wmw999 2,589 #1 July 19, 2010 The more I think about it, the more I see these as being expressions of abuse of power -- i.e. if expressed by someone in a position of power over someone else (or in response to a difference-in-power situation), then it's a problem. If expressed among equals, then it isn't. I might not like it, but there are lots of things I don't like out there. But if John Doe wants to hit on his friends' wives and talk racist smack among his buddies, fine. If he wants to tell them to his subordinates, or hit on his subordinates, not so fine. And if his subordinates do it because they think it will curry favor with him, also not so fine. Thoughts? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #2 July 19, 2010 QuoteThe more I think about it, the more I see these as being expressions of abuse of power -- i.e. if expressed by someone in a position of power over someone else (or in response to a difference-in-power situation), then it's a problem. If expressed among equals, then it isn't. I might not like it, but there are lots of things I don't like out there. But if John Doe wants to hit on his friends' wives and talk racist smack among his buddies, fine. If he wants to tell them to his subordinates, or hit on his subordinates, not so fine. And if his subordinates do it because they think it will curry favor with him, also not so fine. Thoughts? Wendy P. Can you commute this to lobbyists then?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #3 July 19, 2010 >Can you commute this to lobbyists then? Nope. Trying to talk someone into something is neither hate speech nor sexual harassment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #4 July 19, 2010 QuoteThe more I think about it, the more I see these as being expressions of abuse of power -- i.e. if expressed by someone in a position of power over someone else (or in response to a difference-in-power situation), then it's a problem. If expressed among equals, then it isn't. I might not like it, but there are lots of things I don't like out there. But if John Doe wants to hit on his friends' wives and talk racist smack among his buddies, fine. If he wants to tell them to his subordinates, or hit on his subordinates, not so fine. And if his subordinates do it because they think it will curry favor with him, also not so fine. Thoughts? Wendy P. Fair play but what if the student just falls for their lecturer who also falls for the student? Is that OK? I know of at least one incident where the Lecturer (age around 30ish) ended up having a relationship with his Student (age around 18) and they ended up getting married and having twins. Should they have just said no?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #5 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe more I think about it, the more I see these as being expressions of abuse of power -- i.e. if expressed by someone in a position of power over someone else (or in response to a difference-in-power situation), then it's a problem. If expressed among equals, then it isn't. I might not like it, but there are lots of things I don't like out there. But if John Doe wants to hit on his friends' wives and talk racist smack among his buddies, fine. If he wants to tell them to his subordinates, or hit on his subordinates, not so fine. And if his subordinates do it because they think it will curry favor with him, also not so fine. Thoughts? Wendy P. Fair play but what if the student just falls for their lecturer who also falls for the student? Is that OK? I know of at least one incident where the Lecturer (age around 30ish) ended up having a relationship with his Student (age around 18) and they ended up getting married and having twins. Should they have just said no? According to Yale University's formal policy (which I quoted in the "Professors and sex w/coeds" thread) - and my own personal opinion - Yes, they should have said no. Or at least, the lecturer should have said no. I agree with a policy (like Yale's, for example) that college professors/ lecturers/ administrators, etc. should be frankly forbidden to become romantically involved with any undergraduates, period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #6 July 19, 2010 I'd have to agree, too. There's nothing saying they can't start dating after the student is no longer a student, or the professor no longer a professor. Studenthood, particularly, is generally not permanent.If we tell new jumpers to wait until 200 jumps to start camera or wingsuit (sorry, John -- just had to throw that in there) it's not all that onerous for the happy couple to wait until one or the other's status has changed. And, of course, there are probably always exceptional circumstances. A wife or husband who goes back to the school their spouse teaches at one would certainly be one. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #7 July 19, 2010 QuoteThe more I think about it, the more I see these as being expressions of abuse of power -- i.e. if expressed by someone in a position of power over someone else (or in response to a difference-in-power situation), then it's a problem. If expressed among equals, then it isn't. I don't agree. Even among peers in the workplace, there is no reason for it nor is it constructive in any way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #8 July 19, 2010 Quote Quote The more I think about it, the more I see these as being expressions of abuse of power -- i.e. if expressed by someone in a position of power over someone else (or in response to a difference-in-power situation), then it's a problem. If expressed among equals, then it isn't. I don't agree. Even among peers in the workplace, there is no reason for it nor is it constructive in any way. Agreed. In a professional environment, all should keep it as such. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 July 19, 2010 Quote Agreed. In a professional environment, all should keep it as such. Some define 'professionalism' as: -getting that certification document -dressing in similar suits -talking to each other in prim old fashioned manners -playing the politics -telling people what they want to hear, rather than the truth -following the rules, even bad ones -putting in 12 hour days even if you only have 9 hours of work that day what if you define 'professionalism' as -does what it takes to get the job done -no games -direct and honest and open communication I personally don't appreciate vulgar discussions at my engineering company. I will temper or elevate my language to match the comfort zone of those around me. But I'm not sure if it's more or less professional to force others to do the same. I don't much care, but I do care about results. So if someone is 'over the top' or 'out of line' that it affects the overall productivity of the work? Then that's a good place to draw the line. That includes bad behavior, but it also include hypersensitivity, includes playing games too much also. Edit: clarification - note was "no reason for it nor is it constructive in any way" I'd say that is more dependent on the crowd you are in with rather than a blanket statement. Despite that I'd wish it would be an absolute. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #10 July 19, 2010 Quote According to Yale University's formal policy (which I quoted in the "Professors and sex w/coeds" thread) - and my own personal opinion - Yes, they should have said no. Or at least, the lecturer should have said no. I agree with a policy (like Yale's, for example) that college professors/ lecturers/ administrators, etc. should be frankly forbidden to become romantically involved with any undergraduates, period. Probably one of the reasons such a policy works for Yale is that almost all of their undergraduates are traditionally aged. That is not the case everywhere. Things change when professors and students are also far more likely to be the same age. Still think no instructor should be involved w/ a student that they have responsibility for, just that a blanket prohibition on all undergraduates may not make as much sense elsewhere."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #11 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuote According to Yale University's formal policy (which I quoted in the "Professors and sex w/coeds" thread) - and my own personal opinion - Yes, they should have said no. Or at least, the lecturer should have said no. I agree with a policy (like Yale's, for example) that college professors/ lecturers/ administrators, etc. should be frankly forbidden to become romantically involved with any undergraduates, period. Probably one of the reasons such a policy works for Yale is that almost all of their undergraduates are traditionally aged. That is not the case everywhere. Things change when professors and students are also far more likely to be the same age. Still think no instructor should be involved w/ a student that they have responsibility for, just that a blanket prohibition on all undergraduates may not make as much sense elsewhere. That occurred to me, too; but I wanted to keep it simple, so I didn't get into it. I do think that undergrads of any age, highly motivated to get that degree to advance the career, are subject to being taken advantage of by professors. But I might be willing to qualify the zero-tolerance rule to apply to undergrads below a certain age (say, 26?), with a more traditional "no abuse, but fully mutual consent is OK" rule kicking in above a certain age. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #12 July 19, 2010 I define professional environment as any place or interactions where one is being paid for their services. Do I need to know to do my job that my coworker practices a certain religion? Does he/she need to know similar thngs about me? No. Pleasantries are nice, but not necessary. Quote -getting that certification document -dressing in similar suits -talking to each other in prim old fashioned manners -playing the politics -telling people what they want to hear, rather than the truth -following the rules, even bad ones -putting in 12 hour days even if you only have 9 hours of work that day To me not all those are professionalism, most are gamesmanship. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 July 19, 2010 I'm in agreement - professional is meeting the contract. But I do think pleasantries are necessary to establish functional working relationships and respect. This makes the goal of getting the job done more effective. I agree with the gamesmanship comment. Unfortunately, if you ask most people about what defines professionalism, you'll get dress code about as much as any other item. You ask a technical person, and you'll get the cert doc comment. The rest is all Miss Manners stuff.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #14 July 19, 2010 QuoteBut I do think pleasantries are necessary to establish functional working relationships and respect. This makes the goal of getting the job done more effective. I agree. However, sex and racial discussions should not be part of pleasantries. It is just too easy to offend or have a misunderstanding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteBut I do think pleasantries are necessary to establish functional working relationships and respect. This makes the goal of getting the job done more effective. I agree. However, sex and racial discussions should not be part of pleasantries. It is just too easy to offend or have a misunderstanding. In a fortune 500 company or small business, sure If I run a tandem and AFF DZ, sure If I own and operate a biker bar - maybe not so clear cut If I'm an undercover cop in a tough part of town - maybe not so clear cut If I'm a gangster - maybe not so clear cut Vice President of the USA - maybe not so clear cut ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #16 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe more I think about it, the more I see these as being expressions of abuse of power -- i.e. if expressed by someone in a position of power over someone else (or in response to a difference-in-power situation), then it's a problem. If expressed among equals, then it isn't. I might not like it, but there are lots of things I don't like out there. But if John Doe wants to hit on his friends' wives and talk racist smack among his buddies, fine. If he wants to tell them to his subordinates, or hit on his subordinates, not so fine. And if his subordinates do it because they think it will curry favor with him, also not so fine. Thoughts? Wendy P. Fair play but what if the student just falls for their lecturer who also falls for the student? Is that OK? I know of at least one incident where the Lecturer (age around 30ish) ended up having a relationship with his Student (age around 18) and they ended up getting married and having twins. Should they have just said no? According to Yale University's formal policy (which I quoted in the "Professors and sex w/coeds" thread) - and my own personal opinion - Yes, they should have said no. Or at least, the lecturer should have said no. I agree with a policy (like Yale's, for example) that college professors/ lecturers/ administrators, etc. should be frankly forbidden to become romantically involved with any undergraduates, period. Actually it would have been better in the end as he cheated on her with another student several years later and they ended up divorced. The guy was a moral coward and a rat. I agree with the Yale policy and being a occasional University Lecturer would not have got into such a situation. What about post grads? (Personally I'm not in favour of that scenario either)When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
