons" against other employees, and be sensitive to the
feelings of others.  I also ask that those who feel that they are being
harassed not just shrug it off if they are uncomfortable about it.

				Steve

    
    Having just taken (yesterday) Digital Sexual Harassment Awareness
    class, I would like to add a couple of key items.
    
    Complaints of sexual harassment according to Digital policy are
    investigated by Human Resources with the appropreate manager
    involved.  Digital takes these cases *very* seriously.  As much
    confidentially as possible is maintained.
    
    A receint study showed that 30% of women and 10% of men are
    sexually harassed at work.  It also showed that a significant
    portion of sexual harassment complaints were true.  (I left
    my handouts at home, can't remember who conducted the study)
    
    While I don't know what significant means, the problem is
    portrayed as vast.
    
    A person who is harassed *does not* have no notify a supervisor
    or the company at all.  The person can file a complain with 
    EEOC directly.
    
    What is sexual harassment?  Just about anything that someone might 
    find offensive that deals with gender (wether male or female).
    This class really blew my mind...
    
    Example - 
    
    A statement like "your looking very pretty/hansome today" could be 
    considered sexual harassment *if* the person you were directing the 
    comment to took offense!  Your intent has no barring at all! - it's 
    the impact on the individual you were addressing that matters.
    
    ...gene
    
    {generally-a-read-only-noter-but-this-class-scared-me-to-death}
    

    I used to eat lunch with a group of people, men and women,
    at a table in the cafeteria.  Pretty much the same crowd 
    every day.  My manager's manager ate at this table.
    The conversation was always pretty lively and entertaining.
    
    One day, I told a joke that was risque, involving a man
    and a woman.  This was said to the whole table.  I was
    leaving the table as I said it.  People laughed. One of 
    the women said, "Does that constitute sexual harassment?"
    People laughed again.  I left the table, and a little while
    later, I got a MAIL message from my manager's manager that
    in fact, it could constitute sexual harassment, and while
    she understood that I did not intend it to be so, that I
    should be careful.  I exchanged a few mail messages with
    my manager's manager, in an attempt to clarify how to be
    careful, since I did not understand how my joke to the
    whole table was harassing someone.  I never understood
    how I can be careful, other than to not tell jokes at work
    that involve men and women in risque situations.
    
    So, I no longer tell jokes that involve men and women
    at work.  Certainly not in a group of men and women, and
    probably not even in a group of men.  And I wince when I 
    hear someone else telling such a joke, and wonder who is 
    going to call them on it.  I don't even tell such jokes
    outside of work, since it is simply too much effort to
    try to imagine how my joke is going to be taken by each
    person present.  For me, the humor of men and women and
    their attempts to relate has gone underground, at least
    when I am in a group.
    
    I think humor requires trust, and so I tell such jokes or
    talk about such matters only with individual people with 
    whom I share a lot of trust.
    
    I think this is the price of "progress" and maybe if there
    is enough progress, the ability to laugh at ourselves in
    a group (in "public") will return.  But for the time being,
    one has to be careful...
    
    Wil
    
    Wil

    I also took a Sexual Harassment Class. Harassament was defined as
    "unwanted and repeated" behavior.
    
    During the class we expanded to other types of harassment that one
    might experience.  There was a person in the class who was getting
    pamphlets left on their desk each day criticizing or otherwise tearing
    down their religious beliefs.
    
    I have heard some people say they feel harassed when only an
    insensitive comment has been made.  That is why we were instructed
    that harassment is manifest when the behaviour is "unwanted and
    repeated", which means the harasser has to be told by the harassee
    to stop the behaviour.
    
    We were also told that in litigation the person harassed does not
    have to prove it.  The harasser has to prove they did not do the
    harassing. 
    
    Is all of this information still accurate or true?
    

    re: .6
    
    Yes Gene,
    
    DEC is *very* serious about sexual harassment policies.....
    
    When I worked in another Digital facility in another state these
    policies were so strongly enforced that you never heard swearing,
    risque jokes, etc.....during office hours.  However, that atmosphere
    at this site was so "stuffed shirt" at times that it was very 
    uncomfortable to work.
    
    On another note - some people do tend go a bit overboard with comments
    and/or jokes, etc.....
    
    -Lynn
    

    I think, that in effort to compensate for a problem which only recently
    has been addressed at all, there's a bit of overcompensation.  Which
    hardly seems fair.
    
    
    kim

    	The U.S. attitude certainly seems a bit much by most European
    standards. Several of my female colleagues would be offended if I
    didn't kiss them on the cheek when we meet, and even more would be
    offended if I didn't notice a new hair style or whatever. Treating them
    *exactly* as I would treat men would be an insult to their femininity.
    I receive similar compliments in return, though they all know I have
    been happily married for over 20 years. The attitude is to respect
    people for what they are, and one of the things you are is a person
    with a defined sex and certain sexual preferrences. Isn't this just
    valuing differences?
    
    	Then there are the standard jokes -
    
    "This job is so boring that I only come into the office to be sexually
    harassed".
    
    "They tried to hold a course on Sexual Harassment in Valbonne, once,
    but all the students cancelled when they heard that there were no
    practical sessions".
    
