Even Creeps Deserve Civil Liberties
I love them at campus civil liberties-defending theFIRE.org -- protecting the rights of the socially awkward. In this case, a student wrote that he found his Advanced Critical Writing prof hot. An excerpt from a FIRE letter:
Around November 1, 2011, Corlett submitted his writing journal to Pamela Mitzelfeld, his Advanced Critical Writing professor. A course document describes the journal as a "Daybook," stating that "a Daybook should be an ongoing volume that essentially functions as a place for a writer to try out ideas and record impressions and observations." The Daybook should contain "[f]reewriting/brainstorming for essay assignments," "[o]bservation logs: People, places, etc.," and "[c]reative entries of your own."One entry in Corlett's journal, titled "Hot for Teacher," describes his experience of being worried about being distracted in class due to his physical attraction to several of his professors, despite his having been married for 30 years. The essay discusses his (perhaps fictionalized) impressions of his first class with Mitzelfeld: "Kee-rist, I'll never learn a thing. Tall, blond, stacked, skirt, heels, fingernails, smart, articulate, smile. I'm toast but I stay. I'll fuck [up my] Tuesday-Thursday class thing if I drop. I'll search for something unattractive about her. No luck yet."
It continues, "I'm not a maniac for every female although I try to find something attractive about everyone." In a second entry dated September 23 and titled "Hot for Teacher Continued," the Daybook states that the "eternal male question" is whether to prefer a woman like Ginger from the television series Gilligan's Island (comparing her to Mitzelfeld) or one like Mary Ann from the same series (comparing her to a different professor).
FIRE's Adam Kissel wrote this blog item, "Creeping Someone Out Does Not Equal Threats or Intimidation or Harassment":
Last week, FIRE drew attention to a free speech case at Oakland University near Detroit, which wildly overreacted after a student wrote in his writing journal for class that he was attracted to his professors. Student Joseph Corlett appears to have been charged with no crime outside of campus, but Oakland found him guilty of "unlawful individual activities," even though the journal assignment specifically permitted students to write creatively about any topic. Corlett was suspended for three semesters, barred from campus, and required to undergo "sensitivity" counseling. That's right: Far from seeing Corlett as the next Virginia Tech shooter, Oakland explicitly labeled insensitivity as Corlett's problem....Here, I focus on the huge difference between being perceived as creepy and insensitive, on the one hand, and making threats, intimidating, or harassing someone on the other hand. As I said to Inside Higher Ed for an article published this morning, "It is not against the law to be--or to be perceived as--a creep." And as I wrote back in 2007, insensitivity is not a crime.
For one thing, to lose First Amendment protection as "intimidation," the speech in question must be "a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death." That's the Supreme Court's definition of intimidation in Virginia v. Black (2003). As FIRE President Greg Lukianoff wrote a couple of years later, feeling "intimidated" does not equal intimidation.
Indeed, a person's subjective feeling is not the same thing as intimidation under the law. The Supreme Court has made clear that a threat or intimidation requires the speaker to intend to voice "a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals." I have seen nothing that comes at all close to this standard in Corlett's case, and I urge you to read the materials and make your own decision.
...Second, the standard definition of actionable student-on-student harassment ever since the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) has been conduct that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit." By definition, this includes only extreme and usually repetitive behavior, directed at the victim, so serious that it would prevent a reasonable person from receiving his or her education. In FIRE's letter to Oakland University President Gary D. Russi on December 16, 2011, we explained how Corlett's journal is far from such a standard.
It's also important to note that that the Davis case sets a standard for peer-on-peer sexual harassment where there is no power differential between the parties. But Corlett and his professor aren't peers--his professor is the one in the position of power. That makes any harassment rationale for punishing Corlett even more difficult to sustain.
MSNBC video with Corlett:
The professor is, for all intents and purposes, giving an assignment to write a personal diary.
The student was uncensored. There is no reason to punish him for his thoughts. Now if there were a rape fantasy specifically targeting her (or someone else) that is another story.
But if you could convict for personal thoughts, like "She's hot", "I'd like to fuck her", or any similar thoughts about 90% of the male population would be in jail, including Jimmy "I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times." Carter.
Jim P. at February 17, 2012 5:34 AM
"Now if there were a rape fantasy specifically targeting her (or someone else) that is another story."
Not really. Not unless thoughts=crimes.
Regarding this collegiate fiasco overall, this is standard stuff taken to an unstandard conclusion, thanks to the involvement of colleges.
In general, women react with mild revulsion towards expressions of sexuality by men they do not want, and this revulsion is strengthened when that expression is directed towards them. Female reactions like this are natural defense mechanisms, I suppose, given by evolution. Eggs being precious and all, etc.
