Law prof’s exam question on Brazilian wax is deemed harassment; is academic freedom threatened?

Image: http://pensamientocolombia.org/AllUploads/ExternalColumns/ExternalCol_6_2015-03-30.jpg

A Howard University law professor says academics everywhere should be concerned by his school’s response to a 2015 exam question about a Brazilian bikini wax.

The school determined in May that the question by Professor Reginald Robinson constituted sexual harassment under school policy, report Law.com (sub. req.) and Inside Higher Ed in a story noted by TaxProf Blog.

The school placed a letter of reprimand in Robinson’s file, ordered him to attend sensitivity training and required him to submit future exam questions for advance review, according to a letter written on Robinson’s behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The exam question, part of Robinson’s agency law course, asked whether the owner of a day spa would win a demurrer motion in a suit filed by a customer who claimed improper touching by the licensed aesthetician who performed the procedure. The exam question asserted that the customer had slept through the wax, but thought something improper had occurred upon awakening.

The aesthetician had warned the customer about touching that would take place during the procedure, and the customer acknowledged in writing having received the aesthetician’s information, according to the exam hypothetical. (The correct answer was that a court would not find in favor of the customer.)

After the exam, Robinson asked volunteers to discuss the test questions. One volunteer said the customer would not sleep through a Brazilian wax. Robinson switched focus, and when the volunteer declined to explain her answer choice, Robinson sought answers from another volunteer, according to FIRE’s letter.

Two students filed a complaint. An administrator who found the question constituted sexual harassment cited use of the word “genital,” the students’ suspicion that the question was crafted to reveal personal details about themselves, their belief the revelations had a negative impact on them, and the administrator’s belief that the exam scenario wasn’t necessary to teach the subject.

In its June 16 letter, FIRE asked Howard University to rescind the sanctions and to respond to its request by June 30. Howard did not respond by the deadline, according to a FIRE press release.

Howard’s punishment “does not comport with its own definition of sexual harassment or its promises of academic freedom,” FIRE wrote in its letter. “It poses a severe threat not only to professors’ rights but also to students’ ability to learn all areas of the law, including learning how to analyze situations that may make some students uncomfortable.”

Robinson released a statement about his case through FIRE.

“My case should worry every faculty member at Howard University, and perhaps elsewhere, who teaches in substantive areas like law, medicine, history, and literature,” Robinson stated. “Why? None of these academic areas can be taught without evaluating and discussing contextual facts, especially unsavory and emotionally charged ones.”

In: abajournal

Cuando Manuel A. Odría persiguió a los apristas como grupo terrorista

Verdades a medias. El folletín tiene un título rotundo: Los crímenes del Apra. La autoría es atribuida al ministerio de Gobierno y Policía del régimen del dictador Manuel A Odría.

Imagen: https://lamula.pe/media/uploads/7713b298-0c8d-4f0e-abde-a92c609579e7.jpg

Por: Juan Carlos Soto.

El general Manuel A. Odría siempre tuvo al Apra en la mira. De ministro de Gobierno y Policía le pidió al presidente José Luis Bustamante reprimir a estos feroces opositores, con los que hizo una alianza pegada con baba para ganar las elecciones de 1945. Bustamante no aceptó y meses después Odría desde Arequipa encabezó un golpe de Estado contra él, aduciendo debilidad frente a los apristas y comunistas. En el poder, el presidente de facto promulgó la Ley de Seguridad Interior de la República, que dejó fuera de la ley a ambos partidos.

Para Odría el Apra era un grupo terrorista. La apreciación está argumentada en este folletín, rescatado de la colección del periodista Álvaro Rojas Samanez y cedida a la biblioteca Vargas Llosa de la Ciudad Blanca. Sus hojas tienen el sello del Ministerio de Gobierno y Policía, en donde trabajó como director el temible Esparza Zañartu. La lealtad perruna con el régimen y a la vez ferocidad para defenderlo de los enemigos políticos convirtió a este comerciante de vinos en el ministro del sector dos años después.