    	Incidentally, given the definitions earlier, how is the accused
    person supposed to prove that they have not been told to stop? Given
    that they *have* shown a sexual interest in someone it must be
    impossible to prove a negative of that sort. If I dislike you, I
    attract your interest long enough for other people to notice, and then
    get you fired?
    
    	To me, it looks like overcompensation from what I have seen of U.S.
    citizens (of both sexes) relocating here.

    I'm pretty sure that in many/most cases you must request the harasser
    stop the harassing behavior, and they must actively decide to continue
    it, before you can truly call it harassment.
    
    your mileage may vary, of course.
    
    -Jody

    RE harassment
    
    So if I object to the labeling of WASPs or other white males as the
    source of all the worlds problems in this conference, and say so, 
    then that label or blame is off limits? Or continued comment is with
    risk?
    
    I kinda doubt it. Other groups, yes, but WASPs no.
    
    Convince me....
    
    Steve

Re: .13

What you describe is not harassment, in that it is not personally
directed.  That sort of behavior falls under another category called
"offensive remarks".  However, to be actionable, it is usually required
that such remarks be aimed at a "protected subgroup".  WASPs and white
males are not so categorized.

Be that as it may, I am not aware of any significant amount of remarks
of the nature you sugegst in this conference.

				Steve

    
    Most of the subtle sexual harassment issues deal whith a certain clause
    in the statement of the law Section 703 of Title VII, "Harassment on the 
    Basis of Sex"
    
    {I'a copying this from a slide so it may be slightly out of context...}
    
    UNWELCOME sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
    or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute harassment when:
    
    1. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a
    term or condition of an individuals employement.
    
    2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used
    as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals.
    
    	{... the above are commonly referred to as QUID PRO QUO -
             do this or you'll suffer at the job }
    
    3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
    with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating,
    hostle, or offensive working environment.
    
    ....
    
    Number 3 is where most of the grayness (for me anyway) is.  It does
    not matter that I was talking to "john" if "jack" is there or just
    overhears, and takes offense.  Who but the individual "harassed"
    knows when the working environment is "hostle" or "intinidating" or
    "offensive"???
    
    Another asked a question about the "harassed" must ask for the 
    behaviour to stop.  Not so - if the "harassed" feels "intimidated"
    by the "harasser"!!!
    
    As to repeatability, that is true, however; given the above - how am
    I supposed to know when comments are "UNWELCOME" unless told in some
    way.  I have teased and been teased.  I try to see if comments are
    "UNWELCOME" and have asked straight out if my comments or actions
    bother people.  This class has tought me that this is not enough.
    
    Like another noter my trust meter just got another setting to check...
             
    ...gene 
    

RE .14

>Re: .13
>
>What you describe is not harassment, in that it is not personally
>directed.  That sort of behavior falls under another category called
>"offensive remarks".  However, to be actionable, it is usually required
>that such remarks be aimed at a "protected subgroup".  WASPs and white
>males are not so categorized.

Isn't equality wonderful? How does one become a "protected subgroup"? Obviously 
% is not a factor. Less than 50% are males, less than that white, smaller still
if WASP. How come in non-hiring legal matters such as this, one group can be
be blamed for anything at all and have NO recourse? There IS something 
wrong here!

>Be that as it may, I am not aware of any significant amount of remarks
>of the nature you sugegst in this conference.
>
>				Steve

If there was a 'significant amount' of remarks about some other non-white male
or WASP group, would it be significant? BTW I never suggested that was a lot in
this conference. It does show up once in a while however.

Steve

>There IS something wrong here!

 Only if you believe that equality is a condition to be acheived, not an excuse
to "swing the pendulum the other way."

 The Doctah

    
    Uder English law I believe that you would have to prove that damage was
    to a known injured party (unlike manslaughter or racial issues) but
    this will need checking as corporate law didn't include this topic!
    
    ... ergo in a notes conference, unless you specifically mention someones 
    name (or notes number?) the contribution goes to anybody who choses to read
    (unknown parties).
    
    In the joke-at-a-table incident, it could just about be deemed that the
    audience was specific, something you could not prove in a conference
    (unless so obviously directed that it was without reasonable doubt).
     
    Dave

    
    Re.12 Jody is correct, at least under UK law... it must be directed at
    a specific person (without doubt) and also be a repitition, the word
    persistent is used, after a request to cease.
    
    Proof of being asked to cease must therefore be admissible (i.e.
    tangible... paper etc).
    
    Does the rest of the US *really* think like that ?!?! (I worked in Phoenix
    for 5 months and enjoyed a very different relationship, *very* open,
    candid, so I hold out some hope). 
    
    Otherwise what a boring way to live!! Give me the French, Dutch or 
    Australian personal value system any day!!
    
    Dave
    Dave 

    Re: .19
    
    Yes, the US as a whole is lawsuit-happy.  But I think that in this
    sort of situation that it does some good to alert people to the
    possible negative effects of sexual jokes and behaviors.  I think
    we've been complacent about it for so long, that the often abrupt
    change in atmosphere is more jarring than need be.
    
