As I just reported on the AVFM Newsfeed, there has been a disturbing twist to the controversy surrounding the Department of Justice’s agreement with the University of Montana — known as the “Blueprint Letter.” The university’s president, Royce Engstrom, denied last Friday he had any knowledge of the requirement that the school must provide a list of faculty and students who did not attend special training classes on sexual harassment.
If Engstom did not know, it is not because the government did not make it threateningly clear.
The resolution reads like the formation of a target list:
[T]he University will provide [the United States Government with] the date and duration of each student training session required by this Agreement; … and a list of any students who have yet to participate in the online or in-person training required by Section VIII.D.
The agreement has been criticized, and rightly so, for its broadening (yet again) of the definition for sexual harassment and its unmistakable contempt for due process. The agreement includes provisions for punishment even if no wrong doing has been demonstrated.
You heard that right. The United States government wants to insist that innocent people face punishment by university officials, many of whom have blatant ideological agendas that are hostile to men.
Says the government:
“The University may also take appropriate action if it does not find discrimination or harassment that creates a hostile environment or results in a tangible employment or educational action, but (a) the University found that the respondent engaged in disruptive behavior or (b) to prevent the creation of a hostile environment.”
“Set aside the illiteracy of that for a moment,” said Michael Mayer, a history professor at University of Montana who spoke to the Montana Kaimin. “[W]hat they’re saying is [that] you can be found innocent and still have an action brought against you … in some way suffer repercussions for being found innocent. “…that isn’t really even the Soviet Union — it’s just Orwellian.”
It must have feminist ideologues in the throes of ecstasy.
According to Mayer the faculty was told that names were to be provided in order to “compile statistics” to prove the school was in compliance with the DOJ agreement.
Engstrom has pledged to make the agreement more palatable to faculty who are already complaining that they are afraid to share learning material or discuss issues that may potentially offend someone. He has also acknowledged that the main motivations for accommodating the DOJ was title IX money coming from the federal government.