Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: Required to attend LGBT training at colleges.. right or wrong?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    First off, the remark was in jest and clearly not meant in a sexual way.
    If the entirety of the story is as you relayed it, then it is surprising to me that the company's legal team could not communicate this effectively to what i can only assume was a jury of ordinary people.

    The woman who sued was jobless and looking for money.
    Not sure the relevance.

    Third, even if the supervisor meant it in a sexual way, he would have known it was wrong and no amount of training would change that.
    I disagree with this. I think some training has been effective in instructing people on things that might be inappropriate in a workplace setting, or maybe driving home the potential repercussions of misbehaving. I mean, a lot of people like to ratchet up punishments as a deterrent to doing crimes, or misbehaving (death penalty, take away retirement benefits, etc.)...but how would those things be a deterrent if people aren't told about them? A death penalty can't deter crime if the potential criminal doesn't know he might get the death penalty...but what you're saying here is that people know right from wrong and making the punishment more severe won't change the fact that they want to do wrong and will do it anyway? I disagree.

    A supervisor might say inappropriate comments if he thinks he'll just be told to stop if and when someone gets "offended"...but, once he learns the offended party might have 10 years to bring a case...and he might get personally sued for not just saying comments, but for being within earshot of comments and not doing anything....learning that might change his behavior and mindfulness in avoiding the perception of collusion as well, and contribute to a healthier work climate.

    So I guess the point Sandsjames is making is that you shoudln't need classes to teach people right and wrong.
    Not everyone has the same understanding of professional conduct, as is clearly evident from this board alone.

    All of the sensitivty training is strictly a CYA thing based on frivelous lawsuits.
    The lawsuit isn't frivilous if she won (okay, we can all disagree with that). But, more importantly, I would think it is not only a good idea, but an obligation to help cover their company's ass from lawsuits. If this training helps do that...why are people against it again?
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 04-03-2015 at 06:11 AM.
    The Voice of Reason

  2. #22
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Maybe their aren't as many issues with the treatment of ALL people.
    Of course not. Nobody other than "victims" are mistreated. We couldn't possibly teach people to treat EVERYONE with respect. We MUST focus on specific groups.



    Some people actually do give a damn. There is also the possibility that the leadership of GWU genuinely and sincerely wants to make GLBT students feel welcome and respected in student organizations...I mean, they are liberals afterall.
    Yeah, cuz liberals are always so caring, with no agenda.



    Maybe, maybe not. I think I genuinely care about the people I work with, while at the same time protecting myself and my company. It's true that some of my actions serve the second purpose moreso than the first.
    I believe that people do care about the people in their companies, as a whole, but they don't give a shit about the individual. The reason for that is that the people keep the company in business while the individual is easily replaced. So, when "leaders" say they "care", they mean that they do what's best for the people that is best for the company, with the company being the number one priority. Yet they will try to put it across as the individuals being the number 1 priority. It's all a bunch of smoke blowing. They'd be better off to tell the truth: "My number one priority is keeping this business running at it's peak, no matter who I have to get rid of." That's the truth.

    While tort reform is a lofty goal, it is hardly within the span of control of GWU. Individuals responsible for the actions, sure...but, do you think organizations are never culpable?
    Organizations are culpable, sometimes, but not in any case where an individual does something to another individual. Hell, even if it's someone on the staff (a professor, etc) that is taking part, there is no way that the entire organization can be in the know. At some point, it falls on an individual, whether that's the CEO or the guy in the mailroom. Go after those people.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Of course not. Nobody other than "victims" are mistreated. We couldn't possibly teach people to treat EVERYONE with respect. We MUST focus on specific groups.
    Okay, so you are in favor of a U having training on teaching respect of all people, but not on teaching respect of any sub-group of people? Is it safe to assume you have backed off of the "only if it is directly related to the degree" stance?

    Let's don't focus so much on the CONTENT of what is in the training...that is best left to the individual institutions, their stakeholdes, students, alumni, etc....just on whether or not the college has the right to conduct it. That really separates the principle of the matter. I found it odd (not really) that all the self-proclaimed small-govt. conservatives around here seem to think the govt. should step into this private university and tell them what they can't train on...seems like a terrible imposition on liberty, to me.