    Then again, I haven't found myself needing to change my behavior
    much at all due to "enlightenment".  I could see how a man whose
    whole way of dealing with women was through sexual jokes and
    intimidation might have a more severe reaction.
    
    					Steve

    Something to think about.   Harassement...
    
    If someone treatens someone else's job, unless they get some "favor"
    that is very serious harrassement, I would say blackmail even.
    
    If someone keeps up unwanted aproches after being told to stop, that
    is also harrassement. Although not as bad as above.
    
    And so on...
    
    But if somebody just tells a joke, or says something no matter what
    that isn't directly "naming" someone. How can that be harrassement.
    
    I thought freedom of speech was of of our basic rights, everyone is
    free to talk. Just as everybody is free not to listen, if they don't
    want to. 
    
    Now I have a question:
    
    Does a company's over entusiastic efforts to stamp out harassement
    constitute in itself harassement. In that they are limiting one of
    our basic rights, that is freedom of speech.  With repeated and 
    treatening behavior, against people and their jobs.
    
    Gil

  
>    I thought freedom of speech was of of our basic rights, everyone is
>    free to talk. Just as everybody is free not to listen, if they don't
>    want to.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    
>    Now I have a question:
>    
>    Does a company's over entusiastic efforts to stamp out harassement
>    constitute in itself harassement. In that they are limiting one of
>    our basic rights, that is freedom of speech.  With repeated and 
>    treatening behavior, against people and their jobs.
 
Everybody "is free not to listen" is a dubious claim.  In a job situation,
it is one's job to work with one's coworkers.  You have to talk to and listen
to them.  When one person inserts a sexual innuendo into every other or every
fifth or perhaps even only every one hundredth conversation, the victim is NOT
free "not to listen".  Its their JOB to listen.  That's one reason why your 
view of harassment in the workplace as "free speech" is not accepted.

DougO
 

    in re .21
    
    How about a closeted gay/lesbian who hears jokes about homosexuals
    but is afraid to speak up because they think it will affect their
    job?
    
    Some years ago I heard a man make a very disgusting (to me) joke
    equating married men with necrophiliacs. Should people be allowed
    to tell such jokes at work as 'free speech'?
    
    Bonnie

 Now Bonnie, please don't tell me that you're biased against necrophiliacs...
:-)/2

    Mark it was a *gross* joke... to gag for! BJ

Harassment can take the form of an opressive work environment. If you are black
and your co-workers continually make racist jokes, talk about the next KKK
meeting, make disparaging remarks about blacks - that creates a work environment
that is opressive. That is - legally and morally - harassment.

	-- Charles

RE .26
     >Harassment can take the form of an opressive work environment. 
     >If you are black
     >and your co-workers continually make racist jokes, 
    
    *** MAYBE ***
    
    >talk about the next KKK meeting, 
    
    *** NO ***
    
    >make disparaging remarks about blacks - 
    
    *** YES ***
    
    >that creates a work environment
    >that is opressive. That is - legally and morally - harassment.

    >	-- Charles
    
    The example about the KKK seems to me to be freedom of association and
    speech.
    
    Steve

    re .27, that's funny.  The example of the talking about the next KKK
    meeting in front of Blacks seems to be an issue of common human decency
    to me.  
    
    In my opinion, anybody who would join the KKK is so evil they have
    forfeited their right to freedom of speech, regardless of what the
    constitution says.  Think about how many innocent people have been
    ruthlessly murdered because of the KKK.  I'm shocked and disgusted that
    you wouldn't consider discussing it in front of black people to be
    harrassment.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE .28
>    re .27, that's funny.  The example of the talking about the next KKK
>    meeting in front of Blacks seems to be an issue of common human decency
>    to me.  
    
    That I agree with. There are certain things that are considered out of
    place, out of line, etc. This would be one IMHO.
    
>    In my opinion, anybody who would join the KKK is so evil they have
>    forfeited their right to freedom of speech, regardless of what the
>    constitution says.  
    
    If we applied the same rules to the Germans for what they did to the
    Jews, then they forfeited their rights to speak too?
    
    >Think about how many innocent people have been
>    ruthlessly murdered because of the KKK.  
    
    No argument here.
    
    >I'm shocked and disgusted that
>    you wouldn't consider discussing it in front of black people to be
>    harrassment.
    
    Would you be shocked and disgusted if the KKK wanted to march in some
    heavily black community? I think that has already been tested and found
    within their rights.
    	How about discussing a Pro-abortion meeting in front of a religious
    Abortion-controlist? Different, not really.
    	I can come up with many examples like this. I am shocked that you
    would take away someones rights so casually with something you disagree
    with. What gives you, and not me or someone else the right to decide
    who should forfeit their rights. THIS IS DANGEROUS....    

    
    PC lives
    
    Steve
    

    re .29, I never claimed to completely agree with the US Constitution. 
    I agree with most of it, but I have a mind of my own, too, and the
    ability to come up with my own opinions.  If I ran things, the KKK
    wouldn't have a right to free speech.  But, I don't run things so not
    to worry.  
    
