Tweet
Originally posted by kochHead
View Post
...Or participate in women's sports of any kind?
-
On an unrelated note:
...Or participate in women's sports of any kind? -
-
The arguments in this thread have made me lose track of what I suspected occurred.
1) The women being "harassed" were part of Chris' party? T or F?
2) The women being "harassed" have not filed complaints? T or F?
3) The video taking and e-mail were done by a 3rd party? T or F?
4) The 3rd party observer initiated contact? T or F?
5) The incident occurred around midnight? T or F?Where oh where is our T. Boone Pickens.Comment
-
Yes, depending on the length of time and setting etc. Just like if you make "eye contact" with a coworker's breasts for too long I hope you get sued and learn your lesson financially.Originally posted by Turd Furgeson View PostComment
-
What is the official "length of time" one can stare at breasts? Want to make sure I stay below the line!Comment
-
I am, in no way, condoning Jans' actions. However, a few things should be eliminated from this discussion. It may be "bad manners" and potentially subject to harassment, but Jans' actions with the 2 females were NOT rebuffed, possibly the opposite with the one he did not know based on the short video, so I see the talk of "harassment" as pointless and not part of the incident. This does not mean BGSU would not look at his actions as an embarrassment to the university and cause for firing.
Second, the letter states Jans called Clapacs at 9:00 PM to pick him up at his home and that he was drinking at the bar for 3 to 4 hours. This makes the incident happening after 12:30 AM, probably around 1:00 AM. For anyone, man or woman, attending a bar at that time and confronting a person drinking a lot, if not plain drunk, is pretty stupid and a recipe for potential disaster. This does not excuse Jans' comment, but it should have been totally expected. The "family" should have just left and complained to BGSU the next day.
Was Jans stupid? Absolutely. Under the agreements of employment, they had every right to fire him and I don't disagree. He's got a problem that finally caught up to him. I feel so sorry for his family and what he is putting them through. I could care less about the "family" in the bar at 1:00 AM.Comment
-
LOL. You can think something is a disaster without wanting to "shut it down". I believe it's a disaster, not because I agree or disagree with any point of view. Also, and ShockBand can attest to this, I accused him of running a North Korean form last night (and called him Kim), why you ask? Because he removed this thread and "shut it down". So, yeah, I think you are a little off base here. I am a libertarian for god sake!!!!!Originally posted by SHOCKvalue View Post“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of WarComment
-
Oh goody... a copy and pasted definition. Who needs critical thinking skills these days?Originally posted by wsushockerdude View Post
I've never had to define sexual harassment a single time in all my credit hours at WSU, much less in multiple "courses" as you purport.
How do you know the touching done by CJ was unwelcome? In the video the 'victim' does nothing at all to infer that she was offended. Don't you think the average female touched in such a manner, but in an unwelcome context, would do something to indicate the touch was out-of-line? Again, all we have on this subject is a short video and the testimony of the video taker who later made it a point to make as much fuss about the situation as she/he possibly could.
There's is a notable amount of projection going on in this thread wherein the "sexual harassment" crowd is making some huge assumptions that those of us who have an alternate take here are somehow defending the behavior across all contexts of social norms. We are not.Comment
-
lolOriginally posted by DJ06Shocker View Post“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of WarComment
-
I think that this debate has nothing to do with Chris. I m going out on a limb here and say that "Eye contact" would not have lost Chris his job. When he did what he did, he doesn't have a leg to stand on to keep his job if he wants to appeal.Comment
-
-
-
I would infer from the email the alumnus sent that the touching was probably unwanted, along with Jans calling her a *****. Wouldn't you imagine that the BG staff would have thought this through, maybe gathered more than one piece of eyewitness testimony, before they fired him? I'd think so.Originally posted by SHOCKvalue View Post
We're way off topic. Jans made a mistake, and he was punished for it."Say it slowly and savor it..."
Nothing worse than sCUm/sKUmComment
-
There are viewpoints I agree with and viewpoints I disagree with. I'm not saying this needs to be shut down, but the "debate" sure isn't very respectful. That's why it's a disasterOriginally posted by SHOCKvalue View PostComment
-
All this talk of what defines "harassment" is irrelevant! If Jans was having consensual sex on the bar, and by all accounts the woman was LOVING it, he would be fired just the same. The issue here is public behavior, not if he did or did not harass someone.
BTW, the sex on the bar thing is over the top i know, so no need to dissect the difference between public sex and just playing grab ass at the bar.“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of WarComment
Comment