UC Irvine has also contacted the scientist's funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, to say that he is no longer supervising his grants because he refused the training -- a step that has him concerned he may lose his funding altogether.
Alexander McPherson, who has studied protein crystallization technology at the school for 11 years, told The Scientist that he continues to decline partaking of the training on grounds that it impinges upon his individual dignity. "What I'm arguing against is that the state thinks it has the right to impose upon its citizens what is essentially behavioral training," he said.
The training, which is mandated by 2005's AB 1825 and is required of all supervisors in California working for organizations that regularly employ 50 or more employees or regularly, involves two hours of classroom or online instruction on federal and statutory sexual harassment laws and guidelines. The law is meant to protect California institutions from harassment lawsuits. According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, thousands of harassment lawsuits are brought to court every year, with some jury awards reaching $500,000.
Due to McPherson's refusal to take the training, UC Irvine, on November 1, prohibited him from supervising two research scientists in his lab, though he said his research has continued uninterrupted, and he continues to teach an advanced biochemistry course. The university has informed him, however, that he'll have to teach the course without the use of TAs starting in January.
McPherson also said that UC Irvine's vice chancellor for research, Susan Bryant, sent letters at the end of November to NIH and to the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, saying that McPherson was no longer a supervisor on grants from the institutes.
The letter to officials at the Buffalo, New York-based Hauptman-Woodward Institute, which was obtained by The Scientist, read, in part, that McPherson was "no longer available to supervise personnel on this award because he has refused to take the mandatory sexual harassment prevention training required of all supervisory employees by California Law (AB1825) and by University of California policy." Individuals are required to take the training every two years.
Paula Flicker, the NIH program manager who oversees the $1.2 million, four year grant that McPherson began receiving this month, confirmed that the NIH had received a letter from UC Irvine informing the agency of McPherson's non-supervisory status. Flicker told The Scientist that UC Irvine -- with McPherson as PI -- was awarded the grant in September, but that no further determination regarding the letter has yet been made.
But the fact that UC Irvine's research office is contacting his funders about his noncompliance to the state's sexual harassment training has McPherson worried. "To suddenly have [my funding] taken away by this arbitrary action?" he said. "You're damn right I'm concerned about it."
McPherson said that after refusing to take the training about four years ago and generating friction between himself and university administrators, he suggested that he would submit to it if the university would provide him the following official statement:
"The University of California, Irvine acknowledges that the sexual harassment training required of Professor McPherson by the State of California is a requirement for his continued employment at the University, and a condition he will fulfill only under protest. Fulfilling this requirement in no way implies, suggests, or indicates that the University currently has any reason to believe that Professor McPherson has ever sexually harassed any student, or any person under his supervision during his 30 year career with the University of California."
McPherson said that the university refused his request to provide the statement though he asked three times. "They refused to even consider this," he said.
Though Susan Menning, assistant vice chancellor of communications at UC Irvine, declined to comment specifically on McPherson's case as it was a "personnel matter," she did speak in generalities about the school's sexual harassment training program.
"I know UC Irvine has taken [the training] very seriously, and we expect people to comply," she told The Scientist. "This is a state institution, and there are many policies and procedures required of faculty and staff," for example, training involving the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act for people working in the health care field. Since the law was enacted in 2005, explained Menning, there have been two cycles of the biannual training on the UC Irvine campus. "There's only one individual on campus who has not participated in either cycle," she said.
Although Menning said she didn't know what further actions -- beyond relieving them of their supervisory duties -- might be taken against someone who continues to refuse the sexual harassment training, a document released in October yields some clues.
That document -- a letter from Robert Grey, UC's interim provost and executive vice president of academic affairs, to Mary Croughan, chair of UC's academic council -- outlines "possible administrative actions that might be taken to assure full compliance by faculty in the new cycle of sexual harassment training." These include:
"--Removal of supervisory responsibilities over TAs, RAs and Postdocs (already in place at the Irvine campus).
--Delaying implementation of merit increases or promotions, without changing the effective date (i.e., once training is received the merit increase or promotion would be retroactive).
--Reporting the names of non-compliant faculty to Chancellors, EVCs, Deans and Regents.
--Freezing budgets of departments with non-compliant faculty.
--Denying internet access."
Though McPherson does not currently support any graduate students or postdocs in his lab, he said he worries that his refusal to take the sexual harassment training may negatively impact his two senior scientists, who rely on NIH grant funding for their salaries. McPherson maintains that his refusal has little to do with sexual harassment and much to do with individual dignity. He added that he would respond in the same manner if he were asked to sign an oath of loyalty to his university or to take a course in "islamophobia."