    If you are President of the James University someday and want to train all students on respect of all people...i would in no way be againt that. If you want to teach them proper respect of Veterans, again...no argument from me. If you want to teach them the proper ways to address a Deacon of the Methodist Church...I will support your right to do so.

    Yeah, cuz liberals are always so caring, with no agenda.
    Snide comment aside...do you think it is impossible for someone to genuinely care about how a gay person is received by their organization?

    I believe that people do care about the people in their companies, as a whole, but they don't give a shit about the individual. The reason for that is that the people keep the company in business while the individual is easily replaced. So, when "leaders" say they "care", they mean that they do what's best for the people that is best for the company, with the company being the number one priority. Yet they will try to put it across as the individuals being the number 1 priority. It's all a bunch of smoke blowing. They'd be better off to tell the truth: "My number one priority is keeping this business running at it's peak, no matter who I have to get rid of." That's the truth.
    Oh, I think there are trade-offs with people. In my company, I have seen it first hand with leaders up to and including the CEO, where they have put individuals first.

    I've seen where the data clearly says the company should lay off an employee. CEO says, "oh man, our least senior employee is Jane, she just bought a house, we can't do that."

    I have many other examples...not everyone in leadership is cold-hearted.

    Organizations are culpable, sometimes, but not in any case where an individual does something to another individual. Hell, even if it's someone on the staff (a professor, etc) that is taking part, there is no way that the entire organization can be in the know. At some point, it falls on an individual, whether that's the CEO or the guy in the mailroom. Go after those people.
    It's really tough to talk this in generalities. The degree to which the organization allowed certain behaviors is certainly culpable...if they encouraged it, surely....if they failed to take reasonable actions to prevent it, maybe also. That last part is probably what we're dealing with...and I get the point that the company should not necessarily be expected to anticipate illegal actions on the part of the employee. Employees should be expected to act in a legal manner, for the most part....but much like it would be unreasonably negligent for a large investment company...to have only one person responsible for the money without oversight..standard accounting practices insist to have a division of approval/review...even though that individual might be criminally responsible, the company had a responsibility to reasonably safeguard their investors money...it could be also negligent for a company to not set in place reasonable standards of employee conduct.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 04-03-2015 at 12:27 AM.
    The Voice of Reason

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,326
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    There are already laws/penalties for frivilous litigation.

    Are there? Where? I have never heard of anyone actually getting penalized for bringing one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    I would think it is not only a good idea, but an obligation to help cover their company's ass from lawsuits. If this training helps do that...why are people against it again?
    BUt as mentioned training won't stop someone who already has it in their mind to do it. its just a slick way to hopefully cover the business's butt.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Are there? Where?
    Federal and most, if not all, states.

    I have never heard of anyone actually getting penalized for bringing one.
    So, you didn't take 30 seconds to google the possiblity before posting this reply...or you would have heard of many many cases. Do you want me to link some, or you do just wanna handle that yourself? Not sure if I can post links since I'm a newbie.

    But, this isn't really the issue at hand. You wanna talk tort reform, believe me, I'm all for it. What I don't get is why a, let's say less than just, tort system should be a reason to prevent this college from holding a training class on respect for people who are GLBT.
    and, reforming the U.S. Tort system is way beyond the power of this college...best they can do is operate within it...and maybe advocate some change, but that's way beyond this topic.

    BUt as mentioned training won't stop someone who already has it in their mind to do it.
    If someone "has it in their mind" to treat gay people badly...sure, we aren't going to train them out of it. What if someone doesn't have it in their mind to do so, but through a lack of exposure simply doesn't know any better?

    But, once again...I'd ask you to separate the principle from the content. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the content should not be the basis of whether or not you agree with the principle. You can never expect all of America to agree with you on every issue...the test of whether or not you believe in freedom and liberty is whether or not you agree with allowing people you disagree with to have it.

    I get from most of your comments that your position is "Liberalism is bad and anything we do to restrict it is therefore good"....in other words, you don't really believe in freedom and liberty...you only believe in the freedom and liberty to fall in line with your party line.

