(08-04-2013 03:46 PM)utxctrack Wrote: Even though he admitted to dating someone over 10 years ago I will entertain your question. Dating someone who is under your educational charge does not, in any way, meaning that you are guilty of sexual harassment. At many universities it is not against University policy to date your students. Eastern Michigan is one of those universities. University of Toledo, at the time Coach Hadsell dated one of the runners, is also a university where it was not a policy at that time. Sexual harassment is an unwanted advance. One defense against sexual harassment is in the attention was wanted. Show me anywhere where dating a subordinate immediately equals sexual-harassment.
Your statement that dating someone under your educational charge equals sexual-harassment is absolutely faults. That being said, Coach Hadsell was not dating someone is educational charge he was not dating Emma Kertesz. Yet she made a false sexual harassment claim against him. That does not qualify her as a hero.
I never made that statement (the one bolded).
"Sexual harassment" definition has changed, that I do agree. I know at a school down south (maybe ten years ago) at the mandatory, harassment, equal opportunity, FERPA, seminar the person in charge stated that a Prof/Instructor/GA could ask "once" and if rebuffed had to stop or it would be "harassment." Of course, the audience went nut-so. Ethics dictated you could not even ask once and the community challenged Compliance's "loose" interpretation. Did the definition change or did the understanding change, I don't know to be honest.
Ethically? Repeating what I actually stated as opposed to what you said I stated,
Quote:dating women who are your educational charges = sexual harassment, is not that controversial a statement.
I never said that is WAS harassment but I'll make the case that most people on campus would consider it so.
You'd also get argument against your definition of harassment,
"Sexual harassment is an unwanted advance."
"Show me anywhere where dating a subordinate immediately equals sexual-harassment." Somehow I know we're going to get into a semantics argument on "immediately" but here is part of the definition according to UT.
Quote:3364-50-01 Sexual harassment and other forms of harassment
c) Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work or academic performance
I could find no requirement that a statement must be made that the attention is unwanted and clearly sexual harassment is not limited to undesired sexual contact. Policy continues:
Quote: Accordingly, the definition above and the examples of sexual harassment below apply to behavior during working hours and non-working hours, including University-sponsored programs, seminars, conferences, business trips or business related social events, and conduct that occurs directly
Harassment policy is interpreted liberally to protect those in a position of subservience. Saying "no" is NOT a requirement.
I Believe that MOST people on campus are going to tell you that dating a student under your charge is "harassment." If you disagree, then maybe we should ask the university to conduct a poll, there's obviously a need for commitment and clarity by the University.
As far as whether or not the student made a false accusation about her personal relationship between the coach and herself, that I don't know. Apparently her accusation brought out details that he doesn't dispute? You must have documentation, I know you wouldn't want to make a false accusation against this student? Either way, her coming forward got rid of a problem looking to get worse. Hero? Still took guts from what I can see.