Esparza Zañartu es ficcionado en Conversación en la Catedral de Mario Vargas Llosa, como Cayo Bermúdez o Cayo de Mierda. “A Vargas Llosa le hubiese contado cosas más interesantes para su novela”, respondió cuando los periodistas le preguntaron por las alusiones a su escabrosa biografía.

Esparza tuvo sus cartas bajo la manga para derrotar a los conspiradores, las mismas que cuenta Vargas Llosa en la novela. No se descarta que Los crímenes del Apra sea de su cosecha.

El folletín hace un recuento de las revueltas sociales en donde el partido de la estrella es sindicado de organizarlas para capturar el poder mediante la violencia. La ocurrida en Trujillo, en 1932, tiene la mayor cobertura. No hay un relato objetivo. Abunda el adjetivo que a veces le quita rigor a un documento que pretende esclarecer un hecho histórico. “Desde que el Apra hizo su aparición, la ciudadanía vio con estupor la repetición de crímenes en una lucha partidaria que tomó caracteres de inusitada violencia y odio nunca vistos en la historia del Perú”, dice en uno de sus párrafos.

MEDIAS VERDADES

La revolución de Trujillo estalló en el gobierno de Luis Sánchez Cerro. Representó el pico más alto de desencuentros entre el régimen y el Apra, que había desconocido el resultado de las elecciones de 1930 por presunto fraude. La militancia declaró a Victor Raúl “presidente moral del Perú”. Sánchez Cerro combatió las protestas con una ley de emergencia. Por eso, en febrero de 1932, 22 parlamentarios apristas sufrieron la expatriación, acusados de conspiradores. Un mes después, un joven aprista intentó asesinar a Sánchez Cerro en una Iglesia de Miraflores. Después de varios meses en la clandestinidad, la Policía apresó a Haya el 6 de mayo (seis meses atrás habían intentado matarlo). La madrugada del 7 de julio, Manuel “Búfalo” Barreto encabezó la toma del cuartel O’Donovan, en las afueras de la ciudad norteña de Trujillo.

VIOLENCIA DE DOS LADOS

Los insurrectos retuvieron a los militares e intentaron extender la revolución en todo el departamento. El libro es ilustrativo en la matanza perpetrada por los insurrectos a sus prisioneros. Se consigna la cifra de 36 caídos y 15 heridos, sin embargo, no cuentan los caídos del otro bando ni la forma violenta cómo el gobierno aplastó la revuelta. Hubo desplazamientos de tropas de Lima, Lambayeque y bombardeos a Trujillo.

Jorge Basadre da cuenta de una represión desmedida y ejecuciones extrajudiciales.

Una corte marcial condenó a muerte a Agustín Haya de la Torre, el hermano de Víctor Raúl y uno de los cabecillas de la revuelta. Con él corrieron la misma suerte 44 prisioneros. Se fusiló a quienes tenían evidencias de haber usado un arma. Las ruinas de Chan Chan se convirtieron en un matadero. Un ministro-dice Basadre- confesó que a Sánchez Cerro le contaron de esta barbarie y ordenó a través del telégrafo: “No fusilen a una persona más. Del cumplimiento de esta orden me responden ustedes con sus vidas”.

Los Crímenes del Apra mencionan otras revueltas apristas en Lima, Ayacucho, Huancavelica y Huancayo. Los líderes son presentados con un código policial y prontuariado. Armando Villanueva del Campo es fichado desde 1938 como terrorista. Lo señalan como enlace de apristas desterrados “y siempre que la Policía lo intervino lo encontró armado”. Hubo militantes apristas cuyos crímenes estuvieron probados. Abelardo Mendoza Leiva mató a Sánchez Cerro, Carlos Steer liquidó a Antonio Miró Quesada de la Guerra, uno de los directores del diario El Comercio y su esposa. ¿Fue el Apra un partido de criminales? Hubo militantes implicados en hechos graves, pero el Estado también reaccionó con la misma brutalidad que alentó la violencia de los insurrectos.

En: larepublica

Report: GOP operative probing Clinton e-mail took his own life in Minnesota

Peter Smith. Screenshot via Youtube. Image: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/59680f2b552be5a7088b48c0-492/screen%20shot%202017-07-13%20at%2052325%20pm.png

CHICAGO (AP) — A published report says a former private equity adviser and Republican operative who died soon after telling The Wall Street Journal he tried during the 2016 presidential election to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers killed himself.

The Chicago Tribune reported Thursday that according to death records from Olmsted County, Minnesota, 81-year-old Peter W. Smith killed himself in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic on May 14. The newspaper says a note from Smith found by police said he was taking his own life because of bad health and an expiring life insurance policy.

Smith’s death came about 10 days after the Journal said he granted an interview in which he claimed he tried to acquire emails missing from Clinton’s server.

Smith had lived in the Chicago suburb of Lake Forest. A former employee told the Tribune he thought Smith went to the Mayo Clinic for treatment of a heart condition.

In: wthr

Reasd also: businessinsider – Republican donor kills himslef after talking about working with Russian hackers to get Hillary Clinton’s emails

This is our chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional

Why you should support Common Cause

In January, a federal judge ruled that the Wisconsin Legislature—tasked with drawing legislative districts—would have to re-draw them to less blatantly favor one party over the other.

The Legislature in Wisconsin drew unconstitutionally partisan lines because they wanted to rig the system.

They’ve appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, and you can bet they’ll be well financed.

This problem is called Gerrymandering, and I’m determined to terminate its poisonous impact on our democracy.

That’s why I’ve partnered with Common Cause, a nonprofit focused on promoting open, honest and accountable government.

We want to hire the best-in-the-business lawyers to argue this and other critical cases before the Supreme Court.

If we win, we have the chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional nation-wide.

But terminating gerrymandering will be expensive.

Arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court, filing amicus briefs, paying for the research and legal expertise necessary to really have a shot at terminating gerrymandering — that’ll take anywhere from $250,000 to $1,000,000.

We’re hoping YOU can help us get to $150,000. And because we must win these cases, I’m personally going to match each and every dollar we raise with my own contribution.

Please chip in whatever you can afford today — even $3 will send a powerful message that the citizens of America won’t stand idly by as politicians protect their jobs instead of earn them.

Message from Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Thank you!

Friends — 

I have been traveling across the globe, but I had to take a moment to write you a quick note of thanks for joining me in the effort to end partisan gerrymandering.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, our work begins in earnest. You are on the front lines of this battle, and I’m grateful to have you with me in this fight. 
 
I can think of no better way to celebrate our patriotism after July 4th than boldly proclaiming that as American citizens, we stand united against gerrymandering and the broken political system it has created.
 
We stand against politicians choosing themselves and their jobs over the people. 
 
We stand for American citizens taking political power into their own hands. 
 
You’ve already done your part by donating — now make sure that your friends know we have the chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional. 
 
Share your support on Facebook.
 

Together, we’re going to make Washington work for regular people again. 
 
I hope you had a fantastic fourth, 

Arnold

The Most Important Criminal Conviction in Brazil’s History

Lula lived up to an old Brazilian saying, “rouba mas faz”—“he steals, but he gets things done.”Photograph by Mateus Bonomi / AP

On Wednesday, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who served as the President of Brazil from 2003 to 2011, was convicted of corruption and money laundering. The case against him grew out of a long-running federal bribery investigation, known as Operation Car Wash, that has sent some of Brazil’s richest and most powerful people to prison—but Lula was the most significant figure to fall yet.

The judge who decided the case, Sérgio Moro, clearly understood the gravity of the situation. He sentenced Lula to nine and a half years in prison but, in deference to the national “trauma” involved in jailing a former President, allowed him to remain free during his appeal. Yet Moro was unambiguous about his conclusion that Lula had taken kickbacks while in office. In his written decision, he described the scheme uncovered by Operation Car Wash: the state oil company, Petrobras, had awarded contracts to construction firms, which then funnelled some of the money to lawmakers in Lula’s coalition. Lula’s precise role in the execution of the scheme remains unclear, but one of the firms involved, OAS, was found to have secretly given him a beachside apartment worth more than seven hundred thousand dollars. More details are sure to come out: Lula faces four additional trials for charges including corruption, influence peddling, and obstruction of justice.