    As far as the comparison to what the Germans did to the Jews, there's a
    difference between Germans and Nazis.  All Germans are not Nazis,
    especially nowadays.  I don't think Nazis have a right to free speech. 
    Why should they?  Any decent person knows they're wrong.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, while I sympathize with you, one cannot simply write off
    someones rights because we disagree with them regardless of what may
    have been done in their name. 
       	If I ran thing, you might not like my choices on who could speak
    and who could not.
    
    RE Germans.
    
    Many Germans were Nazi, Many Germans 'went along' with the good times 
    and we definately did not identify all the Nazi. Are the Greman people
    guilty by association? Are all the KKK members guilty because some have
    murdered etc?
    	Isn't that what we are talking about here? 
    
    'All the problems with the US are caused by;'  WASPs, Blacks, Jews, pick
    someone. This is bundling individuals together to create a group/mass
    that can be discounted or hated. We are trying to get past this (I
    thought).
	Remember when women were discounted and could not vote? That 
    was a right that was arbitrarily ignored/dispensed
    with. Would you like that situation again? I think not.
    
    None of us are free, unless all of us are free...
    
    Steve
    
    
    PS David Duke will speak in Boston this week (I think).

    re .31, I honestly don't see how you can compare groups such as women,
    Blacks, Jews, or Germans with the KKK.  The KKK is an organization that
    people choose to join.  It is an organization that encourages violence
    and racial prejudice.  People have no choice about being born female,
    black, Jewish or German.  They do have a choose about joining the klan.
    
    Today's generation of Germans are not the people who killed the Jews,
    except for a few old men who may be left, so I don't think we should
    condemn Germans who were not even born in the 1940's for the haulocost. 
    However, the KKK of today is attempting to continue the same philosophy
    of ignorance and hatred as previous generations.
    
    *I* can write off, in my own mind, the rights of anyone I choose.  I
    just can't force others to because I'm not the King of America.  I
    don't think the KKK should be allowed freedom of speech in the USA. 
    That's my opinion and I can hold whatever opinion about something I
    choose.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    uh... now back to the subject....
    
    Sexual Harassment is associated with the *impact*, not the topic
    other than the topic be sexual (i.e. toward men or women).
    
    If the impact to you from a joke (about men) is threating, than it
    constitutes sexual harassment.  No matter who (or where) the target 
    audience is.
    
    ...gene
    

    RE .32
    
    Do I read something into the fact that you left WASP out 2 times when
    you discussed not having a choice about being born female, black, 
    jewish or German. Once maybe, 2 times?
    
    Let me take your own words and insert other endings.
    
    >I honestly don't see how you can compare groups such as 
    
    the Pro-Choice movement
    
    >with the KKK.  The 
    
    Pro-Choice movement
    
    >is an organization that people choose to join.  
    >It is an organization that encourages violence
    
    against unborn human beings.
    
    >People have no choice about being born 
    
    >They do have a choose about joining the 
    
    Pro-Choice movement
    
    >*I* can write off, in my own mind, the rights of anyone I choose.  
    
    SO CAN I
    
    >I just can't force others to because I'm not the King of America.  
    >I don't think the 
    
    Pro-Choice movement
    
    >should be allowed freedom of speech in the USA. 
    >That's my opinion and I can hold whatever opinion about something I
    >choose.
    
See how easy it is?
    
    Steve    

    re .34, I don't understand your suggestion about my leaving out the
    word WASP.  What do you think that implies?  I left out the word WASP
    because WASPs are not a group that have suffered greatly at the hands
    of other types of people just because they happen to be WASPS.  (Of
    course, there are individual WASPS who have suffered individually but
    not because of racial prejudice.)
    
    I, also, don't think that the Pro-Choice Movement can be compared to
    the KKK.  Some people believe that women have a right to choose what
    they do with their own bodies, and that this right is more important
    than the rights of a fetus.  I don't think this compares with the
    apparent philosophy of the KKK that only white people have a right to
    live in peace and prosperity.
    
    Lorna
    

    People are born WASP, just like they are born female, Black, Jewish
    and German, no choice.
    That is my point.
    
    You happen to feel that anyone YOU deem fit may be discriminated
    against or have their right abolished.
    
    The Pro-choice analogy is an excellent example. It is a group someone
    chooses to join. Like the Communist party, the Democratic or Republican
    parties, the YMCA/YWCA or the NRA. You happen to agree with it (I
    assume) like some people disagree with it. Should you be stiffled
    because of this choice? Many people probably think that the 
    Pro-choice movement is as bad if not worse than the KKK.
    
    There are two guiding axioms in the US (politics/government):
    
    "Get someone else to pay for what I want."
    "Take away something from someone else that I disagree with."
    
    But: back to the original subject.
    
    Lorna, If someone was discussing how they liked Andrew Dice Clay W/O
    going into his material, is that harrasment? Is discussing that they
    have tickets to his show harrassment?
    
    Steve

>The Pro-choice analogy is an excellent example. 

 Yes, very much so. See how easy it is to twist Lorna's words around:

...the apparent philosophy of the Pro-choice movement that only people who are 
already born have a right to live _at all_.

 Clearly Lorna believes that oppression of one group or another is ok, since
she admits she wishes to oppress some groups and would if she could. Since
white males can oppress, it is therefore acceptable that they do. Unless, of
course, there is some reason why it is acceptable for Lorna oppress but not
others... 

 The Doctah

.37
    
    
>...the apparent philosophy of the Pro-choice movement that only people who are 
>already born have a right to live _at all_.
    
    
    This statement is entirely false to fact.
    
    BJ

    re .38, that's right.  I think that unborn children have a right to
    live, but I think that the lives of the mothers who are already born
    are even more important, so I do consider myself pro-choice.  Although,
    I, personally, have never had an abortion and have always known that I
    the only time I would is if I found out the baby were going to be
    retarded in some way.  So, I am pro-choice but not ragingly pro-choice. 
    I've never been to any marches or anything and consider it rather
    ironic that someone would rail at me for being for pro-choice when in
    fact I have always known that having an abortion is something I
    myself would never do.  Just goes to show that you can't make
    assumptions about someone's PC'ness
    
    The only groups that I have wanted to silence have been the KKK and
    Nazis.  Is it really so important that we hear their message?  We've
    already heard their message and it s**ks.
    
    Lorna
    

    And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
    
    Several years ago a new man came into my department, and started what
    *I* considered to be sexual harrassment, but I'd like a few other
    opinions.  He would *wink* at me, any chance he got.  In staff
    meetings, chance encounters in the hall, he would catch my eye boldly
    and wink.  At first I thought it might be a twitch, but after it went
    on for weeks I realized he was "coming on" to me!  While I didn't find
    it threatening, he was in no position to threaten my job, I did find it
    repulsive.  But I had difficulty calling him on it, he seemed to not
    know what I was talking about.  There was also a bit too much touching
    going on for my comfort level too.  Nothing overt, just touching my
    hand, shoulder etc.
    
    Now, would this be considered sexual harrassment?  I did complain to my
    boss about it.
    

    RE .40 and you boss did....
    
    
    A hard thing to prove. We get into subtle perceptions here. 
    
    Suppose you (a woman) are very well endowed and some man has a tendency
    to stare (other than the 1st time) at you from a distance. From this
    distance, the actual focal point of his eyes cannot be precisely
    determined. Is this SH (not Saddam)?
    	I use this an example because it is plausable. Now suppose the
    woman is strikingly beautiful and dresses wel
    	Seems to me that in many areas that this is subjective.
    
    Steve

[This note is my personal opinion and interpretation, not Digital policy.]

If the man was asked to stop winking at you and to stop touching you, 
and if he didn't stop, then I think that a good case can be made for
sexual harrassment.  However, remember that a jury has to decide that
the actions can reasonably called sexual harrassment, and that
management did not act appropriately and within a reasonable
timeframe. 

Some actions do not have to be repeated to call for immediate
corrective action ("Sleep with me, if you ever want to get promoted").
 Other actions, like the winking and touching of shoulders, need to be
warned against and repeated, I think. 

							--Gerry

I'm from the South, Tennessee, where the KKK was born.  I don't know any
Klansman, nor do I support their beliefs.  I have seen their leaders interviewed
many times on television, in the South.  Like all groups, some are sincere in
their cause, some aren't so sincere.  Some may join it out of total hate. 
Others join out of a deep respect they have for the philosophy of the leaders. 
I do support their right to share their philosophy.  I support other's right to
except it or reject it.

Now...

We cannot oppress others right to freedom of speech.  Lorna wants to do that by
admitting she wants to silence the KKK.  But... where do we draw the line? If
Lorna was 'king' as she put it, should we accept 'her' philosophy without
question, for what 'she' feels is the good of mankind?

Now, some folks will put down the KKK as it's popular to do so.  It's  *safe* to
run them down in a little notes conference, cuz there probably won't be any
opposition, even from moderators, although they probably ought to stop the
bashing of *any* group, especially one that can't defend their position here. 
Doesn't take much courage to boast your disapproval for them here.  Lorna could
also be accused of not value differences as she openly and freely runs down that
organization, (and probably others?).  Lot's of people read notes, males,
females, all races, members of different functions of society.  And it's very
possible, that some may support the KKK. Yes, even a DECcie can be in the Klan. 
It could be your boss.  Therefore, they could take offense to her statements,
(and do if they're reading them).

Many people will speak out about a group such as the KKK without any real
knowledge of the philosophy of the group they're slinging mud at.   I know the
Klan would debate Lorna on many points, and some would debate her very
successfully, making *her* appear to be a person full of hate.

For example... take Lorna's statement...

        >>>I don't think this compares with the apparent philosophy of the
        KKK that only white people have a right to live in peace and
        prosperity.

Now I've heard KKK members make claims that they are supportive of *all* races
living in peace and prosperity.  They feel that whites are better off living and
working among whites and the same for blacks and other races.  They believe that
the black race should protect it's heritage just as the whites should.  That's
why they're against inter-racial marriages, inter-racial schools, etc.

I'm NOT arguing for them.  I'm just saying that they have their causes that they
*believe* in just as Lorna believes whatever she chooses to.  I think that Steve
is saying they have the legal right to share their opinions.  Whether he or
Lorna or I agree with them is not the point.  Freedom is the point.

