What I Learned at the Sexual Harassment Seminar

I’m sure some of you will take one look at the title and know what this is going to be about. Far be it from me to disappoint you.
Those of you who follow politics closely are probably familiar with Herman Cain, the erstwhile hopeful for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012. As you may be aware, Mr. Cain was leading the polls for the nomination when his candidacy was upended by allegations of past indiscretions with female employees in the corporation he represented in the late 1990s. I believe I have a bit of insight into those allegations, as well as their relationship to the “female imperative” discussion taking place in some of the better blogs on the internet.
Mr. Cain insisted that he was largely “unaware” of the allegations made against him, and that he was further completely out of the loop on the settlement paid to one of his accusers. Most commentators found these statements to be ludicrous, but upon closer inspection Mr. Cain’s statements have the ring of truth.
In the same time frame in which Mr. Cain was accused of sexual harassment, I was also employed by a mid-sized corporation headquartered out of Atlanta, GA, the same location where Mr. Cain was employed. As part of the training for all employees, I was required to attend “sexual harassment” training sessions. And herein lies the rub, so to speak.
The sessions I attended were primarily videos, slickly produced, and with corporate counsel’s seal of approval. These sessions were tailored around the current court doctrines coming out of state and federal courts in the Atlanta area. And here is what I learned….
1) Women NEVER lie about sexual harassment. The pain of having to disclose sexual harassment is SO GREAT that no woman would EVER lie about it. Hence the accusation of sexual harassment by a woman is in itself prove positive that sexual harassment occurred.
2) Women often do not realize they have been sexually harassed until they receive a negative report on their job performance. Only when she reflects as to why her job performance has been poor does a woman realize she has been a victim of sexual harassment, which prevented her from doing her job properly.
3) The “reasonable man” standard of common law is outdated, and should be replaced with a “reasonable woman” standard in matters of sexual harassment law.
4) A man may sexually harass a woman without any knowledge or intent of doing so. Only the woman can tell is she is being sexually harassed. This does NOT excuse the behavior of the offending male.
Okay, I’m sure you can see where this is going. Every quarter my fellow employees and I would receive our performance reviews. As a rule, the womyn all got positive reviews, for obvious reasons. If, however, a woman somehow received a negative review, we would all wait around to see which poor schlub was going to lose his job for having “sexually harassed” her.
What does this have to do with Mr. Cain? Well, as I said, his corporation was also operating out of Atlanta. At least one of the two accusers was a “serial harassee” who had filed previous complaints and received cash and prizes. Now was this company going to fire a high-ranking African-American executive, or would they just pay the accuser off? After all, the accusation proved the crime……
As for the feminist imperative…. Never once was it even suggested that a woman might sexually harass a man (or another woman). It was specifically stated that womyn NEVER lie about such matters. The common law doctrine of a thousand years was discarded for this new system. And it all served to ensure that womyn were immune from any negative performance reviews and could remove any male employee in their way at any time, with no evidence whatsoever other than an accusation. Call it the new witch hunt, it’s just that the witches are the ones doing the hunting now.

Play Acting at Security

I have taught in multiple public schools, each of which had its own emergency preparedness plans in place.  All teachers, staff and administrators are required to know the various plans for different types of emergencies, which include tornadoes, fires, chemical spills, fights, and so forth, all the way up to an “active shooter” on campus, the scenario which occurred yesterday in Newtown, Connecticut.  Most of the plans in place at various school districts are practical and useful, with one exception.  That one exception is an active shooter.

The reports coming from Newtown have indicated that the elementary school principal, who was herself murdered by the gunman, had recently instituted new security protocols which included locking the doors at 9:30 a.m., requiring visitors to be buzzed in, and having school personnel trained to lock down their classrooms.  In her defense, all of this is currently considered “best practices” by the education establishment.  And, as we tragically learned yesterday, it is utterly insufficient to handle the emergency at hand in such a situation.

The preliminary news reports are that the doors WERE locked when the shooter arrived at the campus.  Unfortunately, locked, glass doors were completely incapable of halting a determined, armed intruder. 

Dawn Hochsprung, the school principal, was reportedly killed when she attempted to intercept and overpower the shooter.  Her courage and love for her students are beyond words.  But the fact is that while her courage was without measure, she was neither trained nor equipped to deal with the crisis that fell on her school.  She did everything that the “best authorities” in the education establishment recommend to ensure the safety of her students, and when that failed she gave her own life in a last, desperate, and ultimately futile attempt to protect the children entrusted to her care. 

There is a truth which the “best minds” of our public education systems will not admit.  They will not admit it for a number of reasons, some political, some psychological.  It is, however, a simple truth that has been considered axiomatic for most of human history.  That truth is that when an armed attacker comes to kill you, or your children, the only response that matters is to meet the attacker with equal or greater force.  Anything else is just play acting at “security.” 

Most public school teachers have been taught that firearms are evil.  Certainly the use to which they were put yesterday was evil, but the course of wisdom is to attribute evil to the man who wields a weapon, and not the weapon itself.  Timothy McVeigh used diesel fuel and fertilizer in Oklahoma City, and accomplished even more carnage.  In that case our nation was able to recognize that evil wears a human face.  It is a lesson our culture seems unwilling to learn, and which we forget quickly on the rare occasions we are forced to acknowledge the truth. 

One thing, and one thing alone, could have prevented the slaughter of the innocent that our nation suffered yesterday.  That one thing would have been a trained, armed, committed defender of the children on that campus.  Whether it be a school “resource” (police) officer, armed security guard, or teacher with a license to carry a weapon on school grounds, there should have been at least one adult trained and equipped to meet the threat that descended upon Newtown this week.  Until we are willing to admit this is a necessity, and quit relying on glass and buzzers to protect our children, then we need to admit we are really just play-acting at security.

2nd Amendment Rights Suspended in Arkansas

Arkansas, a solid “red” state, which just elected a Republican legislature for the first time since Reconstruction, and which also possesses an ostensibly pro-gun Democratic governor, has apparently begun to suspend the 2nd amendment rights of its citizens.

By state law Arkansas is a “shall issue” state for the issuance of licenses to carry a concealed handgun.  That is, so long as a state resident passes a required training course, demonstrates competency with a handgun, and passes a background check, the Arkansas State Police are required, by law, to issue that person a concealed handgun license.

Despite this statutory requirement, the Arkansas State Police are at this time declining to issue new licenses, and, in addition, are declining to renew existing licenses, regardless of whether the applicants/current license holders have met all legal requirements.  “Lisa” with the Arkansas State Police concealed handgun license office had advised me that this is due to a “glitch” with their “office supplies.”  Yes, that is correct, apparently the Arkansas State Police are out of “office supplies” and as a result have decided not to follow through with the legal responsibility they have to provide these permits.  “LIsa” also advised me that current license holders whose licenses expire during this time will no longer allowed to carry a handgun, period.  Arkansas state law prohibits the open carry of firearms.

“Lisa” also advised me that her office “hopes” to begin issuing licenses again sometime in the first part of 2013, but was unable to provide me with a firm date as to when this would actually occur.  Should you wish to verify this information for yourself, please contact the Arkansas State Police concealed handgun license office at (501) 618-8600.  I will provide more information as it becomes available.