I sorrow for your friend.

We really need to rethink that whole 19th amendment, Civil Rights Act, and Title IX stuff if y'all can't behave like grown adults with agency.

Hugging and kissing your assistant is a real quick way to lose your employment.

Hard to believe this guy did not know that or that the university had never shown and sexual harassment videos.

Someone this clueless is not someone an employer wants to go to cover for (unless he's high up status wise).

They dodged a bullet w/him.

Simple human interaction with a woman is like tap dancing through a mine field for many men. Sad reminder of the reasons that MGTOW.

The only permissible physical contact with any woman that you meet in any connection with your employment nowadays is a limp handshake. Anything else is like juggling a hand grenade with the pin out.

Back in the 80s, I was posted to a factory in France for a 6-month stint. Being of a European background, I was not unaware of the French workplace tradition of the daily greeting, which was then still in wide use in more-traditional workplaces, and still is TTBOMK. The tradition is as follows

- the first time you meet a coworker each day who is known to you, you must stop, speak to them by name (with honorific and title as appropriate) and shake hands.
- for all female employees, you must kiss them on one or both cheeks (depending on region and local tradition). Men kiss women, women kiss women, men do not kiss men, This is 'the kisses', 'les baises', generally slurred to be pronounced as 'les bees'.
- You must then tarry a moment and exchange at least a perfunctory expression concerning mutual well-being - as brief as 'Ca va?' (How's it going?) is enough.
- This procedure is mandatory - to fail to do so (when everyone knows you know about it) is to cause grave offence. Foreigners and the halt-and-lame generally get a pass, but are expected to get with the program in a few days.

This procedure was amazingly egalitarian - a factory worker would pass the plant manager in the hallway and it's 'Bonjour Chef LeMaitre Bonjour Madame LeFarge (kiss kiss) Ca va? Ca va? Pas trop mal' and on their way.

Even at that time, this procedure was both amazing and intimidating to my American co-workers. Some refused outright to participate, which created some cultural blowback. Some were a little too keen, and had to be reminded that you have to kiss the ugly ones too.

I liked it. It was egalitarian and it reminded everyone that your coworkers are human and deserving of respect every day.

I think that right-minded people who don't align with all this SJW nonsense should institute this procedure among each other here in the US. It would make the heads of the earnest grievance-mongers explode.

llater,

llamas

Someone this clueless is not someone an employer wants to go to cover for (unless he's high up status wise).

Gotta agree here. The guy is Indian. Hugging and kissing coworkers in the workplace is not a cultural Indian thing (that could be forgiven as a cultural misunderstanding), as far as I know. Besides -- he moved to Canada as a child. No huggy-kissy in academic and corporate workplaces in the U.S. (especially in a boss-to-employee situation) is a pretty widely-understood concept.

Plus, while I agree the person being made uncomfortable SHOULD be able to handle it directly, in reality, they take a huge career risk in doing so (especially in a boss-to-subordinate situation). I could totally see myself going straight to HR/my department head (instead of to him) and saying, "Hey, heads up, this guy is touchy-feely, and it's making me super uncomfortable. Maybe someone who isn't just an assistant should tell him that's not cool in the workplace?"

Well said, sofar. What was he thinking? How naive could he have really been?

In theory, she could have simply gently pushed him away or held him at arm's length until he got the message - but that can easily get a subordinate fired or at least never promoted. Maybe not in her case, but we don't know. It's not the same as a purely social situation or even with a peer in the workplace, when it's easy enough to fend off an unwanted hug with a handshake.

Miss Manners said in 1983, regarding an unwanted kiss from an old woman (and on page 247 of her child-rearing book):

"...you could have stuck out a hand for a handshake that would have punched her in the stomach had she tried to get closer."

More here, if you like:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19830603&id=kXMRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k-kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4920,760991&hl=en

Nothing there to indicate Choudry did anything wrong, and little there, other than the email she sent, to indicate the accuser is not a spineless bottom dweller. Napolitano too. I hope this guy ends up owning UCB, but he seems to have too much class or smarts to bring a lawsuit and relive the debacle.

At some point, the standards changed. Once upon a time, before you could resort to calling in HR or similar offices to lodge a complaint, you had to assert yourself.

"Please don't do that again. I'm not comfortable with it."

If they persist, then you're allowed to appeal to a higher authority. But now, it seems, we skip the icky, uncomfortable having to confront the issue ourselves.

But then again, how do you prove you followed this first step? The accused will likely deny it.

In theory, she could have simply gently pushed him away or held him at arm's length until he got the message - but that can easily get a subordinate fired or at least never promoted.

According to the lawsuit, she claims she pulled away, stiffened, turned away to avoid the contact.

This guy is either naive, aggressive, or just really unable to read social signals (maybe not so surprising in academia).

