Say Anything Sexual That Offends Anyone on Campus, You Must Be Punished or School Can Lose Federal Funding

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is alarmed today at a letter from the Departments of Justice and Education to the University of Montana. 

Here are some of the reasons why, from a FIRE press release:

In a letter sent yesterday to the University of Montana that explicitly states that it is intended as "a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country," the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser while ignoring the First Amendment. The mandate applies to every college receiving federal funding—virtually every American institution of higher education nationwide, public or private. 

The letter states that "sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as 'any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'" including "verbal conduct" (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an "objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation"—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished....

Among the forms of expression now punishable on America's campuses by order of the federal government are: 

  • Any expression related to sexual topics that offends any person. This leaves a wide range of expressive activity—a campus performance of "The Vagina Monologues," a presentation on safe sex practices, a debate about sexual morality, a discussion of gay marriage, or a classroom lecture on Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita—subject to discipline.
  • Any sexually themed joke overheard by any person who finds that joke offensive for any reason.
  • Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

There is likely no student on any campus anywhere who is not guilty of at least one of these "offenses." Any attempt to enforce this rule evenhandedly and comprehensively will be impossible.

"The federal government has put colleges and universities in an impossible position with this mandate," said [FIRE president Greg] Lukianoff. "With this unwise and unconstitutional decision, the DOJ and DOE have doomed American campuses to years of confusion and expensive lawsuits, while students' fundamental rights twist in the wind."

The full letter, for them that like to read and weep. Universities that do not attempt to prohibit those novel definitions of "sexual harassment" are liable to losing federal funds under Title IX and Title IV which "prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex" since sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination under those acts, says the departments.

Yet another reason to get government money out of education, if more were needed.

Reason TV interview's FIRE's Lukianoff:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The federal government has put colleges and universities in an impossible position with this mandate...

    University administrators eat this shit up. Although, they usually do it for kicks if not job justification. Having their funding threatened might be less fun for them.

    Also, there's a Departments of Justice and Education? Or the bureaucrats from those two entities put their brain together and came up with this scheme?

  • Sidd Finch||

    Also, there's a Departments of Justice and Education?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WARNING: NUMBER NON AGREEMENT FOR JOKE EFFECT.

    I read the letter, which has both vile departments represented on the letterhead, before posting my comment but figured fuck it, who would be so ignorant as to call me on it. AND THERE YOU ARE. It just seemed odd to me to have the two team up.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Now that you've explained the joke, it's totally hilarious!

  • Almanian!||

    Three fuckin' cunt bitch pussy faggot cocksucking assfuck whore fap monsters walk into a bar....

    **BANHAMMER!!!**

  • RyanXXX||

    why'd you leave out any ethnic slurs? You could have fit a NIGGER in there somewhere

  • Almanian!||

    hello - this is about SEXUAL harassment, Sambo.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    hunchback prick. give some hump.....Benghazi Abu Ghraib Gitmo BushBama rape kit,

  • RyanXXX||

    Women and omega males who never got laid in college are now pushing rules to prevent anyone else from getting laid

  • General Butt Naked||

    Omega Man gets more ass than a bicycle seat, sucka.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Hypothetically speaking, how would a man go about fulfilling his dream of becoming an Upsilon Male?

  • Doctor Whom||

    The people who think that this crackdown on harassment is a good idea must be epsilon-minuses.

  • Sidd Finch||

    The future is now.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Do not send your kid to college. Buy him/her a backhoe or a fleet of lawnmowers.

  • Almanian!||

    lulz

    Mrs. Almanian and I made a breakthrough with HS Senior Son last night. He's now looking at a couple yrs of comm college at least before heading off to mom and dad's expensive, private Alma Mater.

    I talked to him about apprentice programs, but he wasn't going to move that far...

  • yonemoto||

    is he good at the sciences? If he wants to apprentice at my science research institute, I can offer a pretty decent pay package. If he's turns out really awesome, I'll make him an executive when I spin off a for-profit outfit.

    indysci.org

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The University of Montana is apparently unable to deal effectively with the "hands on" variants of sexual harassment. I see no likelihood they can initiate this policy without fucking it up royally.