This revulsion is expressed when gals label men as "creepy" for doing things the exact same behavior the women would find alluring if men they do want did the same thing. The revulsion is innate, so we should not get too worked up about women expressing this revulsion. (And guys who decry it are a bit clueless: it is the GUY they are reacting to, not the BEHAVIOR. If you are called creepy, it is likely because you are trying to attract mates not interested in you.) Getting pissy about women calling certain men creepy is like complaining about men finding fat chicks unattractive. Some thing simply are.
(BTW, guys feel the same thing when that pimply, overweight gal slips them the love note in high school. That same sinking feeling of, "ahhhhhh shit, I wish I didn't have to deal with this..." is there for guys, but guys don't also feel the anxiety regarding safety that women likely have programmed into them.)
So, having wandered about the whole sense of feelings in this situation, let's get to the college's overreaction. There is absolutely zero real harm to the uneasy gal becoming aware that she has this dude's attention, and as such society should do nothing here. Yup, you got it. Nothing.
But...if the attention does not end right there, at that point of expression, without any reciprocation by her, society should provide a solution if the attention is expressed an instant past her request for it to stop. That is what restraining orders are for.
But this instance would not qualify for a restraining order.
What this college is really trying to do--that is, the mistake it is making--is the college is trying to assuage the woman's sense of unease at the expression of desire by a man she does not want. That is a step too far in a free, open society.
Spartee at February 17, 2012 6:27 AM
Gee, I thought this was going to be a California school.
I hope this isn't contagious. I would be restrained from thinking our Goddess is fine (though nutty, I bet), that to be impressive I should behave properly, and that nastiness on my part should be dealt with first by Herself, then by the Knuckles of Gregg before police are called.
Decency is not the sole property of the eunuch. Academia is.
Radwaste at February 17, 2012 6:40 AM
What surprises me is apparently only one person wrote they thought the professor was hot.
Male college students have the (semi deserved) reputation for wanting to bang anything. So in a "free thinking" writing assignment there was no one else who was hot for someone? Even if he was the only guy in the class, still should be some others.
Joe J at February 17, 2012 6:50 AM
It's up to institutions to decide what they think appropriate behavior is for the workplace, or for school.
NicoleK at February 17, 2012 6:50 AM
Spartee wrote: "Getting pissy about women calling certain men creepy is like complaining about men finding fat chicks unattractive. Some thing simply are." And: "What this college is really trying to do--that is, the mistake it is making--is the college is trying to assuage the woman's sense of unease at the expression of desire by a man she does not want. "
Those two statements capture the essence of the problem, but Spartee didn't draw the line between point A and point B. Here is the catch-22 that postmodern feminism has created:
1. Women generally want men to make the first move.
2. If a man approaches a woman who does not want his attention, he's a creep.
3. It is a crime to be a creep.
4. Therefore, a man cannot approach a woman unless he is certain that she finds him attractive.
5. However, in order to find out whether she finds him attractive, he must approach her first.
Women, do you wonder why men these days seem uninteresting and immature? Why they'd rather play video games than ask you out for a date? This is why.
Cousin Dave at February 17, 2012 7:09 AM
It appears to me that the real crime here is White Male Heterosexuality. Every other type of sexuality is celebrated on campus, and it may be a hate crime to imply that it is impolite to do it in public.
If it was a black guy who cast his lust for teacher into a rap, it'd get an A. If it was lesbian lust, it would be read aloud so the whole class could share.
There was a time when male fantasies about their teacher were considered to be entertainment suitable for children.
Warning. Liberals, do not click on the following link.
You may die of the vapours if you watch it.
Hot For Teacher - Van Halen 1984
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4GZFbCqx18
Old Guy at February 17, 2012 7:23 AM
"It's up to institutions to decide what they think appropriate behavior is for the workplace, or for school."
Not if they like to take the king's coin, which colleges certainly do.
Spartee at February 17, 2012 7:33 AM
It's up to institutions to decide what they think appropriate behavior is for the workplace, or for school.
Ok, I'll bite.
What specific behaviour did Corlett engage in that was worthy of such punishment. Take your time, I'll wait.
You may not bring up anything he wrote. That's not behaviour, and it was allegedly encouraged to be "[f]reewriting/brainstorming for essay assignments," "[o]bservation logs: People, places, etc.," and "[c]reative entries of your own."
Let's have a thought experiment: what if this was a gay man, expressing similar notions for a man who was his professor?
Another thought experiment: what if this was a lesbian student expressing her notions for this very same professor?
Now, do you think the punishments would have been the same in the later two cases?
I R A Darth Aggie at February 17, 2012 7:42 AM
Not sure if this article mentions it but the teacher also complained about the student's pro-gun stance. See, he's into girls AND guns--he must be dangerous.
Astra at February 17, 2012 8:16 AM
I wonder what he told his wife when the shit hit the fan.
I also wonder if he did this on purpose. He'd really have to have his head in the sand to be unaware of the possible reaction to his honest expression of his feelings. Surely he realized
the professor in question would be reading his
"daybook".
So maybe he wanted her to know what
he was thinking, or maybe he's really brilliant
and was testing the bounds of free speech, and
is planning his book on the topic right now!
As for the professor in question: What the hell?
Is she that fragile, or is there a lot more to
this than we're hearing about? I read the story
and it didn't indicate that he had done anything
wrong (just clueless). Sounds like she needs a course in in-sensitivity training.
Pricklypear at February 17, 2012 9:00 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/even-creeps-des.html#comment-2984469">comment from PricklypearI wonder what he told his wife when the shit hit the fan.
He finds teach hot. And he wrote about it in a writing exercise that was supposed to be the old "dump your thoughts on the page." A woman who is conscious and not in some sort of weird sort of denial knows that her man finds other women attractive, and which women he does. If he's not running off with them, if only his eyeballs and his mind are wandering, and he's down home fixing the plumbing on Saturday, do you really get to complain? Thought crimes, no thank you.
Amy Alkon
at February 17, 2012 9:07 AM
Hmmm, maybe I'm missing something, but what's creepy? The only commentary I could see is that she may feel uncomfortable knowing the exact thoughts that this guy is having about her, because he wrote it and turned it in to her. If she's hot, doesn't she have an inkling of knowledge that other guys have the same feelings or thoughts?
I also don't understand how a private journal for a class became national news? How would any student ever feel comfortable writing true feelings (on paper as opposed to online) if it could potentially be broadcast nationwide with their name attached? We are getting in strange territory here. And that's creepy.
NikkiG at February 17, 2012 9:09 AM
Not really. Not unless thoughts=crimes.
Yes, you can have thoughts, but when you share your thoughts, they become subject to some scrutiny. If he'd written about a rape fantasy involving her, she would have had a case for his journal being threatening. It wouldn't be the thoughts themselves that were threatening but the act of writing them down and sharing them. She did overreact in this case, though.
MonicaP at February 17, 2012 9:43 AM
"Thought crimes, no thank you."
I wasn't talking about his thoughts or what he wrote. I meant all the broohaha afterward. I hope he gave her a heads-up. I know I would want my husband to tell me if he was having a problem at school.
I don't think he did anything wrong, but I also think it would have been an interesting conversation. "Um, Honey? You know that writing class? Well..."
Pricklypear at February 17, 2012 9:55 AM
"If he'd written about a rape fantasy involving her, she would have had a case for his journal being threatening."
What kind of case? A case you toss out to friends over drinks that the dude is creepy? Or some case more formal.
Because on the latter point, I think you are wrong.
Spartee at February 17, 2012 11:14 AM
This woman completely over reacted. If she doesn't want men to look at her, she either gain weight or wear a burka. She could have handled this easily by placing a note on the page in question stating, "Thanks for the compliment, but its never gonna happen!" End of story. If she wasn't prepared to learn about the inner lives of her students, she shouldn't have asked them to commit their thoughts to paper.
Cousin Dave-
I usually agree with you about many things, but I think this "If I ask a woman out, I might get arrested, lose my job and home" is a bit of an over reach. Much like parents who think their child will get snatched out of their driveway, I think you are worried about something that is unlikely happen to 98 percent of men. Women are really not your enemies. There are lots of us who are nice, sane, and stable.
sheepmommy at February 17, 2012 11:33 AM
Did you all read the full article and his actual journal entry? The teacher told him more than once to stop, and his journal was obsessive and creepy. Amy, I think you've recommended Gift of Fear before? I've read Gift of Fear and this guy's journal set off all sorts of red flags to me. I'm surprised people are defending him.
Sam at February 17, 2012 12:31 PM
Sure the guy's a creep. He's been married for 30 years and he thinks it's appropriate to turn in a diary to a teacher detailing what he finds hot about her.
Sure the instructor's a moron. She created a bad lesson plan that included asking for unedited personal diaries instead of a journal of thoughts about, say, personal professional challenges and development addressed through their university experience.
It's a wash until the worst of all bureaucrats, a school administrator, is brought in to the mix. Now it's a tar baby, a PR nightmare, a lot of noise and heat about nothing.