Glad you also appreciate the difficulty of her situation, lenona. Also, Miss Manners is the best when it comes to her advice on unwanted personal contact. I told a pregnant friend about MM's "yelp and jump back in surprise" advice for pregnant women when a stranger touches their stomach, and it was beautiful to see it in action.

I am willing to blame the victim here for his own foolishness. He is paying the price for not knowing his place -- how powerless and vulnerable he is in the context of our current system. How could it not be obvious to him?

We other men will observe, and learn. The lesson? Treat women in the workplace (and most other places, as well) as though they are lepers. As little interaction and close proximity as possible is your best bet for long-term survival. You will miss out on many pleasant exchanges with some lovely people -- but those just aren't worth the risk.

Also, women will benefit from our aversion to them in that they will be spared exposure to all of that toxic masculinity -- male gazes, mansplaining, and all that bad stuff.

I never really understood how pathetically fragile and incapable women must be until I saw the vast extent of the legal and social support needed to protect them from harm -- including from themselves.

"I sorrow for your friend."--Ben

Huh?

The Modern Western Woman: A smiling adult-sized psychopathic child, prone to hysteria not just during certain phases of the moon, simultaneously claiming to be fully independent and autonomous as well as a special ward of the state and permanent victim, whom you hope to never have to interact with in reality.

See also: Crying to the UN if you disagree with her in a comment box.

Amy is absolutely right. Why hire women and risk all kinds of aggravation, especially in California? In my experience, working moms were lesser well aware of their rights, often lazy and cruel as well. "You don't understand because you're not a mom." Translation: don't expect me to do my job, you bitter barren broad.

Jay R:

I am willing to blame the victim here for his own foolishness. He is paying the price for not knowing his place -- how powerless and vulnerable he is in the context of our current system. How could it not be obvious to him?

I have to agree with Jay R that the "victim," in this case (the professor), is an idiot. How could a professor (and a law professor, of all things) think that this kind of conduct of putting his lips on someone, in a professional environment is acceptable?

The only professional that should put his lips on anyone is someone whose job may require them to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Everyone else needs to keep their hands and lips to themselves.

Patrick: the "victim", in this case (the professor), is an idiot. How could a professor (and a law professor, of all things) think that this kind of conduct of putting his lips on someone, in a professional environment is acceptable?

I have to agree with that too. A law professor? At Berkeley? The guy can't be that naive/stupid. Did he do that to all... or any other... of his colleagues, assistants or students? Or just that one? I wonder what made him think that would be OK the first time, let alone once or twice a week. It seems kind of weird to me.

Maybe I'm the weird one, but I'm one who doesn't want a coworker's, supervisor's, patient's, client's or casual acquaintance's arms around me, let alone their mouth on my face, especially at work.

If I had a supervisor who touched me in that way I would say something to them directly, respectfully and privately. Being in a female dominated profession, if it was a female supervisor, I would then also expect some form of retribution.

""I sorrow for your friend."--Ben

Huh?"

This isn't the friend you've mentioned a time or two? If not I amend to 'I sorrow for his situation.'

Which means exactly what I wrote. I feel sadness. He acted foolishly and suffered the consequences of his actions. Like someone playing with a firearm and looking down the barrel. The outcome was predictable but still is regrettable.

Sofar is correct.

You are instructed to go to HR first not speak your mind. I am sure the employee was instructed as such and find it odd that she knew the rules better than a professor.

I would go to HR first and Im not some wilting wallflower.

If you don't go to HR first and instead try to handle it on your own and the inappropriate touched escalates it and fires you, your case is blown.

Ben, I suspect Amy was unaware, as I was, that sorrow is a verb. Thanks for that.

My then-6 year old daughter caught my then-wife and I and asked "Are you sexing?" I was too astonished, and proud of her precocity, to tell her that that conjugation (heh heh) is not allowed.

Odd DaveG. I'm hardly the first. I looked up the word in the dictionary and it is listed as both a noun and a verb. So this is a standard usage. Regional differences and all I guess.

The one I really hate that has become popular with the bobble head set is 'teachable moment'. No, moron! It is an educational moment. I think Obama is the first person I heard use that phrase but it's exploded in usage since then.

My frosty WASP soul recoils in horror at the thought of hugs, let alone kisses, from any non-intimate person.

Anyway, I have no sympathy for this joker, and I don't believe he thought the woman wanted constant physical contact at work with her supervisor.

Definitely go to HR first. Your BOSS can 'screw' you over so easy and in so many ways it's not funny.

There are a lot of situations where your upper management can save your job IF they desire to be fair and if they know ahead of time what's going on. (Been on both sides of that and it's not fun even when you survive.)

At the very least this guy believe his own hero worship. At the very worst he was a predator.

He was a bomb waiting to go off.

"My frosty WASP soul recoils in horror at the thought of hugs"

You're not the only one. I notice that the least trustworthy guys (and it's always guys) I know are the biggest huggers.

Shake my hand, look me in the eye, but keep your "broping" to yourself.

Meh, Amy's proven a million times how much she hates women. She's an abuse apologist.

So this website is actively cultivating the Red Pill/MRA section of the Internet? Amy, is this really what you want to make your career on, molly coddling men who genuinely believe ALL women are evil monsters who should never be allowed to do anything but be barefoot and pregnant (with boy babies, obviously, girl babies should be drowned at birth).

My God. Obviously it's wrong to sexually harass and touch a subordinate. This pervert got what was coming to him. Little whiny teenagers cry babying all over the place about how OMG UNFAIRRRRR it is that their female employees are not their own personal stress balls to play with as they like. What kind of sicko rapists are you?

In Amy's defense:

1. In olden times (and in rural fly-over lands today) women killed the snakes in the cellar, shot the predators in the garden (wabbits, deer, bobcats, snakes), and were aware of the need to be treated properly.

2. In recent olden times women (w/o kids) had earned the right to treated like an adult and made sure they busted whatever balls they needed to maintain that right. (They didn't realize that the men they were negotiating with knew that and kept the real negotiations at the men's club.)

3. It was probably 3am when she posted this w/all of the above in her mind's background. "I am woman and I am strong" floating in her subconscious.

Amy Bob has continued to say things I dont like.

Sure he hasnt said anything illegal or wrong, and I've never broached the subject with him or you before. But the situation has become untenable.

Punish him for doing things I dont like, that arent wrong (except for in how they make me FEEL) that I've never bothered to confront him about, or even tell you about until this very moment.

"They're coming to take me away!"

Did you get the point I was trying to make Bob?

Realistically lujlp although your position is "logical" it simply can not be tolerated in a "boss to employee" relationship.

Hell in today's environment it doesn't even work in a peer-to-peer environment. (See posts about some geek wearing a t-shirt that was slightly sexist in a joking way.)

A UC Berkeley law professor not understanding this should not be teaching/practicing law for a university/company.

Realistically lujlp although your position is "logical" it simply can not be tolerated in a "boss to employee" relationship.

Hell in today's environment it doesn't even work in a peer-to-peer environment.

I'll grant you that assume you'd grant that employees then should never share any news about their personal lives with their bosses or co workers or subordinates.

I generally dont like people touching me, ever. But I deal with it because casual contact is a common human social interaction and my momentary discomfort is less intrusive than a 10 minute rant at everyone who touches me. But I do inform the people I have regular contact with about what my boundaries are.

In this case given the womans own witnesses said she was full of shit, and there is no evidence that she asked him to stop congratulating her on her accomplishments this complaint is kind of crap

Sorry lujlp but he had at least one warning conversational email and even his supporters agreed he hugged/kissed her at least every now and then.

Darwin award contender since he didn't avoid the bitch totally.

Treat women in the workplace (and most other places, as well) as though they are lepers.
-Jay R
__________________________________

Not hugging or kissing an unwilling subordinate counts as treating a woman as a "leper"?

BTW, here's one thing Miss Manners said about workplace harassment (from 1995):

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-07-28/features/9507280006_1_sexual-harassment-special-treatment-union-work-rules

Last paragraphs (in response to a somewhat bitter male reader):

...Of course you don't want to be overheard around the office making tasteless remarks. Of course you should keep your personal problems to yourself during work hours. Of course you should keep your hands to yourself. Of course you shouldn't air opinions anyone at the office might find offensive. And right again--you shouldn't be writing on the men's room walls.

This is known as professionalism. Even when there were all-male workplaces, anyone who went about spouting unpopular opinions, blabbing about his personal life, grabbing people, and writing on the walls was in trouble. Gentlemen were expected to observe professional etiquette.

Miss Manners lives in hope that they will someday learn to extend this courtesy to their female colleagues.

(end)

To Benn and Semi-regular:

I understand your anger, but one interesting fact is that even MRAs don't necessarily like Amy or get that much sympathy from her. For example, she kicked PK off this blog for having serious issues with women (I suspect that person is also known as Polish Knight, whom one can easily find elsewhere).

Also, check this out, from this year:

"Amy Alkon Discusses Campus Rape"

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/02/04/yes-next-question-2/

It's by Dr. Helen Smith, author of "Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters."

There are only a few comments, but some startled me, especially the one from Gawain's Ghost, who is one of the most regular commentators at Dr. Helen's blog:

"Amy Alkon is an idiot...she doesn't speak to what a woman is and should be. All she does is talk in feminist platitudes. Fine, open up and swallow."

What I thought was really interesting was that Dr. Helen didn't say a word in Amy's defense, even though she certainly responds to commentators whenever she pleases.

BTW, GG also said:

"The Suffragettes made the argument for equal rights and won it by amendment in 1917. Ever since then women have had equal rights, equal education, equal opportunity, equal employment, and equal salaries."

I wonder how many elderly people would agree with that. Only those who like to lie, I expect; there were plenty of things women couldn't hope to do in the 1950s - and earlier.