0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
But in 2013, the Departments of Justice and Education greatly broadened the definition of sexual harassment to include verbal conduct that is simply “unwelcome.” Out of fear of federal investigations, universities are now applying that standard—defining unwelcome speech as harassment—not just to sex, but to race, religion, and veteran status as well. Everyone is supposed to rely upon his or her own subjective feelings to decide whether a comment by a professor or a fellow student is unwelcome, and therefore grounds for a harassment claim. Emotional reasoning is now accepted as evidence.
Quote from: sys on August 21, 2015, 01:52:54 PMhttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/that article is offensively long
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Until recently, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights acknowledged that speech must be “objectively offensive” before it could be deemed actionable as sexual harassment—it would have to pass the “reasonable person” test.
Quote from: michigancat on August 21, 2015, 02:15:35 PMQuote from: sys on August 21, 2015, 01:52:54 PMhttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/that article is offensively longi should have warned you.
I would have considered that microaggression
i think it could depend on how the standard is applied - in practice, i'm sure it's subjective. but it could be objective if the "reasonable" person is really the mean or median person and it was based on what %s of people find what stuff offensive.
Trolling the hell out of you, trim
https://twitter.com/CoachFrazierKSU/status/659538753963167744