Again, I'm not supportive of the Klan, just their rights.  Myself, I'm engaged
to a pretty little Mexican lady.

db

    I agree with Dwight's sentiments as expressed in .43 (except I'm
    not engaged to a Mexican lady...)  As much as I despise the goals
    and actions of the KKK, they have as much right to their opinions
    as I do.
    
    However, the workplace is not "the outside world", and such notions
    as "free speech" apply in only a very limited sense, if at all. 
    Indeed, this is one of the major errors that people make when
    considering whether certain behaviors are appropriate for the
    workplace or not.  (Or appropriate in notes conferences, for that
    matter.)  The office is not a street corner; employees can not
    just ignore or stay away from behavior which they find threatening,
    and the US courts have repeatedly affirmed this notion.
    
    Perhaps we at Digital have the most difficult time understanding this,
    as our employer allows us remarkable freedoms in our expression of
    ideas and communication.  But the laws and corporate policies
    still apply, and if you ignore them, you do so at your own peril.
    
    I suggest for further reading the corporate policies on employee
    behavior and harassment.  VTX ORANGEBOOK will get you started.
    
    				Steve

    re .43, well, I still disagree with you about the KKK having the right
    to freedom of speech, but I wish you happiness with your "pretty little
    Mexican lady."  I hope she shares your views on freedom for racists.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    RE:.40
    
    Yes, thus would have been defined today as sexual harassment.  Also
    this was one of the examples used in the class I took.
    
    Management has several responsibilities, both from a Digital policy
    point of view and a legal point of view.  After you told your
    manager, did the behavior stop?  One of the management 
    responsibilities is to make the offender aware of the impact of
    the actions and to inform the offender that this behavior *will*
    stop.
    
    ...gene
    
    Again, I have my notes from this class at home.  They list several
    management responsibilities.  The actions a manager *must* take
    provide a basis for limiting both Digital's and the managers
    liability. (Yes, in many cases the manager can be personaly 
    held liable!)

    re:  .45
    
    Thank you.... and she does share my view about "FREEDOM."
    

>    re .43, well, I still disagree with you about the KKK having the right
>    to freedom of speech, but I wish you happiness with your "pretty little
>    Mexican lady."  I hope she shares your views on freedom for racists.
    
This seems extremely charged for you, Lorna.  Why?  (And I'd 
understand if you didn't want to go into it online.)

Do you really think that the power of the KKK and Nazis lies in their 
merely speaking?  Or does their power lie on the silence of opposing 
forces?

As a supervisor (and I'm prepared to be wrong on this one, since I'm 
new), I don't see the casual mentioning of attending a KKK meeting at 
work to be a form of harrassment or a violation of anyone else's 
rights.  I can envision contexts in which someone would continually 
mention KKK meetings in an effort to harrass someone, but I can also 
envision a casual, factual mentioning.  

For example, sometimes I casually mention attending gay meetings and
gay events; I am _sure_ that some people have felt offended at the
very existence of such groups and at my "audacity" at mentioning them,
but I don't do it to harrass them. 

Sometimes I think that all the harrassment cases are indicative of 
problems that people have in communicating with each other and with 
respecting each other's differences.  Not everyone is offended by the 
same thing.  If we could just respect where each other is coming from 
and make an attempt to facilitate each other (within reason).

							--Gerry

    I don't know, Gerry.  I certainly wouldn't mind if you mentioned going
    to gay meetings because I don't think there's anything "wrong" with
    being gay.  But, I do think there's something wrong with being a member
    of the KKK or the Nazi party.  I don't really think it's comparable. 
    Gay people, as a group, have not caused any suffering in the world, but
    the KKK and Nazi's have.  I don't know.  Maybe in an earlier life I was
    black and got lynched?  (Sorry.)  All I know is that it infuriates me
    whenever I hear of the KKK holding a public meeting or parade or
    whatever.  I just think that they caused so much harm that they should
    be outlawed.
    
    Lorna
    

but Lorna, there are still people who believe that the Jews killed Christ, and
so deserve any punishment meted out to them, that they don't deserve to live.
There have been times in the past when Christians were seen as horrible sub-
versives out to destroy civilization, so they deserved to be lion food.  There
was a time recently in this country when socialists were denied the right to
work in their professions.  Witches should be burned or pressed to death.
It goes on and on.

No one has argued with you that the KKK is a group of nice guys who just want
to toast marshmallows on halloween.  What I will argue is that our laws 
protect us against tyranny, both of the majority and of the minority, and
against the tyranny of the moment.  If they do not protect us all, then we are
all threatened.

    re .50, well, I think that there are some groups that are so terrible
    that they don't deserve to be protected by our laws and constitution. 
    What if a society were formed of people who like to rape little girls
    and they wanted to be allowed to hold public rallies?  Should their
    freedom of speech be protected, too?  Or is that where the line should
    be drawn?  Maybe I just think the line should be drawn in a different
    place than most people think.  So what?  Don't *I* have the freedom to
    voice my disagreement with existing laws?  Afterall, if I don't, that
    might mean that eventually *your* freedom will be infringed upon.
    
