Irvine professor takes stand against sexual harassment training

A prominent biologist at the University of California, Irvine, could be placed on unpaid leave because he refuses to take sexual harassment prevention training.

Alexander McPherson, 64, calls the mandatory training a "sham" and considers his refusal an act of "civil disobedience." He has already been relieved of his duties supervising other scientists in the lab where he studies proteins.

McPherson has generated about $20 million in research money since he joined the university in 1997, and has had his experiments aboard the space shuttle and the international space station.

He can attend a training course by Nov. 12 and regain his standing but said he won't, even if it means suspension from his job that pays $148,740 a year.

-- Shelby Grad

Comments

[JOHN]

what ever happened to fredom of choice???

back off reinstate him and leave him alone.

[Alonso]

I find it difficult to agree with the professor. If he opposes this course what is his position on say the persecution of jews minorities and the like. What is his position on civil rights I suppose he is opposed to the new President elect. It would be interesting on how the "good" professor feels on these subjects. I realize he has the right to protest and disagree but I'd advise him to come out into the work-a-day world and view how it operates.

[Jeff]

The article does not say that he is opposed to sexual harassment prevention; it says he objects to the training. As a UC faculty who has gone through it himself, I have to agree the web based training is a sham. State law mandates that it last 2 hours, but nothing else. There is no need to read the scenarios and you may answer the questions at random and still pass, as long as you take 2 hours to do so.

As a result, the training itself de-legitimizes sexual harassment as a serious concern. It makes a mockery of the whole idea.

[Craig]

If the training is truly a sham, as portrayed in Jeff's example, then why doesn't the UCI professor work with the university to improve the training and make it really meaningful?

Sorry, John, but the university is following state law, so there really isn't a freedom of "choice" here.

[JS]

It is one thing to punish bad behavior, quite another to force someone to take a course in anticipation that he may commit a crime. Why not enforce training in non-violence, or non-thievery, or non-plagiarism? The list of potential violations is endless.

[Chris]

Good for him. A rare man of courage.