The Rabbinical Assembly, the international association of Conservative rabbis, uses investigating panels to look into complaints against rabbis. It notes that the "power imbalance between clergy and those to whom they minister makes it clear that sexual contacts in these situations are by definition non-consensual."
and-----
Garland said, "when you put it with a spiritual leader or moral leader, you've really added a power that we typically don't think about in secular society -- which is that this person speaks for God and interprets God for people. And that really adds a power."
I don't think there's much difference between that and the naughty-teacher-syndrome. And, for that matter, I don't think there is that much difference between that and standard boss-subordinate sexual harassment.
I think it is more a matter of degree rather than type.
I don't think there's much difference between that and the naughty-teacher-syndrome. And, for that matter, I don't think there is that much difference between that and standard boss-subordinate sexual harassment.
I think it is more a matter of degree rather than type.
Once the "God Card" is dealt, it becomes an entirely different game.----IMO
True, and that is what separates it from the "boss" card in a work environment, but I think the teacher can play the same exact card as the preacher (at least to a child / adolescent)
I don't think there's much difference between that and the naughty-teacher-syndrome. And, for that matter, I don't think there is that much difference between that and standard boss-subordinate sexual harassment.
I think it is more a matter of degree rather than type.
Except. . . . what is the recourse for that kind of manipulation. . . . we have laws for teacher who abuse students. . . . sexual harrasment laws for the work place, but what is it we have for clergy accountability? Other than church discipline? It is hard to prove coercion in a court if the affair appears to be consentual. Abuse of that particular authority is not that easily definable in those situations. Unless it is gross and habitual as in TWI's case.
... and often assisted by their overseeing higher ups. ... Kinda like the child molesting priests who were shifted from church to church so they didn't have to be held accountable by the public.
some sycophants have thought up a simpler solution. Just hold some kind of "wild card" that is one doesn't relish the treatment "ahem* training, off they go..don't have to relocate priests, mogs, or whatever.. just make it the victim *ahem* trainees fault..
any system which holds this kind of wild card over Any Body's life, I hold in high suspicion.. whether they are only some kind of innocent bible thumping only beating the snot out of followers or not..
Yeah.. we don't *abuse* them, we just beat the snot out of them with the old vicster's teachings.."
ha.
why does one seek that kind of power, without having intent of USING it?
I don't think there's much difference between that and the naughty-teacher-syndrome. And, for that matter, I don't think there is that much difference between that and standard boss-subordinate sexual harassment.
I think it is more a matter of degree rather than type.
Of course, in those other scenarios, there is a dimension of power imbalance in the relationship that makes it very clear that consent is questionable at best. I don't disagree with you on this Mark, I'd just clarify that intimate relationships/relations between a teacher/student; a boss/subordinate; and clergy/parishioner should be explicitly stated in applicable ethical codes to be improper. Further, as applicable, if anyone needs to assert or provide proof that nothing in such a relationship took place improperly, the burden of proof would need to be on the teacher/boss/clergy member... at least when it came to any court action of a civil nature (as opposed to criminal), and that statutes can be amended to place MORE of the burden on the alleged perpetrator, if not all of the burden.
Of course, in those other scenarios, there is a dimension of power imbalance in the relationship that makes it very clear that consent is questionable at best. I don't disagree with you on this Mark, I'd just clarify that intimate relationships/relations between a teacher/student; a boss/subordinate; and clergy/parishioner should be explicitly stated in applicable ethical codes to be improper. Further, as applicable, if anyone needs to assert or provide proof that nothing in such a relationship took place improperly, the burden of proof would need to be on the teacher/boss/clergy member... at least when it came to any court action of a civil nature (as opposed to criminal), and that statutes can be amended to place MORE of the burden on the alleged perpetrator, if not all of the burden.
Thank you for clarifying what I was saying: we are basically in agreement. As far as more of a burden of proof being on the alleged perpetrator, I'm cautious about agreeing with you, not that I'm in favor of the perpetrator, but that it's very difficult to prove a negative, particularly in a he-said, she-said type of argument with little or no physical evidence being available (as a lot of harassment suits are).
During my time in the military and my time in the corporate world thereafter, I've had to take a whole lot of training on ethics subjects, to include sexual harassment. As a manager for a number of years (both military and civilian), I have learned to be extremely cautious that nothing I say or do could possibly be perceived as even approaching harassment, because of the already-existing "burden of proof" issues you mention. The basic assumption is where there's smoke, there's fire. And how the alleged victim feels about something is just as important as what actually happened. For example, if a female were to walk by your desk and look at your monitor and you had a picture of a scantily clad or nude woman on your monitor, you could be charged. Likewise, if a "victim" walked past a couple of people who were telling the wrong type of joke (not even realizing he/she was within earshot), both could be charged. Why? For creating a "hostile work environment." And that is considered a form of harassment nowadays.