"The point is it's an inanity, and they're trying to kill my grant because I won't participate in that inane process," he said. "Does that make sense? Not to me."
McPherson said that he has received both messages of support and negative comments since his case has become public. Out of 200 emails he has gotten regarding his situation, McPherson said that 197 have been supportive. He has posted the text of some of those messages on his lab website. Asked why he doesn't just submit to the training and end the difficulties he's experiencing, McPherson said: "See, that's what they want you to do. They want you to wear yourself out over this. That's what they're counting on, and damn it I won't do it."
McPherson added that he has heard from colleagues that other California universities haven't pursued noncompliance to the sexual harassment training as aggressively.
McPherson said that he recently sent a letter to UC Irvine's executive vice chancellor and provost Michael Gottfredson to ask is he was aware of the actions the research office had taken against him. He said that Gottfredson wrote back saying that indeed he was fully aware of McPherson's situation.
"If this is accepted as a precedent, everyone in the state of California would have to take sexual harassment training or have their NIH grants pulled," McPherson said. "This should strike fear in every scientist out there. They don't realize what they're doing here."
Related stories:
[15 December 2003]
[Comment posted 2008-12-17 20:42:20]
Readers, I ask you this: Should the state be able to force all individuals to take training that would prevent them from committing pedophilia, adultery, hate crimes against African Americans, domestic violence, cruelty to animals? The obvious answer is no!
These kinds of mandates are undemocratic - an antithesis to the very principles a university stands for. They also create artificial suspicion, fear, and ill will within the community because they send the message that no one can be trusted to be left to their own devices. Therefore, we all need government-sponsored programming in order to keep our thoughts in order and keep everyone "safe."
Perhaps Professor MacPherson's students and colleagues now think he can't be trusted because he had the courage to refuse such training. This is unfair and undemocratic; unfortunately, the damage to his reputation has already been done.
Lastly, Professor MacPherson agreed to complete the training if the University would state in writing that the training in no way implied that he had ever been under suspicion of sexual harassment. The University refuse to consider his reasonable proposal.
I am disappointed that so many readers would gladly conform to such shameless and undemocratic dictates!
[Comment posted 2008-12-17 17:00:14]
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 21:07:21]
Still, newspaper articles don't tell all of the story. I would support McPherson if I knew he would put his job on the line to protest the sexual harassment of one of his colleagues, or that he is really fighting the inadequecy and hypocrisy of a sexual harassment "course," and would prefer stronger measures.
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 16:54:24]
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 14:49:56]
I find it surprising (if not scary) how many people say "c'mon, go to it, present a body --you may have your thoughts anywhere else-- and get over it; it's required by law and what can you do about it?". As a person who grew up in a communist country, I know too well that this stance leads exactly to everybody yielding in and accepting whatever is imposed.
The argument that "it's required by law" is at least dumb. The same US had laws segregating whites from colored less than 40 years ago. The fact that Rosa Park said "to hell with this law" and did not yield her place in the bus is a good example of people saying that laws are made by humans and can also be changed.
The problem with the US (ok, you can lash me out, I do NOT live in the US) is not necessarily that there are too many laws, but too many Stellas suing for anything, from the coffee being too hot to the sky not being blue enough.
I had a few US colleagues in my former lab. One of them (female!) once said that it's so nice in Germany, since you don't have to worry whether a gesture which is just friendly might be interpreted (and accordingly punished!) as sexual harassment. Don't get me wrong: there might be instances of real sexual harrasment, and they ought to be exemplarily punished, but most of them are actually not there, they are just nice excuses to try to extort money or positions.
So it's not Prof McPherson who has to "get over it" but the UC. And, true, with the superhigh "damage claims" raised by plaintiffs, the UC has to cover its butt with 10 layers of "trainings". I think it's actually the US judicial system which has to change and maybe a stance like McPherson's might draw attention at how preposterous the situation is!
So, to everyone whining that "what does it matter": Prof. McPherson thinks it matters a hell lot and I think he's damn right!
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 12:24:45]
Did McPherson take defensive driving? Did McPherson take training in waste disposal and radiation safety and policy?
What does that imply? Maybe he didn't complain about that training, because he has been cited for careless driving or because he had a lab accident that required implementation of common sense clean up procedures.
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 11:21:47]
It sounds like Dr. McPherson is fighting for his right to be ignorant of state law or to not have to think about what constitutes 'sexual harassment'. Burying your head in the sand is hardly an admirable or defensible position.