    Lorna
    

    As far as sexual harrassment policies go, my concern is that some
    innocent guys who are just joking around could get reported, and get in
    trouble, by the type of woman who seems to think that there are rapists
    lurking around every corner.  (I know there are rapists lurking around
    some corners, but not every corner.)  Personally, a situation would
    have to get pretty bad before I would report someone for sexual
    harrassment.  I think people should be able to handle most of this type
    of thing themselves.  I've had some questionable comments made to me
    over the years, at work, but I've always managed to laugh it off.
    (Sometimes I think I was actually flattered by comments that some other
    women would consider harrassment.  Pitiful I guess.)
    
    Lorna
    

Lets be choosy with our words, here.  Lorna certainly has the right
to express her feelings of distaste, nobody's questioning that.  And
she *was* careful to say "if she was king", which she clearly isn't.
What she left unsaid was that of course under our constitution, we don't
have a king, everybody knows that.  If she were king, then, a lot would
be different, and free speech for specific organizations Lorna named
would be one of the changes.  OK?

I don't think she needs a primer on what the current laws are.  Sara,
you're right, they protect everybody against a tyranny of the majority.
I wish that principle were embodied even more fiercely, because some
people attack that principle far too often.  I do agree with Lorna that
hategroup propaganda is offensive, but I don't agree with her that it
should therefore be banned; as you say, giving a government that much
power over any group of citizens is far too dangerous.

DougO

    RE .51
    
    As I recall some years back that a group MAMBA (or something like that)
    Man-boy-love association or some such thing did request or actually
    have a parade in some large US city.
    	As you can imagine that there was some uproar.
    
    Steve

> my concern is that some innocent guys who are just joking around could get
> reported

But that is just the point Lorna. It is possible to create an oppressive
environment without meaning to. I'm certain that many of the men that make
sexist or racist comments are "just joking" and would be taken aback, hurt, and
offended if you suggested that their innocent jokes were actually hurtful and
contributing to an environment that was oppressive to work in. Further, if such
innocent joking is the norm, it has a tendency to escalate, and anyone
complaining is viewed as a troublemaker and bad sport. This can be very
demoralizing.

There aren't any easy answers. We have to balance the ability to express
natural friendliness and humor with the possibility that what you and I see as
innocent humor my be threatening and depressing to someone else. All too often
we see the extremes - "no joking allowed" and "wallpaper the garage with
cheesecake photos." Navigating between these extremes is hard, defending
extremist positions is easy.

	-- Charles

>>  re .50, well, I think that there are some groups that are so terrible
>>  that they don't deserve to be protected by our laws and constitution. 
>>  What if a society were formed of people who like to rape little girls
>>  and they wanted to be allowed to hold public rallies?  Should their
>>  freedom of speech be protected, too?  Or is that where the line should
>>  be drawn?  Maybe I just think the line should be drawn in a different
>>  place than most people think.  So what?  Don't *I* have the freedom to
>>  voice my disagreement with existing laws?  Afterall, if I don't, that
>>  might mean that eventually *your* freedom will be infringed upon.

>   As I recall some years back that a group MAMBA (or something like that)
>   Man-boy-love association or some such thing did request or actually
>   have a parade in some large US city.
>   	As you can imagine that there was some uproar.

That would be NAMBLA. I am troubled by them, but I know more about them than
just their name - how about you? I support their right to parade. I support
the right of the KKK to parade. I don't necessarily support either
organization's policies.

	-- Charles

    re .56, et al, as Sally said in When Harry Met Sally, "I just want
    things the way I want'm"  (although I know she was talking about ice
    cream on the side, not politics)
    
    As DougO said, I'm not gonna things the way I want'm....
    
    Lorna
     

    RE .56
    
    My reply was to answer
    
.50>  What if a society were formed of people who like to rape little girls
.50>  and they wanted to be allowed to hold public rallies?  Should their
.50>  freedom of speech be protected, too?  Or is that where the line should
.50>  be drawn?  

.56>That would be NAMBLA. I am troubled by them, but I know more about them than
.56>just their name - how about you? I support their right to parade. I support
.56>the right of the KKK to parade. I don't necessarily support either
.56>organization's policies.

    I made no judgement, just a statement of the facts as I remembered them.
    As I recall NAMBLA (thank you for the name correction) did not look 
    too good from the reports I heard.
    
    Do they have a right to parade? Guess so.
    
    Do they have a right to have sex with a minor (or whatever the law of a
    particular state applies)? About as much as a KKK member has
    to do physical harm to a black.
    
    
    Steve

    Lorna,
    
    I believe you are right, my conscience is more persuasive than cheap
    talk about supposed ethics of KKK rights and I guess most of us think
    that.
    
    Dave 

    -1

    What was she right about?  Suppressing freedom based on her conscience
    or yours?

    
            No Dwight, she was right about following her gut instincts.
    
            Whether a group is hypothetically safe to have rights, given
    	    that they choose to reject a lawful state of existance until it 
    	    suits them, is a mute point.
    