  • ||

    We'll see what happens when students sue and the rules get overturned. May take a while, but it will happen.

    Also: To all hot chicks: Do you want to suck me? If that offended you, I'm sorry for calling you "Hot."

  • Hugh Akston||

    Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

    So I was committing sexual harassment every single time I asked a girl out in college.

  • Killazontherun||

    Yep, and if you didn't know that you would be turned down before asking, why your just a common rapist.

  • Killazontherun||

    I left apostrophe which this device autofills and instead this device change the freakin' word to 'your'.

  • Killazontherun||

    Taking marbles home!

  • General Butt Naked||

    You never know, Hugh may in fact own a common rapist.

  • ||

    You got rejected every single time? That sucks.

  • General Butt Naked||

    They didn't have the man-o-sphere or negging back then. Dark times, indeed.

    It's a wonder any of us were ever born.

  • Irish||

    I'm surprised the General made a good point.

    Consider yourself negged, motherfucker.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You know, you'd be real hot if you just lost 15 pounds. And I mean that. I really, really do.

  • Irish||

    You should wear that dress more often. It's slimming.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You've gone to far now. That really hurt.

    My mother made me this dress out of old potato sacks and I think it's great.

    *sobs*

  • Irish||

    You're just upset that I deny you my essence.

  • Tricerabottoms||

    Good thing I'm irresistibly hot. My advances are impossible to resist. Is this discrimination against the uglies?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Pretty sure the heckler's veto is not really allowed to trump speech rights.

    I'm also pretty sure that freedom of speech is protected in the Constitution, not freedom from offense.

  • Almanian!||

    SOMEONE needs re-education camp, STAT

  • Doctor Whom||

    Why should I let some dead white male slaveholders deprive me of my freedom not to be offended?

  • Almanian!||

    ^^THIS^^

  • ||

    The problem ism, as FIRE concedes, is that when it comes to Nonpublic universities, they aren't beholden to respect student's first amendment rights.

    I have no problem with, for example, an overtly religious private university like BYU disciplining students and/or expelling them for all kinds of speech, ESPECIALLY when same is clearly outlined as prohibited. Heck, they can (iirc) expel students for premarital sex. Clearly, constitutionally protected behavior

    But a lot of these violations are at public universities, private universities that receive mass public funding and ALSO a lot of these universities have mission statements etc, that CLAIM that they respect student's rights to free speech, etc. then they turn around and pull these speech code violation. FIRE has been really successful in getting a lot of these institutions to turn around.

  • Ted S.||

    Why is is that if you receive one dollar of federal funds, the feds can tell you how to define sexual harassment, but they can't tell you hot to implement the first amendment?

  • Tricerabottoms||

    That fat chick looked at me. I want her off campus.

  • creech||

    Sounds like a great opportunity for FIRE and friends of FIRE to shut off the federal spigot at every campus by filing tons of harassment
    suits and making the prog colleges follow the rules their bureaucratic progs instituted.

  • Almanian!||

    oooooo - I like the way your brain cobbles together a plan!

  • sgs||

    I fully intend to go after every school with a women's studies program that doesn't have some male equivalent.

  • PapayaSF||

    Heck, just claim every LGBT club offends someone, and watch the intellectual contortions begin.

  • The Hyperbole||

    This is nothing new, Somewhere in the bowels of OSU's student files storage is a paper with my signature proclaiming that I had violated Student Code Policy Rule Something - Sec. Something-or-other. The only reason I signed was because that rule was worded in such a way that if anyone any where offended, someone else in any way even if they weren't aware of it and they would break said rule. Also I sensed that they needed some admission of guilt or we would be hashing this thing out forever. Other people involved caved early and signed all kind of crap just to get out of the bullshit.

  • General Butt Naked||

    "I'm very sorry if I offended anybody."

    Signed
    -Mike Hunt

  • Almanian!||

    "Oh my mercy
    how'd she even get them britches on?
    Honkey Tonk
    Badonkadonk"

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Start going after the LGBTQ Women's Studies crew for anything sexually "offensive" that they say and this will grind to a halt real fucking fast.

  • PapayaSF||

    Aaaand, this I why I should read a whole thread before commenting.....