I'm not saying that it is uniformly the same standard everyplace, but in both companies where I've worked since retiring, and in the Air Force since about the 90s, that has been the standard. (I personally know a 26 year E-9 who was forcibly retired due to him having a huge catalog of jokes and not using adequate discretion as to when and within earshot of whom to recount them)
As far as teachers and clergy, again, as far as accusations go, there is already a strong informal degree of guilt assumed when an accusation is made, due to the number of cases that have actually been dealt with. I actually sort of feel sorry for them, as this must change how they do their jobs significantly (I feel for the 98.4% who are good, honorable people whose ability to effectively do their jobs has been impacted by the 1.6% who have abused their positions -- stats are mine and are just for reference only). Take, for example, a clergywoman: dare she counsel a member of the opposite sex behind closed doors? What if the member of the opposite sex, upon receiving spiritual direction he does not wish to receive, decides to accuse the clergywoman of making an advance toward him? Or a teacher keeping a kid after school for tutoring? It's got to be in their minds, how do I protect myself...and that's got to make doing their jobs far more difficult. I could imagine that the same situation would exist with psychologists, as well.
As far as the bad ones, they need to be caught, prosecuted, and removed from their positions. But I don't want to advocate lowering the bar for proof so much that good, honorable ones get swept away with the bad ones.
Thank you for clarifying what I was saying: we are basically in agreement. As far as more of a burden of proof being on the alleged perpetrator, I'm cautious about agreeing with you, not that I'm in favor of the perpetrator, but that it's very difficult to prove a negative, particularly in a he-said, she-said type of argument with little or no physical evidence being available (as a lot of harassment suits are).
During my time in the military and my time in the corporate world thereafter, I've had to take a whole lot of training on ethics subjects, to include sexual harassment. As a manager for a number of years (both military and civilian), I have learned to be extremely cautious that nothing I say or do could possibly be perceived as even approaching harassment, because of the already-existing "burden of proof" issues you mention. The basic assumption is where there's smoke, there's fire. And how the alleged victim feels about something is just as important as what actually happened. For example, if a female were to walk by your desk and look at your monitor and you had a picture of a scantily clad or nude woman on your monitor, you could be charged. Likewise, if a "victim" walked past a couple of people who were telling the wrong type of joke (not even realizing he/she was within earshot), both could be charged. Why? For creating a "hostile work environment." And that is considered a form of harassment nowadays.
I'm not saying that it is uniformly the same standard everyplace, but in both companies where I've worked since retiring, and in the Air Force since about the 90s, that has been the standard. (I personally know a 26 year E-9 who was forcibly retired due to him having a huge catalog of jokes and not using adequate discretion as to when and within earshot of whom to recount them)
As far as teachers and clergy, again, as far as accusations go, there is already a strong informal degree of guilt assumed when an accusation is made, due to the number of cases that have actually been dealt with. I actually sort of feel sorry for them, as this must change how they do their jobs significantly (I feel for the 98.4% who are good, honorable people whose ability to effectively do their jobs has been impacted by the 1.6% who have abused their positions -- stats are mine and are just for reference only). Take, for example, a clergywoman: dare she counsel a member of the opposite sex behind closed doors? What if the member of the opposite sex, upon receiving spiritual direction he does not wish to receive, decides to accuse the clergywoman of making an advance toward him? Or a teacher keeping a kid after school for tutoring? It's got to be in their minds, how do I protect myself...and that's got to make doing their jobs far more difficult. I could imagine that the same situation would exist with psychologists, as well.
As far as the bad ones, they need to be caught, prosecuted, and removed from their positions. But I don't want to advocate lowering the bar for proof so much that good, honorable ones get swept away with the bad ones.
Of course, in those other scenarios, there is a dimension of power imbalance in the relationship that makes it very clear that consent is questionable at best. I don't disagree with you on this Mark, I'd just clarify that intimate relationships/relations between a teacher/student; a boss/subordinate; and clergy/parishioner should be explicitly stated in applicable ethical codes to be improper. Further, as applicable, if anyone needs to assert or provide proof that nothing in such a relationship took place improperly, the burden of proof would need to be on the teacher/boss/clergy member... at least when it came to any court action of a civil nature (as opposed to criminal), and that statutes can be amended to place MORE of the burden on the alleged perpetrator, if not all of the burden.
Many universities have explicitly stated ethical codes about the power imbalance. Where I teach, if you are a student (female for this example), regardless of age, and you were to come in to my office half naked and throw yourself at my feet telling me you would do anything for a passing grade...and...if I took you up on that offer I am subject to immediate dismissal for "exercising undue influence." It would not matter that you proposed, that you initiated a sexual action/reaction. If I take you up then I have exercised undue influence. This even applies to tenure track positions.
One can argue till blue in the face about who is the perp, or if she was age 25 it was consenual, etc etc ad infinitum, but the burden is on me the teacher; period. I think this is as it should be.
The state of CA has similar code for the workplace. Suppose two employees are having a drink after work and have a consenual sexual liaison. No harm / no foul. However let's say that I as a manager have a similar incident with a direct report. Bad news for me - and again the burden is on me.
The power imbalance is real and hence I don't fond those laws onerous in the least. If there is a legitimately growing relationship it can be brought in the open with a more senior manager (the CEO has no recourse) and then it is in the open and usually the direct report will be moved to another department to remove (or at least mitigate) the imbalance (and also reduce the possibility of nepotism). In the university a similar action can be taken by appealing to the appropriate faculty dean.
One may argue that a relationship is entitled to privacy. Fair enough on the surface but the amount of victimization makes the priority protecting the potential victim. No one requires you to spell out the intimate details of a relationship - just that it is a known and mutually agreed upon relationship.
Interestingly enough that works in everyone's favor. If I have a relationship that is "known" and later there is a falling out it makes it much harder for someone to claim sexual harassment.
Perfect? No. But again the emphasis is on protecting the significant number of people who indeed have been victims of harassment.
As far as the outliers go (someone who sues for harassment over the Playboy in the desk eg) What the heck are you doing with a Playboy at work in the first place? Heck I wouldn't call it sexual harassment but Playboy is for home and the knuckle shuffle - not the work place.
Recommended Posts
waysider
From the same article:
The Rabbinical Assembly, the international association of Conservative rabbis, uses investigating panels to look into complaints against rabbis. It notes that the "power imbalance between clergy and those to whom they minister makes it clear that sexual contacts in these situations are by definition non-consensual."
and-----
Garland said, "when you put it with a spiritual leader or moral leader, you've really added a power that we typically don't think about in secular society -- which is that this person speaks for God and interprets God for people. And that really adds a power."
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I don't think there's much difference between that and the naughty-teacher-syndrome. And, for that matter, I don't think there is that much difference between that and standard boss-subordinate sexual harassment.
I think it is more a matter of degree rather than type.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Once the "God Card" is dealt, it becomes an entirely different game.----IMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
True, and that is what separates it from the "boss" card in a work environment, but I think the teacher can play the same exact card as the preacher (at least to a child / adolescent)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Except. . . . what is the recourse for that kind of manipulation. . . . we have laws for teacher who abuse students. . . . sexual harrasment laws for the work place, but what is it we have for clergy accountability? Other than church discipline? It is hard to prove coercion in a court if the affair appears to be consentual. Abuse of that particular authority is not that easily definable in those situations. Unless it is gross and habitual as in TWI's case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and it is VERY difficult to prove anything in an environment where *they* can skip the packing up step and ship one off in the middle of the night..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... and often assisted by their overseeing higher ups. ... Kinda like the child molesting priests who were shifted from church to church so they didn't have to be held accountable by the public.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
some sycophants have thought up a simpler solution. Just hold some kind of "wild card" that is one doesn't relish the treatment "ahem* training, off they go..don't have to relocate priests, mogs, or whatever.. just make it the victim *ahem* trainees fault..
any system which holds this kind of wild card over Any Body's life, I hold in high suspicion.. whether they are only some kind of innocent bible thumping only beating the snot out of followers or not..
Yeah.. we don't *abuse* them, we just beat the snot out of them with the old vicster's teachings.."
ha.
why does one seek that kind of power, without having intent of USING it?