If you think sexual discrimination is a thing of the past, you are flat wrong. I don't care about the flirting or innuendos because human nature doesn't offend me, but when someone tries to hold back my career because of my gender, I take offense. Here is just one example that occurred in 2007 in a top 10 graduate department. As a postdoc I was given a supervisory position on a project that an assistant professor had strong opinions about. He told my supervisor that -as a woman- I was incapable of handling a position of high responsibility, right in front of me. Could I have reported him? Yes. Did I? No, because I retained the position and punishing him for his ignorance was not worth my time or sullying my reputation with his petty nonsense. It is better to tuck that information away about his character and successfully complete the project I was given. Had he taken a sensitivity training course, I'm sure his opinions wouldn't have changed, but perhaps he wouldn't have let it come out of his mouth and I wouldn't have to bite my tongue every time I interact with him.
One last note: I am also of Scottish descent and get on my pedestal about matters of principle regularly, but I save my real battles for truly important issues. Like if I had lost that supervisory position due to his comment, I would have sued him from here to the Supreme Court.
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 10:55:45]
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 10:05:03]
What Prof. McPherson has done is courageous and merits our support of him. The argument that taking such a course would not be formidable and could well be tolerated in terms of its content and the time it involves is in error. During the McCarthy era when grantees were mandated to take loyalty oaths, similar objections by courageous scientists were expressed. I saluted them then (I was too junior to have to do it at that time) and I salute Prof. McPherson now.
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 10:00:37]
I never thought I would spend time defending sexual harassment training, but there are so many paranoid comments here that I had to say something! If I am indeed missing out on some great commie-liberal-pinko conspiracy, please enlighten me.
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 03:57:24]
So, back to my question, is taking this course also required of female employees at US institutions?
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 00:06:45]
In other respects, university administrators who mete out thissort of punishment are akin to the head commissars of the Kremlin's polibureau. The are also responsible for transforming universities from institutions devoted to the search for truth through the conflict of ideas to adult daycare centres where comfort is the only cirerion of what can be thought and said.
Those are not the sort of institituions that should be supported by the taxes of a free society.
[Comment posted 2008-12-12 00:02:43]
It wasn't that big of a deal, and I think I got through it in less than an hour.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 21:25:34]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 20:24:08]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 19:48:44]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 19:39:00]
To what extent does such "training" compromise our fundamental freedoms? To what extent does it compromise the "illimitable freedom of the human mind"?
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 18:27:58]
I support McPherson in his stand - there is an element of "guilty without proof" in the university's attitude, and the law on the books. The law is clearly too blunt an instrument for this type of thing, and the constant kow-towing to insurance companies is actually damaging to all. McPherson should become an example to many, because if others did the same then there might be a sensible discussion about the limits of law, and the corrosive effects of the political correctness lobby in the US and elsewhere. Then just maybe we can start to discuss genuinely effective ways of making the world a little more equal for all.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 16:41:49]
Sexual harassment is not acceptable, yet nor is forcing people to attend such 'classes'. Prosecute/investigate those who may be guilty of such conduct - don't treat everyone as potential offenders by subjecting them to such an undignified timewasting session of politically correct 'education'.
The university should be supporting McPherson for showing the courage to make a stand - the *law* is the ass here.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 16:12:51]
No one is above the law. We may not agree with it, but we must all abide by the law or suffer the consequences. He deserves the negative consequences of his actions.
Ultimately, his act of defiance will cost him vastly more than the time required to undergo the training. His ego would have recovered from the "training" far more quickly than his career will recover from his refusal to cooperate.
Not smart.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 16:08:23]
Today, in the US,I feel that legal issues go beyond common sense and ethics. I feel unsafe to post here even as an "anonymous" poster. The laws in the US are enforced way beyond the boundaries of freedom. The legal system is a shame and will likely lead to a demise in the values of our country. Laws should protect innocent people such as Professor McPherson.
Regarding the harassment survey, there should be more than one rigid box to check at the end of the 2 hour lesson. One option should be to forego the training and simply acknowledge that you understand the section of the law regarding harassment.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 16:08:05]
However, you harassed her, she dished it right back or told you to stick it. She'd have traded the training dollars on an increased salary any day, and the time used in training as time off to see her eight kids whom she supported by herself. Problem here, and one of the posters unintentionally makes this case, is that the training appears as validation. Why not have a strike for higher wages? That makes more sense to me; men, especially in sciences, likely would join in. Shut their labs down and see if you don't get a response.
There is no place for harassment, or wasted time in unnecessary training, if they can show a need in that department or for that individual, make him take the course, if they can't, stick the training and leave him the hell alone. If the department has valid complaints, the training is warranted. If it doesn't, move along. It is harassment he is undergoing for asking if he has any rights in the matter. Basically you're saying he is a bastard and has to be re-educated--regardless of his culpability.
It's a far better business climate for women than it was when mom was working, but it still aint perfect. However, validating feelings through training can create as much ill will and paranoia as it can solve actual crises. I am a male but am posting anonymously for one reason:
I don't want to be sued and harassed for not saying "train always regardless." But don't pretend I don't understand it is not a world tilted in men's favor in the workplace, it still is. That doesn't simplistically make sexual harassment/sensitivity training required.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 15:32:52]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 15:11:40]
Instead, if there is evidence that someone needs training, i.e. multiple complaints, then provide training for that individual only. Otherwise, the requirement for this type of training implies that we are too imature to be responsible for our own behavior. This is quite an insult to a faculty with 30 years of untainted records.
Unfortunately, this erroneous reason is behind almost all compulsory "training" imposed by the institutions. In my institution the latest gimmick is training how to avoid "slipping and falling at work". Two hours offered!
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 14:51:41]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 14:28:19]
you project this response. Many women I know have left science or developed PTSD in order to deal with a system with this kind of attitude. I am on the universities' side with this one - take the training or lose your job.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 14:27:04]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 14:20:41]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 14:10:14]
The whole reason for these courses is to eliminate company/institution responsibility when lawsuits do occur, pure and simple. "Hey, we trained him! It's not our fault!"
While I absolutely feel for Doctor McPherson, the law's the law, and as a nation of laws, we must adhere to them, however stupid. The entire UC Irvine administration seems to have gone way overboard on this political correctness, but this is California, so rants or protests will come to naught. Still, a "course" in sexual harassment can be whatever the institution believes the course should be. Hence, in that environment, he should either try to work with them to come up with that half-page memo and sign it or take a nap through the dumb two-hour course, and be done with it.
If Doctor McPherson is as fervent as he lets on, though, he should then get an answer to the scientific question, "Does such 'training' decrease the number of sexual harassment incidents and associated lawsuits?" With the economy as it is, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of hours of lost productivity over dubious worth. Economics and science can then be ammunition for him to use to work to eliminate a bad law.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 14:06:16]
The Scientist should file a FOIA lawsuit to get all the misconduct complaints, sexual and otherwise against UC. It's rich. So are a lot of other universities. Please do it. Post it online in a database and make it available. The material is astonishing, not just for what happens, but for what the bureaucrats do to bury it - and the student with it.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 14:00:05]
Keep up the fight!
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:56:12]
You can't be serious. Why would he fight this?
Because he does not believe it to be OK.
Just because you don't understand why the training is an insult to his dignity, doesn't mean anything. This is the type of logic that leads to (if we don't understand why it rains, then it must be GOD).
I wish I had this mans conviction, too many times I have wasted my time and taxpayer money sitting through two hours of nonsense (my opinion) just because it was easier to go along, when I felt I should not have given in to the PC bullies.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:46:08]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:37:28]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:35:32]
I commend the professor for his stance, and sincerely hope he does not have his grant funding withdrawn for his unwillingness to comply.
There are too many people speaking of encouraging diversity, yet being intolerant of those who do not share their views - from from sexual harrasment to race to tolerance.
It's about time we stop wasting time on these PC-type trainings (brainwashings) and get back to work.
I would encourage anyone to simply define sexual harassment - in a way that can be agreed upon by everyone. Then we won't need these silly classes.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:32:15]
I do not really understand the?dignity? argument. I see no suggestion that requiring training implies that one has acted improperly. As a member of society who takes resources from that society and its agent (UC Irvine), it seems to me that the society has some rights to provide a level playing field for all its members. If providing a safe working environment is part of that, then requiring us to take certain training does not seem odious, particularly in view of the level of support he(and I) are receiving from the society in which we are embedded.
Of course this is probably more about risk management than anything, but nonetheless I do see they have a duty to ensure that people in supervisory positions understand what is and is not acceptable. I wish Don Quixote McPherson good luck with the windmills and hope his career is not ended over this.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:32:13]
Really, what institutions need is to hire people that are not only competent and experienced in their field but that also know the basics of common sense, reciprocal respect, and good manners. I regret to notice that not too many of my colleagues fall in this category and no courses will bring them back on track.
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:29:10]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:16:56]
[Comment posted 2008-12-11 13:14:57]