What CAN I joke about? Comedian cancels university show after students force him to sign 'behaviour contract' banning sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, transphobia... plus SEVEN other ‘isms’

A comedian has pulled out of a student charity event after being asked to sign a contract banning him from being offensive about almost anything.

Konstantin Kisin was sent a 'behavioural agreement form' which stopped him telling jokes which were not 'respectful and kind'.

The form stated: 'By signing this contract, you are agreeing to our no-tolerance policy with regards to racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia or anti-religion or anti-atheism.'

Student leaders said the ban was necessary to preserve the event as a 'safe space' and a place for 'joy, love, and acceptance'.

But Mr Kisin, 35, who was born in the Soviet Union, said the demand amounted to a 'threat to freedom of speech' and pulled out.

The fundraising event, scheduled for January 23, is organised by the Unicef On Campus society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), part of the University of London.

Mr Kisin was one of four comedians invited to perform unpaid, with proceeds going to the UN children's charity.

Politics student Fisayo Eniolorunda, the society's event organiser, wrote in the invitation: 'Attached is a short behavioural agreement form that we will ask for you to sign on the day to avoid problems.'

After listing subjects covered by the no-tolerance policy, the form stated: 'It does not mean that these topics cannot be discussed. But, it must be done in a respectful and non-abusive way.'

Mr Kisin wrote back saying that although he supports Unicef, he could not sign such a contract. Mr Kisin, who has lived in Britain for 20 years, said yesterday: 'I couldn't believe it. The only people who should be controlling what comedians say are comedians. This is a threat to freedom of speech and I have declined the invitation on a point of principle.

'I grew up under the Soviet Union. When I saw this letter, basically telling me what I could and couldn't say, I thought this was precisely the kind of letter a comic would have been sent there.'

The SOAS student union said it 'does not require external speakers to sign any form of contract or behavioural agreement'. A spokesman said the contract had been drawn up by the Unicef On Campus society without consultation with the student union, and the society had been 'over-zealous' in its interpretation of Charity Commission guidelines.

The Unicef On Campus society raises money for the charity but is not officially affiliated with it.

SOURCE 





Doing Things Right: Betsy DeVos, Title IX and Due Process

It took 149 pages of quasi-incomprehensible prose to state, but the U.S. Department of Education has finally done something positive: it has issued a proposed rule on the enforcement of the Title IX statute relating to sexual assault. It is to be commended because it follows the rule of law: the Department has formally proposed something that must, according to statute, be subject to public review and comment.

This is in vivid contrast to the Obama Administration’s notorious 2011 “guidance” in sexual assault matters, which it issued without any opportunity for public comment or debate. The “guidance” technically had no formal legal standing, but universities treated it as if it were law. If this procedure were allowed to occur regularly, zealous government bureaucrats could drastically change the rules by which American citizens live and work, totally independent of constitutionally provided provisions of representative democracy.

Therefore, independent of the content, Secretary of Education DeVos’s issuance of a rule is more in keeping with constitutional principles. To be sure, a strong case can be made that we would be better off without central direction of higher education, and that the narrow approval of the Department of Education in the late 1970s was a mistake, but that is a discussion for another day.

The DOE rules say that universities are responsible for investigating sexual assault and harassment issues occurring on campus, but it appears that off-campus activity unrelated to the university’s programs should not be subject to university scrutiny. As I interpret this, a college student accused of sexually assaulting a non-student off campus during summer vacation would not usually be brought into the university disciplinary process. It is not entirely clear where the line is to be drawn between on-campus and off-campus activity, and whether geography is the prime determinant. But it appears to be a step in the direction of saying to universities that potentially bad behavior by students in settings where you have no control or remote involvement should be handled the way such cases are handled for non-university citizens, through law enforcement.

I have often wondered “why should university students be treated differently than anyone else, and why allegations of rape, a serious felonious law violation, should not automatically be referred to law enforcement for adjudication?”

An even more important victory for fairness and adherence to Anglo-American legal traditions that predate American independence comes from the DOE saying colleges must determine the evidentiary standards to be used in sexual assault allegations, and that students must have the right to cross examine their accusers in some fashion.

Under the Obama guidance rules, Washington declared (illegally in my judgment although it was never really tested definitely by the courts) that a “preponderance of evidence” standard should be used. If colleges were 51 % sure a student was guilty, he or she should be punished. That is completely at odds with American jurisprudence and has led to some clearly demonstrated cases of unfair and wrongful accusations made against students.

I know of one largely unpublicized incident where a student was found guilty of sexual misconduct and expelled, but where later a jury would not convict him in a formal legal proceeding—but the student nonetheless committed suicide because of acute despondency arising from his life being ruined.

My prediction is many colleges will continue to use the unfair preponderance of evidence standards (which are wholly appropriate in many civil proceedings) because of a desire to be politically correct and to demonstrate “we will not tolerate sexual misconduct.”

The same colleges, however, often invite such misconduct, in my judgement, by such practices as permitting co-ed dormitories, giving out condoms like candy to students, and tacitly tolerating illegal excessive consumption of alcohol by underage students. How often do students get punished for illegal drinking?

The DOE rules should probably nudge courts into finding colleges who put political correctness above adherence to American traditions of jurisprudence liable for damages when they ruin innocent student lives. Colleges love to show how uber-progressive they are, but they love money even more. Whoremongering trumps moralizing.

No doubt the DeVos rules will lead to much invective from college officials and Members of Congress, but perhaps also lead to a needed national discussion.

SOURCE 






When College Degrees Impede Opportunity

College credentialing and degree inflation tend to serve the needs of employers, not students

Duke University recently announced that it will no longer ask job applicants about their criminal histories. Duke’s move follows the Common Application’s August decision to drop a question inquiring about students’ criminal history. For prospective employees and students alike, the push to “ban the box” reflects a healthy desire to strike down barriers that may impede social mobility. Yet, oft overlooked in all of this, especially within higher education, is the way in which college degrees serve as an impediment to opportunity.

Of course, at its best, higher education is a powerful engine of opportunity and socioeconomic advancement. And that’s the way it’s almost universally described. Nevertheless, for too many Americans, the truth is that postsecondary education is principally a toll: an ever-more expensive, two-, four- or (let’s be honest) six-year pit stop to employment that is increasingly mandated, gratuitously, by employers’ HR departments.

Today, thousands of employers routinely use college degrees as a convenient way to screen and hire job applicants, even when postsecondary credentials bear no obvious connection to job duties or performance. In a comprehensive report last year, researchers from Harvard Business School documented increasing “degree inflation” -- as employers demand baccalaureate degrees for middle-skill jobs that don’t obviously require one.

The researchers estimated that this phenomenon encompassed more than six million jobs across dozens of industries. In fact, nearly two-thirds of employers surveyed admitted to having rejected applicants with the requisite skills and experience simply because they lacked a college degree.

Degree requirements are proliferating absent evidence they correlate with job necessity -- and, indeed, despite some evidence to the contrary. A 2014 survey conducted by Burning Glass Technologies found that employers are increasingly requiring bachelor’s degrees for positions whose current workers don’t have one and where the requisite skills haven’t changed.

Employer preference for degrees is rising even for entry-level occupations, like IT help-desk technicians, where the job postings do not include skills typically taught at the baccalaureate level, and there is little to no difference in requested skill sets for postings requiring a college degree compared to those that do not.

Now, it’s important to clarify that while colleges and universities are the primary beneficiary of degree inflation, much of the responsibility for it lies elsewhere. Instead, this is largely a product of employer convenience and the unintended consequences of federal antidiscrimination law.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employers from discriminating against job applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It did, however, allow employers to use “professionally developed” hiring tests, insofar as they were not “designed, intended or used” to discriminate. In Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971), the Supreme Court unanimously interpreted this language to mean that when a selection process disproportionately affects minority groups (e.g. has a “disparate impact”), employers must show that any requirements are directly job related and an accurate predictor of job performance.

This “disparate impact” standard, which Congress codified in federal law, nominally applies to all criteria used in making employment decisions, including educational requirements. Crucially, however, this standard has only been scrupulously applied to other, noneducational employment tests. Employers using IQ tests to screen and hire applicants, for example, must use approved, professionally developed tests and justify IQ thresholds. That is, if companies require job applicants to possess an IQ of 110, they must be able to demonstrate why an applicant with an IQ of 109 is incapable of performing a job that someone with a 110 IQ can. One need only read that sentence to understand why human-resource lawyers quiver in horror when executives ask about using that kind of screening test.

Even directly applicable employment tests can run afoul of federal regulators. Last year, for instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the railroad company CSX Transportation for discrimination, because male job applicants passed the company’s physical-fitness tests at a disproportionately higher rate than female applicants. Even though the test was stipulated to be “job related” (since employees were required to lift heavy objects) and “consistent with business necessity,” the EEOC still required CSX to adopt “alternative practices that have less adverse impact.”

College-degree requirements, meanwhile, have escaped scrutiny. In turn, risk-averse employers have become increasingly reliant upon them as an expedient way to screen applicants while avoiding the legal pitfalls accompanying other employment tests. For employers, the logic is simple: a college degree is an easy-to-read signal that an applicant likely possesses a desirable bundle of behaviors and social capital -- such as the ability to turn in work, sit still for long periods, take direction and so forth -- in addition to confirming the baseline verbal and written skills required for most jobs.

Ironically, indiscriminate degree requirements carry obvious disparate-impact implications, making their casual acceptance all the more remarkable. Indeed, the Harvard report noted that the practice disproportionately harms groups with low college graduation rates, particularly blacks and Hispanics.

The burdens of credential inflation, of course, fall most heavily on those of modest means -- heightening the obstacles for low-income and working-class individuals. Degree requirements summarily disqualify noncredentialed workers with relevant skills and experience from attractive jobs. They bar young people from taking entry-level jobs and building the expertise and abilities that open up new opportunities. And they hold families and would-be workers hostage, forcing them to devote time and money toward degree collecting, whether or not those credentials actually convey much in the way of relevant skills or knowledge.

Those intent on ensuring that higher education is more of an engine of individual opportunity than a security blanket for businesses would do well to consider the part colleges play, however passively, in all of this. What might be done? Well, in postsecondary education, there is an overdue opportunity to develop alternative credentialing models and devise new ways to credibly certify aptitudes and skills. Most important, there’s a need to ask where and how institutions may be complicit in enabling statutory and legal practices that compel students to unnecessarily enter college -- not because they want or need the things a college degree represents, but because they fear being denied good jobs based on their failure to buy a piece of paper.

Diplomas are “useful servants,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in Griggs, but “they are not to become masters of reality.” Academe should consider its role in permitting diplomas to become the capricious masters of opportunity.

SOURCE