portland state university accepts sexism and epithets and slurs against women

8/8/2019 portland state university accepts sexism and epithets and slurs against women

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/portland-state-university-accepts-sexism-and-epithets-and-slurs-against-women 1/21

Re: blog posts

From: mary eng

<[email protected]>

View Contact

To: [email protected]

i have read your arguments clearly---and understand the way they would fall in to predicted

norms of advisable action.

i think its funny to break the rules of common law---as i cannot afford a lawyer---why should

i be gagged as if i have one---

i think a lot of laws P's and Q's are quickly becoming passe

and by knowingly breaking the "advisable" there is a certain intensity achieved of

communication

fireworks.

no one took me seriously enough anyway to respect me to begin with and none of them

know anything of the law---why should i play kissy face nice with idiots who i barely have

time or energy for anyway?

as far as they know

i am long gone

their bigotry has effectively eliminated me from the conversation

they have killed the opposition

i cannot stand to be near them

my education is destroyed by them

so what does the esoteric blogosphere matter to anyone?????

if they cant read the law

or a best practices manual

or ethicspoint post lit consultancy concept

http://www.ethics point.com/

why are they are reading my blog---except vanity? aha---they operate without pseudonym

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ethicspoint.com%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGaFmpA4S0WNxu1oJFLHgV15EVIWw














yet say things they might be embarrassed to have recorded for posterityhow very funny

also i get the whole fed state issue as well as

context

quantity. (easy for you to say?)

impt to note that the law is ever changing and as it stands the law

in USA

is completely anti-woman

so

bc my interp is off the norm (misogynist)

does not mean it is invalid---i predict that if enough people

argued for equality

equality would become the norm

a linguistics of degradation is the first step to genocide

does everyone disassociate their verbal humiliation of women from the crimes of human

trafficking rape murder etc

how convenient----

so i see a moral issue at stake. i see a spectrum of violence.

and remember your compassion

will grow as you come to imagine what it would be like to hear the Nword assigned to you

your entire life

and then be physically and economically abused and linguistically humiliated

constantly

just try to imagine

try

i am speaking at UCLA for lwyer keith fink's communictions and the law class



he wrote today

he is quite radical and gets character assassinated in the media frequently

he likes my side bc it is beyond many people's imagination or experience

educational law is a progressing living thing

status quo complacency seems very much a part of the dominant brainwash

i dont think its fair to repress the legal issues---it is very lame actually

if i had money to blow i would sue bc i like challenging people's prevailing mode of oppression.

so if anything---if you have financing or a probono rec or a radical christian anti-cursing

legal defense league to recommend---i am all for the lost cause suit against tyrannical

powers----so point me to the $ or the pro bono rep.

i dont care if it would win or not.

bc i have already won---where everyone else would say roll over and play dead and get

insulted---i defy that

cultural fascism.

so while you might more eloquently justify complacency than they are able----or justify their

silence---

it does not help much more than it appears to be out of kindness you write.

i am not interested in conformity with the past.

that would mean slavery and rape and all kinds of barbarity.

i am writing into the future and for the future for the expansion of human possibility

and my grades and my affairs and my rep are unimportant (obviously to PSU as well)---even

if i make a fool of my self in the eyes of some complacent souless sexist trashtalkers----i



have my own future to make

and have no money or power outside that which my wits afford me

and less power i have as abusers kick the life of me psychically

and i have my own conscience to live with

and it will never involve swallowing so much degradation without a grain of salt.

that you presume i am comfortable talking about my "feelings" instead of the law

and the future of the law

seems to indicate you underestimate the vast amount of damage this does to my soul.

or that you want to disempower the argument

i do not feel comfortable around these professors who speak so trashily

i dont want to be in the same room much less conversation.

the mechanistic quantity tale does little.

take the nword.

say it once to anyone, and their entire opinion of you----the spiritual energy will be forever altered---

same for all this sexist talk.

once is far abusive enough.

the courts are all full of sexist brainwashed american constitutionalists----i am not delusional

about that----but there are courageous activists within the law that have helped shape the

future-----

just bc this isn't worst case scenario doesnt mean its not worth arguing.

i mean remember that girl who got killed at yale

or this massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole _Polytechnique_ massacre

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25C3%2589cole_Polytechnique_massacre&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF0a_kBEl2q5SU-jRsNv-xrgHWTuQ




























is PSU okay pushing women around to the point of anger bulimia anorexia depression

alcoholism. it seems so.

so when real tragedy strikes, as if self destruction werent enough--- i am feeling the shock

waves ahead of time---stop treating women like pieces of junk---

verbal abuse in our culture does a lot of damage.

imagine if i walked into yr class spouting the crup i have heard from yr colleagues.

imagine.

i cant imagine having so little respect for myself or you.

or with such comportment at sepp's angry condescending tone.

in attempting to show sympathy, you might not underestimate the effect of this atmosphere

explaining their potential defense almost feels like an endorsement of that defense.

just because it is predictable doesnt make it fair at all---pah on words i believe none of them

i am sorry for you your colleagues are such poor company and in such poor taste

i think it quite embarrassing

thanks for diverting my brain into a human exchange as blogging is really inhuman overall.

thanks

this is getting published

as i cant trust anyone here---and feel i have betrayed my soul too much without any reason

to assume i am safe or will be treated fairly

at least then so long as google supports blogger

there might be a paper trail

mary eng

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

To: mary eng <[email protected]>

Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 5:57:27 PM

Subject: Re: blog posts



Thank you for your reply. It still might be beneficial if we talked in person at

some point. But as of now, I will tell it to you straight, not as a spokesman for

the university, but as your teacher in an attempt to be useful and give you

useful information.

I think that the right way to think about this is from the perspective of what

you regard as appropriate in the classroom and how it effects you, and may

effect others, instead of hooking everything at the same time to the *law*.

People rightly interpret the statement that their actions are illegal as a threat

to prosecute or litigate. It should be the last thing to invoke, not the first, for

the simple reason that once you invoke it, you lose all leverage with the other

person *except* the leverage the threat of litigation or prosecution gives

you. As soon as someone perceives you as a potential litigant, they rightlybecome defensive, and I don't just mean emotionally defensive: it's foolish to

cooperate or talk with someone that has announced or implied an intention

to carry out that kind of threat. If I may use an unnerving metaphor, it's like

pulling a gun on someone in a conversation. At that point, your effectiveness

and options narrow enormously, because there's really only one thing left

to do with the trigger, which is pull it. If I were your attorney (and I'm not,

I'm not licensed in this state) I would be advising you as my client to stop

talking about the law and leave that to your lawyer. And you should never

tell someone you're trying to work something out with that you regard their actions as illegal unless you are absolutely certain that they are, and not even

then--that's for your lawyer to do.

In this situation, the problem is that even if you were moving forward to litigate

something, the case is actually pretty weak. There is what is called a "cause

of action" at the state level in Oregon for education discrimination; I don't

believe that there is such a thing at the federal level at all. The federal rules

you were invoking are rules related to conditions on federal funding, not rules

that allow an individual to sue. So the only way that violation of those rulescan be meaningfully sanctioned/disciplined is in the context of an audit of the

university's total practices across the board. That very very rarely happens,

and for that to go anywhere, there would have to be massive amounts of

documented evidence involving faulty internal practices throughout the

university, lots of misconduct by lots of people, lots of victims, etc. etc.



Whether that is actually the case or not is immaterial, the fact is that it's really

really unlikely that the individual episodes you are concerned with that have

involved you personally could lead to an investigation on that kind of scale.

This is just to make clear that the real issues are state and not federal law.

In state law, there is a right to sue for education discrimination in much the

same way that there are state and federal rights to sue for employment

discrimination. Though I haven't read the caselaw, I can tell you that the way

that the law conceptualizes hostile environment claims is probably much the

same in most settings. The crucial thing is that the standards are "objective"

rather than "subjective". What this means is that whether you personally find

an environment intolerable isn't the actual test. The test is whether a so-

called reasonable person would. This means that you can win even if you

aren't bothered, and lose even if you are bothered. The question is whether this imaginary person "the reasonable person" is bothered. And of course

the being bothered, being harmed has to effect people differently depending

on what group one is in (assuming the group is mentioned in the law, which

in this case, gender, it is). If the environment was equally hostile to men

and women alike, it's not *discriminatory*. But the real issue is whether a

reasonable person would regard it as hostile.

A good rule of thumb is that hostility is about quantity multiplied by frequency.

If something is mind-bogglingly awful, it doesn't have to happen a lot of times;if something happens constantly, it doesn't have to be mind-bogglingly awful.

The problem with your "hand", the cards you have so to speak, is that there's

no *frequency*, and the intensity isn't enough to make up for it. I think that a

lot of people would tell you that everyone is off the hook if there's a legitimate

educational purpose, which is true, but it's not really the point as I see it.

The relevant issue is *frequency*. This is where your claim is on really weak

grounds, because the fact is, under the law, a person can say something

offensive on rare occasions. The issue is not whether a tripwire has beencrossed, but whether the snowball has become an avalanche, if you see what

I mean.

So while it was completely appropriate to express your concerns and feelings

about the first episode, almost by definition a first episode of making an



offensive remark can't really constitute a pervasive and continuing hostile

environment. It would be correct to say that if these kinds of remarks are

offensive to women generally, and they are happening all the time, there's a

legal issue. But it's not like other kinds of legal issues where the first step in a

certain direction is the final step. Here there has to be an accumulation.

I think that what has happened in your case is that by approaching your

legitimate concerns about classroom tone etc. from the very beginning as a

legal matter, you've put people enormously on the defensive without actually

having much "muscle" behind it, which makes people want to ignore you.

And then your bad experience festers and messes up your educational

experience. This is my honest and professional opinion (but not, I repeat, my

legal advice--I can get in trouble for giving legal advice, so I have to say that).

I suspect that the idea that the law is on your side is important to you to give

you the courage to speak frankly to people whose behavior upsets you. But

rather than advising you to clam up, which is what I think probably most

people would be telling you, I would say that you should speak up for yourself

without the implied threat of litigation. It's not working for you. What you really

want to be doing is standing up for your *moral* interest in a certain kind of

environment, not your legal right to it. I think that if you had approached it that

way, as a personal matter, people might have been more positive.

I don't have all the facts, but you may have moved too quickly up the

food chain and reached for the big guns too soon to be effective. In my

experiences, which, admittedly are not gender-inflected, but I do observe

things from the sidelines, people are actually *very* anxious to accommodate

concerns when they are presented in the right way.

I don't know if the particular matters in the past are closed now or not; I think

they become rather hard to pursue at this point. But I predict that there will

be future issues, and it would be great if you got the response you seekwhen they do. I would recommend when that happens that you approach

the person you take a complaint to by focusing on how *you* are affected,

what *your* experience is, how it troubles you and interferes with your ability

to get everything you want to get out of the class, instead of focusing on

the immorality, not to mention the alleged illegality, of the conduct. That just



triggers this "wagon-circling" and I've read enough of your writing to know that

you've had more than your fill of that sort of thing already. But as I've said

many times in class, I'm a pragmatist: I believe in getting *results*. I'd like to

see you get better results.

Please feel free to meet with me whenever you would like if you want to

discuss this further, or, indeed, discuss anything at all. I can tell that this

experience, and other similar ones in the past, has taken a toll on you, and

I've been worried about you. And I'd rather err on the side of caution and

over-estimate the effect these things are having than to under-estimate them

and then have something really bad happen that didn't have to happen. I've

had some personal experiences where I didn't take someone's pain seriously

enough and got blindsided by consequences, so I hope you won't take

offense if I risk overdoing things in the opposite direction. And I want to giveyou this invitation right now, that if you ever start to feel overwhelmed with

nowhere to turn, please come to me so we can talk through it. OK?

Best,

Prof. Hill

Quoting mary eng <[email protected]>:

> professor hill

> i am extremely moved that you would write.

>

> i respect very much your lecture and also value the experience of your legal

> training.

>

> i am fresh from a paralegal program and before that liked philosophy very

much.>

> i think it is very much in the ancient tradition of learning that education

> should be dialectic and not always lecture, and people leaning on the

weight of

> their



>

> credentials to foist their authority on other people.

>

> i find your lecture and that of coventry very wonderful.

>>

> the sum cumulation of all the life events that went into making me what i am

are

> beyond the scope of any mere conversation.

>

> but there are reasons why educational equality is very meaningful.

>

> i also am especially fascinated by cyberlaw and free speech and speech

online.>

> what occurs to me as very funny is that say for instance when sepp was

speaking

> to me so rudely and claiming ignorance of the law or any degree of

humanity or

> towards diplomacy and gracefulness---

>

> he acts as though this is not the internet age.

>>

> any teacher who would risk public forum must find themselves open to the

new

> yelp facebook peer review culture.

>

> so if they want to make themselves look foolish in this new context . . .

>

> because i ignore most american media---i do not quite get what the palin

jive is> about---except that it seems a convenient way to vent the misogyny which

keeps

> women underpaid and subjected to violence and shut out of govt.

>

> and US govt ignoring intnl law trends towds equality



> CEDAW

>

>

> i am very keen for an international law approach that is looking for gender

> equity in all fields.>

> i am interested in a progressive attitude towards the future for all humans to

> be treated fairly.

>

> just so you know you are the only person with the guts to write me.

>

> everybody else knows their words may further incriminate them or wind up

being

> published on the stupid blogosphere.>

> or maybe david reese told them not to write me back. that would be smart.

> my last two years in LA were polluted with exceptionally sexist professors

so i

> am burned up by being treated like an idiot.

>

> my parents were extremely respectful and i went to good schools in the

past

> where nobody would ever curse or say misogynist things in the classroom.>

> sure there was legally actionable tenure track discrim. but not out and out

> cursing and crudity.

>

> that puts PSU on the map for me, and like most areas of the law, there is no

> enforcement, but just ineffective bureaucracy and citizen action.

>

> so its a mystery to me, that in theory legally there might be no epithet in the

> classroom, but there are no language cops to police this.>

> just like the N-word or a gold star, all these sexist words are deployed to

> humiliate and degrade humans out of their full realization of their

intelligence

> and possibility.



> similarly too the harassment we get on the job, the underpay, the gender

discrim

> in promotions. so by the time we get to the classroom on an expensive

debt

> carnival----the equivalent of putting your neck into an economic noose----the> last thing we want to hear is a bunch of sexist drivel we could have heard

on

> the TV or at a bar.

>

> and that the profs take salary with impunity is to me very corrupt. so that is

> why it feels honorable to bring this up.

>

> and if i were wrong, and should shut up and get called a

> b> c

> w

> h

> and all the ugly words i have to hear at PSU

>

>

> or hear women insulted for their size

> or their pornability

>> well

> that's where id rather just shell up and keep my nose in the internet for the

> rest of life.

>

> as no one can seem to adequately respond---i think the legal arguments are

over

> people's heads, the PR arguments as well, the HR arguments as well----so

at what

> level the people might be reached? with truly hopeless situations it werebetter

> to give up.

>

> if i were to return next term i wonder should i write my profs in advance

asking



> if they will provide an epithet free atmosphere, and if not then i can avoid

> them. or something like that.

>

>

> i am already very depressive by nature, so it does not help to be so> intellectually humiliated by such crudity and insensitivity.

>

> as all the suicides and schools shooting would indicate to me, it would be

> extremely paramount to make sure all students felt safe and treated fairly all

> the time.

> oh and forget about respondiat superior.

>

> seppelainen literally scremed at me that i was talking pasted rant when i

tried> to explain hostile atmosphere as a nuance beyond the more obvious quid

pro quo

>

> as if screaming at the plaintiff were not hostile itself

>

> i am pretty much paralyzed by my sense of hopelessness, and just hope i

can pull

> through with some semblance of courage and then i get leave oregon for a

few> weeks.

>

> i am not opposed to speaking, although my anxiety is beyond belief and i

dont

> think this is a small matter

>

> or that i'd be leaving school for "no good reason"

>

> to say feeling stigmatized by chronic sexism in society is invalid is not fair > if you have not been subjected to the abuse in your life.

>

> words are very tricky things and even when say wallack or dujon, attempt to

> explain themselves, they do so in a self validating way---such that they

> apologize for me not understanding their context----which to me shows no



respect> for the larger issues of why women ar the ultimate linguistic target

>

> and are not allowed to dissent (culturally)

>

> we are constantly spoke of like subhumans and we're supposed to like it

> and act like it doesnt eat us

>

> i mean my lawyer friends are all sexist

> they think rape in marriage is okay.

>

> michelle j anderson is a wonderful historian of rape law and marriage law

and

> the slow evolution towards autonomy that women still are strugglingtowards

> jurisdictionally.

>

> notably, and or obviously i have no allies at PSU, much less a letter of

> recommendation, as if i care for the respect of people who respect me so

little

> perhaps coventry.

> and it is for women in academia that i still out my neck

>> my best teacher at my old school had to sue to keep her post--but there the

> sexism was so much more civilized.

>

>

> even a sex harass lawyer friend still thinks a certain amt of sexist cursing is

> okay---he old school as far as i'm concerned.

>

> if it destroys my soul----why do i need to stick around for it?

> that the entire system is so mechanized and industrialized to let this go onand

> then nobody can offer an intelligent response is pretty weird to me.

>

> i mean even anthropologically, i think its pretty unevolved for humans to act

> this way----even if the sum total of our activities could be reduced to



> evolutionary biological competitivism----i just think there is no

> competition--humans are nauseagtingly disgusting to me---if they are not

making

> positive strides towards the reparation of inequity

>> as soon as people play their idiot card----and show me how complacent

they are

> about women being paid 58-70cents per dollar and 17 % of congress and

what not

>

> i am like

>

>

> oh my gosh america is full of such idiots>

> in scandinavia they repaired so much of this 20-30 years ago----and we

cant even

> diagnose it as a problem---and am supposed to shut up and be called as

an adult

> at a "university" a

> c

> b

> w> h

> whatever

>

>

> this is poisoning young people's minds.

>

> why not fill them will progressive anti-racist, anti-sexist futurity and a

> vision of more fairness???

>>

> it is so anti-life to get so propagandized into the hate ideologies

>

>

> i mean i love nietzsche, despite all his misogynistic tendencies, or wagner



> despite his anti-semitism----

>

> i thought oregon was supposed to be progressive----but i guess not.

>

> in the spirit of thought i appreciate your response as indeed blog is public,as

> caveat emptor, etc

>

> and if i learn to be more subservient---or if authority learns to be less

> doctrinal about their sexist propaganda---so maybe we will all learn

something.

>

> i dont believe in language or words at all---and have less of a grip on any

> moral sense or any one having any rights whatsoever---and few wouldunderstand

> that outside the totally nihilistic camp

>

>

> all i think we have is power or will to power and various illusions of control

> and anarchy.

>

>

> so if the blogosphere is a place for an impoverished intellectual to gain> standing in a universe or a forum in which they are unaccepted----because

of

> lack of financing---or ability to tolerate abuse---then whatever

>

>

> there are other adversaries too

> labor law

> landlord law

> Human rights law are some of my other interests> as well as illusory notions of intellectual property

>

> also of interest defamation repression and UK libel law as it protects toxic

> dumping etc

> trafigura profiled on mirror .wikileaks.info

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmirror.wikileaks.info%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEWSWltUz8-mnSyHmJSUfeBck_ctQ









>

> very fascinated by the wikileaks

> disclosure tomorrow that has all the international govts on panic.

>

>> so if i could go anywhere i already have via internet

> london school of economics (which only has overt sexism when they invite

sexist

> americans over to speak---otherwise they are extremely professional tho

> imperialist)

> and then

> i like berkman center harvard cyberlaw.

>

> so when i asked seppelainen why computer ethics with baghossian had toinclude

> his personal porn habits and that i was used to a much higher quality of

lecture

> on the internet at harvard or stanford---sepp was like---well why would you

> expect better---this is PSU and this is a U level class.

>

> so i was like a U-class----does that mean inferior quality and no legal

training

> for profs re sex harass?> and he was like

> i dont know anything about the law----

>

>

> maybe you could tell him something

>

>

> or at least advise his right to remain silent

>> as admitting he knows nothing makes him look all the more foolish.

>

>

> if he had been polite to me---he could have diffused things.

>



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0BfRW5NDbg















http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hlrecord.org%2Fnews%2Fralph-nader-and-bruce-fein-unite-to-call-for-eye-on-government-1.1179135&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFMOu0gKq88jZNv6DkH3fq3UHEaMA




















http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdisbartorturelawyers&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG-eRjQA1V4defLI4iQ2vgr1B2fTA











> then it might be your conscience calling that you did nothing to help

someone in

> pain

>

> so from that angle if yr lucky enough to have any kind of conscience or > sensitivity towards a larger sense of ethics, congratulations!

>

> so thanks for reaching out

> mary eng

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>> To: [email protected]

> Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 8:56:05 PM

> Subject: blog posts

>

> Ms. Eng (or Mary, if I may):

>

> I hope that this will not be construed as unwelcome attention, but I assume

that

> since you place your comments about your educational experiences in apublic

> place and have tried to get someone at PSU to respond, you will not

consider

> this intrusive. I only write out of *concern* for the well-being of one of my

> students, who seems to be having a very very bad experience. It might be a

good

> idea that we talk sometime. I should also say that unlike everyone or almost

> everyone you mention having spoken to, I actually have had *formal*

training in> discrimination law not so long ago, and concepts of sexual harassment are

a

> central part of my Philosophy of Law course which I teach in the spring.

>

> It's probably the "smart" thing for me to stay out of your situation, as a



> desire to help could easily get misinterpreted, and I could find myself the

> object of complaint too. But that would be cowardly (though I have had this

> experience of trying to help a student having problems and becoming the

object

> of their wrath too, so I know that can happen). I hate to see your educational

> experience seemingly on the verge of crashing and burning for no good

reason if

> that can be prevented. But this is ultimately your show; I just wanted to let

> you know that I am available to talk things through and bounce things off of

> should you wish that. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize if

> my Sarah Palin joke a few weeks ago offended you; philosophers use weird

> "thought experiments" constantly as a tool of analysis, I do joke about

> politicians a lot, and am not a big fan of her political party, as it happens.> The last thing I think of when I think of Sarah Palin is her *gender*. But if I

> mean well and am misunderstood, the burden is on me to communicate

more

> successfully. And if I mean less well than I'd like to think, I would need to

> look into that as well. Who knows? In any case, I'd like to be part of the

> solution here and not part of the problem. But the ball's in your court if you

> want to talk. I think it could be helpful because I do *not* have the authority

> to solve your problem, so you can't feel betrayed if I am unable to solve it,

> and, as far as I can tell, you don't regard me as a *part* of the problem thus> far, so I don't feel personally threatened by hearing your grievances. I get

the

> impression that none of the people you've talked to thus far can say either

of

> those things.

>

> Feel free to ignore this too, if you like. And if, despite my best wishes, you

> do regard this as intrusive, my sincere apologies in advance. I was of two

minds> whether to write you, but in the end, my concern for your well-being as one

of

> my students overcame my hesitation. Your most recent blog post is very

> troubling, and someone needs to step up and address it.

>



> Best regards in any event,

>

> Prof. Hill

>

>>

Documents

portland state university accepts sexism and epithets and slurs against women