            There is a more fundamental issue... we may seek to be so totally
            fair to them that we lose our sense of common decency, the bit
            inside that tells you what is right and what is wrong.
    
            A slippery slope to personal blandness methinks.
    
            Lorna is not alone in thinking that these people should not be
            protected by our laws or constitution.
    
            That does not mean they should be persecuted or DougO woud be 
    	    right, who would watch the guardians. Would you like to pass the 
    	    tin opener, I detect another can of worms??!
    
            Dave

    ... of course Dave,
    
    you also have to define 'a decent sense of decency' and decide whose
    guts are the speaking the truth.  Your right about the can of worms
    though!
    

    
>            There is a more fundamental issue... we may seek to be so totally
>            fair to them that we lose our sense of common decency, the bit
>            inside that tells you what is right and what is wrong.
    
Are people mistaking the right of someone to speak with our actually 
attending the speech and taking it seriously?  I don't understand how 
allowing KKK members to speak is a loss to our common decency or is 
indicative of the infamous "slippery slope."

I _do_ understand how our attendance at those speeches or how the 
silence-in-response to such speeches can threaten our common decency 
and can be indicative of the slippery slope.

Bostonians are beginning to go nutty about David Duke speaking in 
town.  I don't get it.  Let him speak, but don't forget to let your 
voice be heard.

							--Gerry

    RE: David Duke and others....attending a forum where someone
        "controversial" may be speaking should not automatically be 
        viewed as supporting that person. It may be that an individual
        may wish to get a first-hand account of what that person may
        have to say, not the sweetened-condensed version as reported
        by the often-times biased media outlets.
    
    Paul C.

>Bostonians are beginning to go nutty about David Duke speaking in 
>town.  I don't get it.

 He's not their guy, so he does not have a right to speak. It's so amazingly
simple I can't believe you don't understand. The right to free speech is only
valid when somebody that I want to hear wants to speak and is being denied. 
That nonsense about _everybody_ having the same right to free speech is what
we trot out when our guy is being denied the right to speak. When you're guy
is trying to speak, we don't care if he's being denied...

 Know the attitude?

>>Bostonians are beginning to go nutty about David Duke speaking in 
>>town.  I don't get it.
>
> He's not their guy, so he does not have a right to speak. It's so amazingly
>simple I can't believe you don't understand. The right to free speech is only
>valid when somebody that I want to hear wants to speak and is being denied. 

On one level, I do understand.

On another level, it [trying to prevent Duke from speaking] is so 
obviously wrong and dangerous to freedom of speech.  What I don't 
understand is my fellow liberals being so blind to their hypocrisy.
I want to ask them if liberal fascism is better than conservative 
fascism, because they are both looking very similar to me.

The only answer I can come up with, as to why these liberals are so 
quick to take away someone's freedom of speech, is "fear."  They must 
be extremely frightened and threatened.

10 points for the woman in charge of the local NAACP chapter in 
Boston.  She said that he has the right to speak, and that we might as 
well get the ugliness out in the open and talk about it, instead of 
pretending it isn't there.  I liked her point of view.


							--Gerry

>What I don't 
>understand is my fellow liberals being so blind to their hypocrisy.

 I guess I'm more used to it... :-)

    	I remember a couple years ago here in the Chicago area... The Nazis 
    wanted to March, the ACLU defended their right to do so, and a lot of
    ACLU members resigned.  Seems it was ok to defend the Communist's
    rights to free speech but not Nazi's... another example of left=good,
    right=bad?

> Seems it was ok to defend the Communist's
> rights to free speech but not Nazi's... another example of left=good,
> right=bad?

Perhaps, but note two things: 1) The ACLU (and the general population) has a
significant Jewish membership. Even the strongest intellectual arguments can
pale in the face of such a conflict with such basic personal convictions.
2) The ACLU did in fact defend the rights of the Skokie Nazis. This in spite
of protests within the ACLU, and they were successful. How many organizations
do YOU belong to that will defend the rights of groups they hate, on first
principles?

I personally see it as a sign of the ACLU's strength and unbiased character
myself. It is not the groups that everyone likes that need protection.

	-- Charles
	A card carrying ACLU member

    RE: Lorna's notes
    
                      I would also have to agree that there is a certain
    attraction to relieving these groups (KKK & Nazi's) of their rights.
    I do worry some though because of the 50's scare over the communists.
    If I had to "err", I would rather do so on the side of giving too
    many rights rather than taking away too many.  
    
    
    Dave

    Ultimately, oppressed groups are being impractical when they exercise a
    temporary ability to suppress the offensive speech of their oppressors.
    This is because in the long run they are the more sinned against than
    the sinners, and are likely to have the tactic used with greater force
    against them.
    
    This is quite aside from the abstract question of whether we ought to
    be free to say in public pretty much whatever we want, regardless how
    offensive, as long as it doesn't directly incite violence. Or, if we do
    limit speech, how to decide what is offensive and not allowed.
    
    In any case, this is not easy, and good people have struggled over it
    since the beginning of the Republic. I opt for maximum free speech, as
    the most practical and fairest way to weed out evil and redress wrongs.
    
    Kit