Sensitivity course teaches opposition to gay marriage can be harassment

Rate this post

Campus Reform: A required harassment training course at Marquette University tells faculty and graduate assistants that it is better to “chill political speech” than to potentially offend a “protected group,” according to a university faculty member.
Marquette University’s “Unlawful Harassment Prevention” course is required for all faculty and graduate assistants as part of mandatory Title IX training. However, according Associate Political Science Professor John McAdams, “the school protects against anything that could be offensive to anyone.”
People at Marquette are told not to say anything that anyone might object to [despite state laws that suggest otherwise],” McAdams told Campus Reform. “Suppose you tell a joke about a protected group and the person doesn’t mind, you are still not supposed to do that.”
The course, created by Workplace Answers, is funded through the university’s budget, which includes student tuition funds. It has various training modules, approaching 300 slides total, including a section that says a private conversation about opposing gay marriage can constitute harassment.
“The hook of the whole thing is to chill political speech,” McAdams told Campus Reform. “To chill the kinds of speech that ought to be encouraged on a university campus. [Marquette] would rather [resolve to chill speech] than deal with aggrieved people complaining.”
“If a university ought to stand up for anything, it ought to stand up for free discussion of important issues,” he said.
Another module of the test show participants a picture of an office and asks them to identify “eight objects that are not acceptable in a workplace.”
Such objectionable objects include: a risqué photo, a nude sculpture, an “adult” magazine, a jokes and insult book, an anti-war poster, a sexy screensaver, an “over-the-hill” sign, and a “Men Working” sign. Each item is characterized as inappropriate for its “exclusivity” or “discriminatory” subject matter.
The course references the Kentucky human rights agency ruling, which determined the signs “perpetuat[e] a discriminatory work environment and could be deemed unlawful under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.” According to the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, “[s]igns stating ‘Men Working,’ and ‘Flag Men Ahead,’ are identified as violating the commission statutes,” .
Marquette is located in Wisconsin, a state that has no legal objection to “Men Working” signs.  “[It says] don’t say anything that has to do with sex or gender differences, don’t say anything about race, don’t say anything about religion, don’t say anything about age, or anything about veteran status or being in the military,” McAdams told Campus Reform.
McAdams told Campus Reform he didn’t know of anyone who had yet completed the course, but anticipates that everyone will by the end of the semester to avoid being reprimanded by the university.
Marquette is a private Catholic university in Milwaukee, WI. Marquette University did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Campus Reform.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Sensitivity course teaches opposition to gay marriage can be harassment

  1. Look-I know these people think this stuff is REALLY critical to their people-hood,but,good LORD,give us a break! It’s NOT that big a deal! When I was in grade school,years ago,there was a guy who worked in the “Lunch Room”,and he was called a “Lunch Lady”,for the simple reason that MOST who worked there happened to be WOMEN,and rather than make EVERYONE start calling him,and the women Lunch Workers,or call HIM the Lunch MAN,it was easier to just go with the flow,and everybody was okay with it. He really didn’t care,it was no more degrading to him than any other nickname someone might use for him,like being called a swabbie because he mopped floors a lot,and he wasn’t even remotely lady-like;rode a Norton motorcycle to work,coached basketball during the season,had a wife and three kids,could rebuild a carburetor on the kitchen table without the instruction sheet (if the wife didn’t need the table for something else). The point is,why are these punks so dead-set to remove Gender from EVERYTHING? Are THESE the same people who want to take GOD out of our lives just to make their chronic sinfulness more okay? I’m SO done with “Politically Correct” it makes me want to find those who are pushing this nonsense and vomit down their shirts,REPEATEDLY,if they don’t get the message the first time.

  2. This has gone way beyond silly. Folks, you need to get a real life!

  3. Sticks and stones people!! Liberals need to grow the hell up, they are demented. Possibly next they could devise a way of reading minds to see if anyone could possibly be THINKING the outlawed thoughts.

    • “Possibly next they could devise a way of reading minds to see if anyone could possibly be THINKING the outlawed thoughts.”
      They must already have that, judging by all the “hate crime” laws on the books now.
      It must be an impressively powerful and finely tuned instrument too, since it is able to discern with 100% accuracy that mobs of black punks viciously assaulting someone while yelling “kill whitey” have no hate in their minds at all.

  4. Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    “If a university ought to stand up for anything, it ought to stand up for free discussion of important issues,” according to Marquette University Political Science Professor John McAdams.

