First of all, I’d like to thank Myra Gibson, who gave a good presentation about Sexual Harassment. I see why we’ve used her in the past, and appreciated her experienced presentation and question responses.
The information presented on sexual harassment and consensual relationships was not necessarily new. I think I’ve probably browsed the policies before, but after the meeting really sat down and read through them (as we did not really cover them in the meeting – but were suggested to be familiar with them). Anyway, after reading them through – still no surprises.
Some interesting points were brought up at the meeting (as you can probably tell by now this won’t be a technical blog with coding style or newly released programs).
An example was given of a non-WOU office where a hug had incited someone to complain as it made them uncomfortable. Apparently the manager who was complained to, made a non-hugging rule (which inspired a comment about Hug-Police … very funny) for the office. This in turn, created a lot of distress and discord among the office workers who had no problem with these two people (or most anyone probably) hugging in the office.
So the original complainant complained because they felt it made the office environment uncomfortable… So what about the discomfort created by that one person for the X number of others in the office who now felt like they had to walk on eggshells out of fear that someone might feel uncomfortable about … ANYthing – and complain.
Basically the point of this blog is to ask the question “where is the line, eh?” At what point do we decide that someone could basically be offended by … well anything … and that our culture has run away with itself. Should the group of people who were offended at the first person who was offended by the hug have complained – and the manager made a no-getting-offended rule? How far do we take this?
As if I was done…
The other major point that was addressed was sexual harassment and it’s relationship to a person’s Freedom of Speech. I guess I’m not comfortable with a policy that has the power to negate the first amendment. Please understand … I’m not supporting sexual harassment or use of the english language that supports sexual harassment. But I am concerned about progessiveness. If something like sexual harassment can extinguish the power of the first amendment, what will come next? Speaking about politics? religion? pets? family? Where will we draw the line? And by the time we do, will we still be in a healthy place?
Again, I’m not contradicting anything shared, taught, or discussed at the aforementioned meeting. I’m just asking (not answering) questions that I feel are relevant…
Someone is probably asking now “How is this blog work related”? Easy, everyone is supposed to go the training at some point. So technically that makes it part of my job – and therefore a valid point of interest for blogging. I think it’s important to be able to discuss issues like this, lest we all become well-trained automata.
We must continue to think. It might make some people uncomfortable, might even offend someone (heaven forbid) – but it’s healthy. Like setting a broken bone – gotta go through the pain of re-aligning the break before it can heal. So let us not shy away from the hard stuff.