    If you are advocating that this private school be prohibited from mandating a training class, because you disagree with the content of that class...you have to be careful where that principle might lead. Because, there is a fair chance that whoever it is that decides which "content" is okay and which isn't, will likely disagree with you at some point...heck there is a good chance that the deciders will eventually be dominated by liberals even! Then what?

    its just a slick way to hopefully cover the business's butt.
    I wish someone would explain why covering the business's butt should be prohibited...you all keep mentioning it and I, can not for the life of me unnderstand why you think this should be prohibited.

    However, in addition to covering the college's legal butt, there is also a very real possibility that the college leadership is genuinely and sincerely concerned about the treatment of people who are LGBT...there are some people who actually care about things.

    Whether or not this course will accomplish that is not the bigger point. You can think it won't be effective...but why should they not be permitted to try it?
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 04-03-2015 at 06:33 AM.
    The Voice of Reason

  6. #26
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Okay, so you are in favor of a U having training on teaching respect of all people, but not on teaching respect of any sub-group of people? Is it safe to assume you have backed off of the "only if it is directly related to the degree" stance?
    As I said, it should be part of an orientation, at most. "Ok, these are our rules. No underage drinking, NO means NO, and treat everyone with respect or you'll be expelled". Pretty simple, really.

    Let's don't focus so much on the CONTENT of what is in the training...that is best left to the individual institutions, their stakeholdes, students, alumni, etc....just on whether or not the college has the right to conduct it. That really separates the principle of the matter. I found it odd (not really) that all the self-proclaimed small-govt. conservatives around here seem to think the govt. should step into this private university and tell them what they can't train on...seems like a terrible imposition on liberty, to me.
    Private schools have the right to teach whatever they want. Public schools do not, so political agendas need to be put in a closet somewhere.

    If you are President of the James University someday and want to train all students on respect of all people...i would in no way be againt that. If you want to teach them proper respect of Veterans, again...no argument from me. If you want to teach them the proper ways to address a Deacon of the Methodist Church...I will support your right to do so.
    Ok...



    Snide comment aside...do you think it is impossible for someone to genuinely care about how a gay person is received by their organization?
    Nope, but I also think it's highly unlikely that the person cares about it for more than the reason of not getting sued.



    Oh, I think there are trade-offs with people. In my company, I have seen it first hand with leaders up to and including the CEO, where they have put individuals first.

    I've seen where the data clearly says the company should lay off an employee. CEO says, "oh man, our least senior employee is Jane, she just bought a house, we can't do that."

    I have many other examples...not everyone in leadership is cold-hearted.
    But the majority are going to do what makes them most money. I've had one good Commander who I believe actually cared about us as individuals. But I've also had many more that cared about the next rank.



    It's really tough to talk this in generalities. The degree to which the organization allowed certain behaviors is certainly culpable...if they encouraged it, surely....if they failed to take reasonable actions to prevent it, maybe also. That last part is probably what we're dealing with...and I get the point that the company should not necessarily be expected to anticipate illegal actions on the part of the employee. Employees should be expected to act in a legal manner, for the most part....but much like it would be unreasonably negligent for a large investment company...to have only one person responsible for the money without oversight..standard accounting practices insist to have a division of approval/review...even though that individual might be criminally responsible, the company had a responsibility to reasonably safeguard their investors money...it could be also negligent for a company to not set in place reasonable standards of employee conduct.
    Right, but if that one person calls someone a "fag" do you hold the entire department responsible? You're example is about liability on stuff related to the actual purpose of the company. That is much different than liability/culpability for the actions of a person as it relates to one on one interactions with coworkers.

  7. #27
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Federal and most, if not all, states.



    So, you didn't take 30 seconds to google the possiblity before posting this reply...or you would have heard of many many cases. Do you want me to link some, or you do just wanna handle that yourself? Not sure if I can post links since I'm a newbie.

    But, this isn't really the issue at hand. You wanna talk tort reform, believe me, I'm all for it. What I don't get is why a, let's say less than just, tort system should be a reason to prevent this college from holding a training class on respect for people who are GLBT.
    and, reforming the U.S. Tort system is way beyond the power of this college...best they can do is operate within it...and maybe advocate some change, but that's way beyond this topic.