  5. Why is it that lefties never have the least bit of concern when *I* am offended by their inane ideas and dangerous policies??
    Wait, what…. oh, of course…. yes, I see your point now…. because I believe that no one has the right to force his beliefs upon another, I am a bigot…. because I believe in a higher calling of mankind toward liberty and the right to live free and be left alone, I am a totalitarian nazi…. because I believe that all people should be treated fairly and equally, I am a raaaaacist.
    I got my mind right now, Boss…. [ptoo-ptoo]

  6. Awright, disagreement is now harassment… even if you overheard some stuff in passing from a conversation you weren’t a part of and aren’t entirely sure what was being discussed in it. Just groupthink and conformity being advanced as common courtesy– the way hardcore leftists work.

  7. I am offended that they are offended!

  8. Some people seem to be born to be offended. If they see a face in their morning latte, and it looks like some religious figure (whose image is Not To Be Drawn), they’ll rise up in high dudgeon and complain to the world.

  9. This has become one of my “pet peeves” of the world. I think we should make “Politically Correct” policies in all businesses and government offices (and of course schools and collages) illegal. That’s right. Flat out illegal. It’s one thing to be in a case of harassment. It’s another thing to have an opinion. We, and our places we work in should NEVER be placed in the position of being liable for peoples ideas, beliefs and feelings. That is just plain wrong. We ARE human beings and so we DO have ideas, feelings, and opinions. If we start trying to square off with those concepts in court, we will be trying to push out humanity out the window. And that is wrong.
    I have had it with the “Political Police” crap. We could all do without it just fine.

    • Political Correctness is the mind-killer.
      The term first appeared in one of the two the Russian newspapers in the 1930s. Chairman Mao and the Chinese Communists thought it was such a great idea that they picked it up.
      I keep wondering why the Left is so taken with a term that originated in Communism.
      What it really means is that the State (and its enforcers) has decided that there are certain things that you can say, and others that you cannot.
      And if you can’t speak about something, it’s a lot harder to think about it.

  10. Dr E, I think you will be interested in knowing about this one.
    That Conservative professor (I’d forgotten that there is such a thing) later was fired, but now there is some better news for a change, portending new opportunity for a shift in direction.
    John McAdams:
    The ruling contends that Marquette, a Catholic University, violated its contract with McAdams guaranteeing academic freedom. The court also declared that McAdams should be immediately reinstated. McAdams sued Marquette in 2016 alleging that he lost his job for exercising his freedom of speech. The case has been sent back to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court so that damages, including back pay, can be awarded to McAdams, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
    “The undisputed facts show that the University breached its contract with Dr. McAdams when it suspended him for engaging in activity protected by the contract’s guarantee of academic freedom,” said the opinion written by Justice Daniel Kelly.
    The case could set a new precedent for academic freedom at a time when universities have been widely criticized for suppressing conservative thought and even going so far as to ban “controversial” conservative speakers from campus, for fear that leftist groups might instigate a riot.
    McAdam’s attorney praised the ruling as a victory for free speech.
    As the AP points out, the ruling has been eagerly awaited by conservatives who see universities as liberal havens. Indeed, former Marquette student Zachary Petrizzo penned an open letter earlier this year explaining his decision to leave Marquette because of its “rampant political bias” and “growing separation from the Catholic Church.”
    After one year at the institution, however, I have discovered that Marquette is anything but a Jesuit and Catholic university. There is no acceptance of conservative thoughts, let alone “diversity of thought,” and opinions that I support are frequently shut down in the classrooms.
    I remember vividly a Comparative Politics class during which I mentioned that I found merit to the idea of building a border wall, only to be verbally rebuked by the professor for my opinion.
    At one point, several professors hung Planned Parenthood signs on their office doors, yet the same administrators who are always quick to warn students against “microaggressions” still have not even issued a statement affirming the school’s pro-life values.”

  11. The inset “That is Offensive” (above) says it all. No one can control what another thinks. The most they can do is attempt to control what they express. In addition, who ever said that people have a “right” never to be offended?
    This is especially true if someone engages in socially unacceptable behavior. Indeed, in some cases this is a back door way of gaining “acceptability” for deviant behavior. Personally, I think that anyone who believes they are queer should seek help. I am not at a point in life where I’m prepared to simply accept sin as “preference”. There is little doubt that those who exhibit a full range of deviant behavior would love to see this standard.
    Once we accept that anything anyone finds offensive is somehow “illegal”, we’re doomed. All of this social engineering is not spontaneous. Our destruction is actively being sought.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.