I haven't met an exception, yet..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Of course, in those other scenarios, there is a dimension of power imbalance in the relationship that makes it very clear that consent is questionable at best. I don't disagree with you on this Mark, I'd just clarify that intimate relationships/relations between a teacher/student; a boss/subordinate; and clergy/parishioner should be explicitly stated in applicable ethical codes to be improper. Further, as applicable, if anyone needs to assert or provide proof that nothing in such a relationship took place improperly, the burden of proof would need to be on the teacher/boss/clergy member... at least when it came to any court action of a civil nature (as opposed to criminal), and that statutes can be amended to place MORE of the burden on the alleged perpetrator, if not all of the burden.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Thank you for clarifying what I was saying: we are basically in agreement. As far as more of a burden of proof being on the alleged perpetrator, I'm cautious about agreeing with you, not that I'm in favor of the perpetrator, but that it's very difficult to prove a negative, particularly in a he-said, she-said type of argument with little or no physical evidence being available (as a lot of harassment suits are).
During my time in the military and my time in the corporate world thereafter, I've had to take a whole lot of training on ethics subjects, to include sexual harassment. As a manager for a number of years (both military and civilian), I have learned to be extremely cautious that nothing I say or do could possibly be perceived as even approaching harassment, because of the already-existing "burden of proof" issues you mention. The basic assumption is where there's smoke, there's fire. And how the alleged victim feels about something is just as important as what actually happened. For example, if a female were to walk by your desk and look at your monitor and you had a picture of a scantily clad or nude woman on your monitor, you could be charged. Likewise, if a "victim" walked past a couple of people who were telling the wrong type of joke (not even realizing he/she was within earshot), both could be charged. Why? For creating a "hostile work environment." And that is considered a form of harassment nowadays.
I'm not saying that it is uniformly the same standard everyplace, but in both companies where I've worked since retiring, and in the Air Force since about the 90s, that has been the standard. (I personally know a 26 year E-9 who was forcibly retired due to him having a huge catalog of jokes and not using adequate discretion as to when and within earshot of whom to recount them)
As far as teachers and clergy, again, as far as accusations go, there is already a strong informal degree of guilt assumed when an accusation is made, due to the number of cases that have actually been dealt with. I actually sort of feel sorry for them, as this must change how they do their jobs significantly (I feel for the 98.4% who are good, honorable people whose ability to effectively do their jobs has been impacted by the 1.6% who have abused their positions -- stats are mine and are just for reference only). Take, for example, a clergywoman: dare she counsel a member of the opposite sex behind closed doors? What if the member of the opposite sex, upon receiving spiritual direction he does not wish to receive, decides to accuse the clergywoman of making an advance toward him? Or a teacher keeping a kid after school for tutoring? It's got to be in their minds, how do I protect myself...and that's got to make doing their jobs far more difficult. I could imagine that the same situation would exist with psychologists, as well.
As far as the bad ones, they need to be caught, prosecuted, and removed from their positions. But I don't want to advocate lowering the bar for proof so much that good, honorable ones get swept away with the bad ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Good points...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Many universities have explicitly stated ethical codes about the power imbalance. Where I teach, if you are a student (female for this example), regardless of age, and you were to come in to my office half naked and throw yourself at my feet telling me you would do anything for a passing grade...and...if I took you up on that offer I am subject to immediate dismissal for "exercising undue influence." It would not matter that you proposed, that you initiated a sexual action/reaction. If I take you up then I have exercised undue influence. This even applies to tenure track positions.
One can argue till blue in the face about who is the perp, or if she was age 25 it was consenual, etc etc ad infinitum, but the burden is on me the teacher; period. I think this is as it should be.
The state of CA has similar code for the workplace. Suppose two employees are having a drink after work and have a consenual sexual liaison. No harm / no foul. However let's say that I as a manager have a similar incident with a direct report. Bad news for me - and again the burden is on me.
The power imbalance is real and hence I don't fond those laws onerous in the least. If there is a legitimately growing relationship it can be brought in the open with a more senior manager (the CEO has no recourse) and then it is in the open and usually the direct report will be moved to another department to remove (or at least mitigate) the imbalance (and also reduce the possibility of nepotism). In the university a similar action can be taken by appealing to the appropriate faculty dean.
One may argue that a relationship is entitled to privacy. Fair enough on the surface but the amount of victimization makes the priority protecting the potential victim. No one requires you to spell out the intimate details of a relationship - just that it is a known and mutually agreed upon relationship.
Interestingly enough that works in everyone's favor. If I have a relationship that is "known" and later there is a falling out it makes it much harder for someone to claim sexual harassment.
Perfect? No. But again the emphasis is on protecting the significant number of people who indeed have been victims of harassment.
As far as the outliers go (someone who sues for harassment over the Playboy in the desk eg) What the heck are you doing with a Playboy at work in the first place? Heck I wouldn't call it sexual harassment but Playboy is for home and the knuckle shuffle - not the work place.
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.