    If someone "has it in their mind" to treat gay people badly...sure, we aren't going to train them out of it. What if someone doesn't have it in their mind to do so, but through a lack of exposure simply doesn't know any better?

    But, once again...I'd ask you to separate the principle from the content. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the content should not be the basis of whether or not you agree with the principle. You can never expect all of America to agree with you on every issue...the test of whether or not you believe in freedom and liberty is whether or not you agree with allowing people you disagree with to have it.

    I get from most of your comments that your position is "Liberalism is bad and anything we do to restrict it is therefore good"....in other words, you don't really believe in freedom and liberty...you only believe in the freedom and liberty to fall in line with your party line.

    If you are advocating that this private school be prohibited from mandating a training class, because you disagree with the content of that class...you have to be careful where that principle might lead. Because, there is a fair chance that whoever it is that decides which "content" is okay and which isn't, will likely disagree with you at some point...heck there is a good chance that the deciders will eventually be dominated by liberals even! Then what?



    I wish someone would explain why covering the business's butt should be prohibited...you all keep mentioning it and I, can not for the life of me unnderstand why you think this should be prohibited.

    However, in addition to covering the college's legal butt, there is also a very real possibility that the college leadership is genuinely and sincerely concerned about the treatment of people who are LGBT...there are some people who actually care about things.

    Whether or not this course will accomplish that is not the bigger point. You can think it won't be effective...but why should they not be permitted to try it?
    The point is that if there was tort reform the majority of these requirements for "training" would go away because people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves from litigation.

    If I'm running a company that creates a product and the sales of that product are determined by how many of those items are produced, do you really think I would want to stop production, or lose some of that production, for a couple hours in order how to "teach" people to act like adults? No chance. The only reason it happens now is because it's going to cost the company more for the lawsuit than it will for the lost production. Take away that financial loss and they aren't going to care.

    As for colleges, well, who knows. As I said, private colleges can do what they want.

    Just explain one thing to me. Why must the focus be on specific groups? Do you not think that it creates resentment for people who don't want to attend these classes to be forced to attend? Do you think the classes actually change anything? As I've stated, IMO, those who need the class aren't going to change anyway and those who don't need the class don't need to be there in the first place.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    As I said, it should be part of an orientation, at most.
    What else would it be? Well, it sounds like in this case it was a requirement for student-groups to have their leaders attend, not sure if it was at the beginning of the school year or something that came up later. Of course, if course was a reasonable reaction to incidents that happened on campus, you're not going to read about it in Breitbart or GOPUSA, sites whose sole purpose is to manufacture outrage among their readership.

    I'm not understanding why whether it's done during an orientation or other time is important to you. In what scenario would you think it's wrong?

    "Ok, these are our rules. No underage drinking, NO means NO, and treat everyone with respect or you'll be expelled". Pretty simple, really.
    Agreed. Remember, it's the Christian group making this a big deal.

    [quote]Private schools have the right to teach whatever they want. Public schools do not, so political agendas need to be put in a closet somewhere.

    Ok...I don't see anything about a political agenda here, but, this is about a private school anyway.

    Nope, but I also think it's highly unlikely that the person cares about it for more than the reason of not getting sued.
    I don't see why it matters if the person cares or not about what reasons. I also think "not getting sued" is a good reason to hold the training.

    But the majority are going to do what makes them most money.
    That is their job...they have an obligation to their shareholders.

    I've had one good Commander who I believe actually cared about us as individuals. But I've also had many more that cared about the next rank.
    I believe that...not sure what it has to do with this question. Okay, not all leaders are entirely motivated by moral altruism...so?

    Right, but if that one person calls someone a "fag" do you hold the entire department responsible? You're example is about liability on stuff related to the actual purpose of the company. That is much different than liability/culpability for the actions of a person as it relates to one on one interactions with coworkers.
    Well, likely no...if it's a one-off person who did something that the department does not condone or encourage, then the whole department is likely not going to be held liable....but if the department knows about similar instances and ignores, colludes, condones or encourages one person calling another a "fag"...then they have some liability.