What's my point? Not sure. Time for coffee.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 17, 2012 12:42 PM
I feel sorry for his wife. She must be so embarrassed.
I know my sweety probably sees women - maybe at work, or just anywhere in public - that he thinks are hot. But I don't want to know about it! I don't want him writing down the details, or making it public. I don't want the whole world to know that he fantasizes about anybody but me.
Pirate Jo at February 17, 2012 12:54 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/even-creeps-des.html#comment-2985085">comment from SamI'm surprised people are defending him.
What I'm defending are his civil liberties. Even creeps deserve them.
PS People write creepy things to me all the time. Once recent creep asked to drink my bathwater.
Amy Alkon
at February 17, 2012 1:53 PM
I think one time emails from people who you will never see in person are different than this - wouldn't you be more disturbed if someone who frequented the same cafe as you sent you multiple emails asking to drink your bathwater?
My sister was stalked by an ex-boyfriend. He wrote her obsessive letters like this. That certainly colors my response but I do think people are awfully quick to dismiss behaviors like this.
Sam at February 17, 2012 2:48 PM
Women are really not your enemies. There are lots of us who are nice, sane, and stable.
Well, Sheepmommy, that's nice to hear from you, but you'd be surprised.
I admit that this piece really strikes a nerve with me. Why? Because I lost my last job (at a California state mental hospital) due to a sexual harassment complaint by a superior, an attractive female psychologist.
Her complaint about me? I was staring at her during treatment meetings. I wasn't touching her. I wasn't pestering her for dates. I never went through her stuff. I made a point of always being respectful and leaving her lots of space, as she was a psychologist and I was a clerical worker.
Nevertheless, for my crime, I got dragged through the CA state sexual harassment ringer. In the harassment report, she also branded me "socially incompetent" for my trouble.
Then, one day *nine months later* when I decided to go for an exercise walk around my new work location, while on my break, she happened to drive past me. She then immediately wrote to the hospital officer in charge of her claim against me, and said I was stalking her. Two weeks later, I was out of a job.
What did I learn from the experience? I learned the hard way that I'm not allowed to find any woman at work interesting, attractive or alluring. I'm not allowed to get to know them. I'm not allowed to have or be 'work friends' with them. I'm not allowed to talk to them. I'm not allowed to notice what kind of cars they drive. I'm not allowed to have interests of my own. I'm not allowed to exercise. I'm not allowed to express myself in any way, shape, or form in the workplace, because it might threaten any female co-worker, no matter how far above me she is. This is going to be exactly the ideal I plan to strive for the next time I get a good job that I want to keep.
So Sheepmommy, it's nice to hear how sane you are. But I can't afford anymore to take the risk that the women I meet are anything like you.
(Sorry to sound bitter...)
qdpsteve at February 17, 2012 3:51 PM
If the man was persistent, there is a problem.
If not - no problem. I think it may be somewhat. Normal to get a crush on your college profs as an older student. Either that or I am the freak of freaks. When I went back to school I developed crushes on about half of my professors - even a woman. I always thought about it is projecting - like falling inove with your therapist.
I was learning new things and kind of starting a new life. I hadn't stretched my mind in years. In school, I was also shocked by my success. I guess that I was getting the mental stimulation that I needed and that carried over into other areas of my life.
At the time, I would have been embarrassed about having my profs know. It did make me listen extra intently though. Lol
Jen at February 17, 2012 4:00 PM
"Warning. Liberals, do not click on the following link. You may die of the vapours if you watch it."
Yeah, because when I think "Van Halen", I think "political and social conservatives".
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 17, 2012 4:08 PM
Actually expecting a reasoned response to this is a waste of time:
Beautiful thought, but between the EEOC, the Title X, and all the rest of the crap that has been pushed, what is acceptable?
What if I, and the board of directors, run a Christian college and didn't want to support abortion and contraceptive treatments on our insurance plans?
What about a Muslim college (I know oxymoron) that wouldn't hire female professors? What about a college run by the KKK?
What you are supporting can either be individual liberty or socialism.
If you support an individual's liberty, and 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, the teacher and college should be and respect the individual student's right to express, semi-privately, his or her thoughts. That would support individual liberty.
If you support the right of the teacher and college to limit the students's right to express, semi-privately, his or her thoughts because they are displeasing then you are encouraging socialism. If you are receiving the governments dime then you can't discriminate.
Jim P. at February 17, 2012 7:27 PM
"Yeah, because when I think "Van Halen", I think "political and social conservatives"."
Did you watch the video or just use your assumptions of Van Halen's political alignment to guide your comment.
I didn't post it for its Conservative message. I posted it because it is apropos to the topic and it shows that Hollywood Liberals used to be far more tolerant of male sexuality.
I am sure the display of sexuality in the video will give a few Social Conservatives the vapours as well.
Screw the Puritans in both camps. Sex is natural, normal, and healthy and it is normal for men to have sexual thoughts when they see and attractive young woman. I am sick of male hetero-sexuality being treated as aberrant.
Old Guy at February 17, 2012 8:31 PM
I lost my last job (at a California state mental hospital) due to a sexual harassment complaint
Sad tale. We have flushed the judicial guarantees that have preserved our freedom since the founding down the toilet, so women won't ever have to feel uncomfortable.
Evidence, intent, harm, trial by jury, not needed, just a woman's word, because we all know they'd never lie about something like that.
Rule of law is all that separates us from the law of the jungle. We are headed for Hell on Earth. The end isn't going to be pretty.
Old Guy at February 17, 2012 8:37 PM
"Did you watch the video or just use your assumptions of Van Halen's political alignment to guide your comment."
No more than you assumed that Liberals would faint at the sign of hot broads and rampant rock 'n roll horniness. As to my assumptions, yes, that's right, I assumed that there are more liberal rock stars than conservative, and particularly, more TALENTED liberal rock stars than conservative.
Unless you want to argue that Ted Nugent somehow equals the likes of Edward Van Halen or Frank Zappa?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 17, 2012 11:23 PM
"No more than you assumed that Liberals would faint at the sign of hot broads and rampant rock 'n roll horniness."
Satire aside, apparently you missed that the professed "liberal" establishment is the one causing harm here.
Not to mention your confusion between artistic talent and a knowledge of and desire to see the Constitution observed.
Radwaste at February 18, 2012 7:01 AM
No more than you assumed that Liberals would faint at the sign of hot broads and rampant rock 'n roll horniness.
They wouldn't have a quarter century ago when this video was made. These days it is mandatory, or the Feminist Thought Police will attack them for being Pro Rape.
I know irony is lost on Zealots, but I was trying to point out how far Baby Boom Democrats have moved from their Rock & Roll youth to their Feminist driven Puritanism of today.
Unless you want to argue that Ted Nugent somehow equals the likes of Edward Van Halen or Frank Zappa?
Why should I argue about personal taste? As a Libertarian I believe you should have the freedom to like what you like and enjoy what you enjoy. I have learned to ignore artists political views as much as they allow me to and enjoy the art for what it is. I have never equated ability at playing guitar or making movies with being a source of valuable political advice. I guess that is why I could never be a Democrat.
Old Guy at February 18, 2012 11:44 AM
IRA, if a gay guy wrote a paper (journal, essay, whatever) about how how attractive their professor was, yeah, it would be inappropriate. It is unprofessional behavior.
Do I think they overreacted? Sure. But the behavior is unprofessional and they wouldn't be doing that guy any favors by pretending otherwise.
NicoleK at February 19, 2012 11:37 AM
"Women are really not your enemies. There are lots of us who are nice, sane, and stable. "
True, but it only takes one unstable one in a group to ruin it for everyone. I've had two experiences like qdpsteve's:
(1) I once made the mistake of having a freewheeling private conversation with a (male) co-worker, late in the afternoon, behind a closed and locked door. A female co-worker put a drinking glass to the door so she could eavesdrop; she didn't like something she heard, and that was that. I was suspended for a week, and when I returned, I was cashiered. I was stripped of most of my responsibilities, and never received another promotion or raise. I left two years later.
(2) I was laid off last year under circumstances that I'm still learning about, but it went something like this: One of my female co-workers decided to have an affair with our mutual supervisor. Apparently their affair quickly evolved/devolved into a control contest, and her means of controlling the relationship was to make him jealous. So she told him a bunch of stuff about her and me that was not even slightly true. That made him insanely jealous of me. So he arranged (and she helped) to have me trashed on my next evaluation; I wound up ranked in the bottom 10% of my peer group (I had been always been ranked in the top 25% for the prior ten years), and when layoffs hit, I was one of the first to be shown the door. And said supervisor interfered with me getting my severance; he turned in a report saying that I had been fired for cause, and a year later I'm still fighting it.
Cousin Dave at February 19, 2012 1:02 PM
If you read the journal, you would know that the teacher did ask the man to stop. He didn't and went on to suggest he'd like to have sex with her, but didn't want to have sex with his sister-in-law or history teacher.
Of deeper concern is that a 56-year-old man still hasn't learned that when taking a writing class, you write what the teacher wants to read.
Joe at February 20, 2012 7:35 AM
Leave a comment