After receiving his sentence, Lula was defiant. On Thursday morning, he held a press conference at the Workers’ Party headquarters in São Paulo. He railed against Moro, whose two-hundred-and-sixty-page ruling, he said, showed “absolutely no proof” of his guilt. Before the verdict, Lula had been—despite his legal troubles—leading the country’s 2018 Presidential election polls, and now he vowed to run. “Anyone who thinks this is the end of Lula is going to be disappointed,” he said, in a voice that has been made gravelly by decades of smoking and a bout of throat cancer. “Wait for me, because no one can decree my end but the Brazilian people.”

Lula’s enduring appeal stems in part from the economic boom he oversaw during his term as President, when thirty million people in Brazil were lifted out of extreme poverty. At the time, many Brazilians allowed themselves to dream that the country might finally see widespread prosperity. And working-class Brazilians identified with his biography: he was the first President of Brazil to grow up poor. Instead of attending school, he sold peanuts and shined shoes. At fourteen, he got a job at an auto-parts factory in São Paulo, where he lost his left pinky in a machine. He gained national fame in the seventies when, as a young union leader, he called for the first major workers strikes in defiance of the military dictatorship. He never lost his lisp, even after being elected to Congress in the eighties. To the country’s workers, he was more like them than any politician they had seen before—a squat man who drank cachaça.

Lula ran for President three times before winning the 2002 election. In his campaigns, he promised to fight the corruption that helped keep Brazil’s élites rich and its workers poor. Once in office, however, he decided not to confront the old system head on. To pass his progressive agenda, he decided to work within the system, building alliances with old-school politicians who, even if they had once supported the business-friendly dictatorship, put patronage over ideology. In the venerable Brazilian tradition, Lula’s Workers’ Party dangled government contracts to win campaign donations from wealthy families, and not every donation was declared to the authorities. With these trade-offs, Lula lived up to an old Brazilian saying, “rouba mas faz”—“he steals, but he gets things done.”

One thing that every Brazilian knows is that while Lula is the country’s first President to be convicted of corruption, he is almost certainly not the first to have committed it. The difference is that, in the past, Brazilian politicians could quash any investigation that threatened them. The irony of Lula’s downfall is that, while his Administration was siphoning billions of dollars from public coffers, it was also allowing an independent judiciary to flourish. That independence led to the investigation—Operation Car Wash—that would eventually ensnare him.

There were many in Brazil who celebrated Lula’s conviction. They believed him to be uniquely corrupt, and blamed the Workers’ Party for the country’s current economic ills. His supporters, however, were not shy in expressing their dismay. Union leaders and left-wing politicians called for protests against what they consider to be a political persecution, part of a right-wing conspiracy to bury Lula’s chances of returning to the Presidency. “This is not democracy,” Lindbergh Farias, a senator from the Workers’ Party, declared in a video on his Facebook page.

The problem with this theory is that Operation Car Wash has also targeted right-wing politicians. The current President, Michel Temer, who helped to orchestrate the impeachment of Lula’s successor, Dilma Rousseff, is one of several top conservative figures facing charges of corruption. (He has denied the charges). In fact, powerful politicians on both the right and the left have begun to quietly unite against Operation Car Wash. Behind the scenes, the Workers’ Party has reportedly worked with Temer’s party toward two common goals: amnesty for politicians who took undeclared campaign donations, and restrictions on the power of prosecutors. Last month, Lula even defended Temer publicly, accusing the country’s prosecutor general of “pyrotechnics” and saying that he should be punished if his allegations are disproved.

In his ruling, Moro cited the seventeenth-century English writer Thomas Fuller: “Be you never so high, the law is above you.” This is a very new concept in Brazil. In recent weeks, Temer has made drastic cuts to the federal police budget, and the main task force behind Operation Car Wash was shut down—even though ninety-five per cent of Brazilians want the investigation to keep going. This is a contest that defies ideological categories, pitting most of the political class against the public. Lula helped millions of the country’s poor, but to side with him now would risk undermining the fight against impunity.

Alex Cuadros is the author of “Brazillionaires: Wealth, Power, Decadence, and Hope in an American Country,” published by Spiegel & Grau. Read more »

In: nytimes

1 139 140 141 142 143 495