    The specifics of whether or not the company should be held liable is case-by-case and decided by a jury of ordinary people. My point here was to counter a point you made earlier that individuals, not organizations, should be held liable for this kind of stuff...I was just demonstrating that organizations sometimes should also be held liable, not every time, but sometimes.
    The Voice of Reason

  9. #29
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    The point is that if there was tort reform the majority of these requirements for "training" would go away because people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves from litigation.
    Maybe. But, if people stopped committing crimes we wouldn't need prisons either. Sounds almost like you're arguing that people shouldn't need guns at home cuz they wouldn't need them if people would just stop breaking into homes. A common-sense solution, maybe, but not practical from this level.

    I do think there is an argument that could be made for the billions upon billions of dollars that could be saved with some tort reform...but it's not likely, because those billions upon billions of dollars go to the people who are responsible for the tort system.

    If I'm running a company that creates a product and the sales of that product are determined by how many of those items are produced, do you really think I would want to stop production, or lose some of that production, for a couple hours in order how to "teach" people to act like adults? No chance.
    So...what you're saying is you don't care about individuals, so you have difficulty imagining someone who would.

    The only reason it happens now is because it's going to cost the company more for the lawsuit than it will for the lost production. Take away that financial loss and they aren't going to care.
    I don't doubt this is true for many, maybe most senior managers. I would hesitate to make a sweeping generalization...but, yes, there is a lot of training we do that is simply to fulfill a legal requirement, there is no doubt about that and I'm still not sure why you think this is bad.

    As for colleges, well, who knows. As I said, private colleges can do what they want.
    Okay...this was really the point of this whole thread. Until I came along, it seemed everyone was saying, "No, this college should not be ALLOWED to mandate this class"...but, now we agree.

    Just explain one thing to me. Why must the focus be on specific groups? Do you not think that it creates resentment for people who don't want to attend these classes to be forced to attend?
    I think recent events have shown that some groups ARE treated differently. People are passing laws in states to allow them to discriminate...or at least want to discriminate. A restaurant owner admitted that if he sees a gay couple in his restaurant, he makes up some other excuse to try and have them leave. So, a College professor says, "Hey you student groups, we'll have none of that in our student groups on campus"...As I mentioned previously, it's not clear from the links whether or not this class was in reaction to incidents or trends on campus, or whether the administration was just trying to be proactive...Anyway, then a Christian group says, "Dean, can you exempt us? We're a Christian group and our religion requires us to isolate and throw scorn upon homosexuals?" Dean, says, "Nope, this applies to all"

    And here we are...

    I do think these classes cause resentment in some people...you, for one, seem to resent them. You are a person, so your statement is true.

    Do you think the classes actually change anything?
    I think I have learned some things in these types of classes on better ways to handle certain issues, yes. Do I think a 1-hour class is going to change the campus environment? No. But, I think, having attended stuff like this over the years, that a nugget gained here and there has changed things. But, whether or not we think it'll work is not important to the point of whether or not GWU should be allowed to do it.

    As I've stated, IMO, those who need the class aren't going to change anyway and those who don't need the class don't need to be there in the first place.
    I don't entirely agree. First, I think well-intentioned people do change.

    It's kind of like any other briefing...weekly safety briefings seem so redundant and pointless, but whether you like to admit it or not, you have learned from them over the years.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 04-03-2015 at 02:37 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  10. #30
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    It's kind of like any other briefing...weekly safety briefings seem so redundant and pointless, but whether you like to admit it or not, you have learned from them over the years.
    This is my point that pretty much covers everything I've talked about. Some people (you, for instance) believe that we actually learn something from these safety briefings. It just doesn't happen. I still mow my lawn in my flip-flops, without eye or hearing protection. I don't need a briefing to tell me it's safer not to do it that way, I just choose to do so.

    If the organization wants to give a briefing on the consequences of breaking the rules, that's fine. It's only fair that people know what will happen to them if they don't play along, but to brief me on what's respectful and disrespectful is a waste of my time.

    And to your other point about there being many recent cases involving LGBT, that's only because it's the current trend. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Every gay performer gets a standing ovation. Every movie about gays wins an award.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Live your life how you want. Just don't tell me how I am supposed to feel about it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •