Any form of unwelcome enhancement or request for sexual favors or other forms of verbal or non-verbal gestures or conduct of a sexual nature, especially when it is made with a condition of employment or education (“Sexual Harassment” par. 1). In a university, if an individual has to face such harassment under the condition of gaining or retaining employment, educational purposes, or participation or access to the university community, such advances are considered sexual harassment (“What is Sexual Harassment?” par. 1). The incidents described in the case study depicts that Dr. Singh’s situation constitutes sexual harassment. The case does not specify any reason for the termination of contact between Dr. Singh and Dr. Rosen, which may affect the outcome of the decision of the sexual discrimination case.
If Dr. Singh voluntarily accepted a position in another department would indicate that she was under pressure earlier and chose to move away from the situation. However, if the position in another department were something that Dr. Rosen had managed for Dr. Singh would indicate that she had submitted to Dr. Rosen’s assumed advances and was complying with him to gain employment. The difference between the two situations is simple – the first was a voluntary transfer indicating an intention to handle the situation while the second was a deliberate attempt to exploit the situation to her advantage. On the other hand, Dr. Rosen may have been guilty of sexually harassing Dr. Singh and took advantage of her in return for getting her a tenure tract in the university. Collective bargaining in this situation is possible to reach a common consensus between the two parties to ascertain the real story.
Discussion
The constitution provides freedom of speech and freedom of the press to every American citizen (“Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press” par. 1). This allows newspapers to publish what they feel is right without being intimidated by the authorities and without the fear of being punished. The right to voice their opinion has been safeguarded by the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) (Jacobs par. 4). The Supreme Court upheld that the school could not violate the student’s First Amendment rights by punishing them for voicing their opinion (Jacobs par. 5). However, in another case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) the Supreme Court ruled that schools could censor students’ newspapers. The court upheld that the school can control editorial style and content especially because it is a school-sponsored activity (Jacobs par. 20).
I believe that the censorship of the administrator and interference in what the university magazine can publish is a clear violation of the First Amendment Act. In a recent 2005 case at Governors State University, Illinois the college, administrators almost stopped a college newspaper because it was critical of their policies. The Illinois legislature passed the Illinois College Campus Act that explicitly stated that no university or college authority will have editorial control or censorship power of the content of student newspapers (Wheeler par. 16). In some states like Oregon, North Dakota, and Illinois there are explicit laws that protect student newspapers from censorship of the school (Wheeler par. 16). Academic freedom and the right to expression and speech can be ensured only if there is no censorship of student voices in any form (Barendt 11). Therefore, I believe that the authorities should not impose punishment and restrictions over the content of the college newspaper just because they are funding it.
​Works Cited
Barendt, Eric. Academic Freedom and the Law: A Comparative Study. Portland: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010. Print.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. 2015. Web.
Jacobs, Tom. 10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know. 2008. Web.
Sexual Harassment. 2015. Web.
What is Sexual Harassment? 2015. Web.
Wheeler, David R. The Plot Against Student Newspapers? 2015. Web.