  • ||

    Go FIRE!!!

    They are truly doing God's work and their website has the proof- tons of cases where they have made Uni's etc. reverse course on their unconstitutional anti-1st amendment actions.

    "Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation."

    That's the dumbest thing ever. The whole reason one ASKS for a date is to find out IF the person is interested. Here they are saying if the person isn't - that's actionable. What is the prospective date seeker supposed to do? Somebody has to make the first move. And "flirtation"? That can be defined pretty damn broadly. God forbid some college kid bats her eyebrows at the wrong person. THAT's UNWELCOME FLIRTATION!!!!

    How can these school admin fascists write this crap and not realize ... it's crap? I was on the program board in college, and had to deal with these nimrods a lot (UCSB) and they were bad - we couldn't have a comedian of kinison ilk come and perform because he could offend people, but they had no problem with Angela Davis coming and spewing her "white people are evil" "rich people deserve to die" rubbish.

    But as far as I remember, we were allowed to ask classmates out on a date, and they said "no", we needn't worry about being brought up on campus charges for unwanted DATE SOLICITATION.

    What crap.

  • Finrod||

    I get the distinct feeling that this kind of crap is written by those douchebags you knew in school who thought they were hot shit, but everyone else just thought they were annoying wannabees.

  • Coeus||

    This is why you have to keep track of the feminists. This is exactly what they've been pushing for years. They have more influence over people's lives than any other political group.

  • ||

    And they know how to frame and play the game.

    Violence Against Women Act... well, who wouldn't be for such an act (setting aside the sexist notion that only women need an act as only women are victims of domestic violence. Tell that to Phil Hartman). Set aside the confrontation clause issues, the free association issues (orders issued AGAINST the wishes of alleged victims and they have little to no recourse to get those orders dropped if indigent - no right to an attorney, etc.), the 2nd amendment issues, the guilty until proven innocent issues etc. etc.

    Nobody is as motivated to see domestic abusers brought to justice. I LOVE arrested abusers and I love saving damsels in distress, but SO much of the political crap surrounding DV's is designed to frame non-victims, AS victims, to encourage police to arrest even when they have extremely weak PC (It's the only crime in my state where I HAVE good faith immunity from lawsuits if I arrest and it specifically says "even when the facts are unclear" in the legislation. Otoh, if I don't arrest I can be proper fucked, so to speak in so many ways. It's also the ONLY crime (DV either physical violence or order violation) that MANDATES arrest. Homicide? no. Rape? no. DV? Yes.

  • ||

    The problem was cops DID ignore DV too much, brushed it away too often (minor cases) and treated as a 'family problem' etc. but the problem is they have swung the pendulum TOO far in the other direction now, and there are DV advocates out there who game the system like there is no tomorrow and aren't out for justice but are out for their political agenda - which is women are victims and men are abusers. Period.

  • paranoid android||

    *hands cupped over mouth like megaphone*

    HELLO, FEMALE COMRADE! THIS IS A NICE PARTY, ISN'T IT? WOULD YOU TAKE IT AS UNWANTED SEXUAL CONDUCT IF I WALKED ACROSS THE ROOM AND TOLD YOU YOUR DRESS LOOKS NICE?

    See, that's how civilized people approach courtship.

  • WomSom||

    Sometimes man you jsut have to smack it good. Wow.

    www.GotDatAnon.tk

  • wheelock||

    See... The patriarchy has even spread its oppression tentacles into the bots now!

  • ant1sthenes||

    Remember, unlike that nasty old white Republicans, Democrats' stance on sex is "You kids go have fun."

  • General Butt Naked||

    You must remember that their version of having fun in regards to sex is attending a committee meeting on the marxist criticism of the inherent sexual oppression in the capitalist marketplace followed by weak green tea at a vegan food co-op.

  • Finrod||

    And if you don't think that's fun, then you must be an evil tea party 'Rethuglican' or whatever their favorite phrase of the fortnight is.

  • Mickey Rat||

    One of these Universities should just go and hire Bill Clinton as a professor and this will never be enforced.

  • Inigo M.||

    For him alone, it wouldn't be enforced. In fact, publicizing any of his campus transactions could turn out to be a big recruitment tool.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement