21 WDL St. Augustine and Patrick Lanning and OMG

WDL = Working Days Left

In my Philosophy of Love and Sex class the textbook (The Philosophy of (Erotic) Love, ed. Solomon and Higgins) has a selection from St. Augustine's The City of God in which Augustine argues that "before The Fall," before Adam and Eve sinned against God in the Garden of Eden, men were able to control the behavior of their manly organ with their intelligence.

"for we read in Scripture, 'they were naked and not embarrassed.  And the reason for this is not that they were unaware of their nakedness, but that their nakedness was not less base because lust did not yet arouse those members apart from their will . . ."

Sadly, After the Fall, God punished Man be taking away his power over his organ of generation.

St. Augustine and the Devil, Michael Packer, 1492

"Human nature, then, doubtless feels shame at this lust, and right so.   For its impulses, which subjected the sexual organs to its impulses, is a sufficient demonstration of the punishment that was meted out to man for that first disobedience."

And because of this, Augustine notes, sometimes the sexual organs desire what we should not and then refuse to work when they are legally and morally obligated to do so.

While I would broaden this particular vision of sexual potency to include the desire of women as well, I think it clear that sexual harassment policies are developed to help those people who don't have control over their naughty bits to GAIN that control.

From what was reported in the Bend Bulletin this morning, as well as rumors that have been floating to me from various ports, Patrick Lanning seems to have been someone who was challenged by the need to keep his manly parts safely ensconced within their polyester container.

I read the story by Tyler Leeds (muckracker to the local edutainment industry) this morning and must say I was dismayed by the tawdriness of it all.  So I have a few comments to make.

1.  If the person on whom Lanning made his advances was someone over whom he had hiring and firing power then the case is pretty simple -- he should not have made the advances he seems to have made.  And he should have known that this was a no-no if he ever took any basic sexual harassment training.

  I see from their website that Chemeketa Community College has the traditional anti-sexual-harassment policy.  Their website, however, unlike COCC's sexual harassment website, does not talk about an online course or required training.  I've taken the online "training module" and got a 100% on my test.  It's not that difficult.  And it's a helpful source of information for those times when the issues involved seem on the border of "private practice" vs. "public OMGWTF".

2.  On the other hand, if this female who made the complaint has some job security (i.e., if she's not under his direct command OR if she belongs to a staff or faculty union) then the issue is quite a bit muddier.  It's possible for people who don't have direct control over each others' livelihoods to get confused about what's appropriate in the sexual sphere.

Of course, another aspect of the case that makes it messier is her reported use of nonverbal messaging.  This is one of the comments I found utterly bizarre.   "After he began rubbing her entire back, the claimant said she squeezed his knee “as a way to tell Mr. Lanning to stop.”' 

Ok.  I've studied nonverbal communication for over 30 years and sexual communication for 15 and nowhere have I ever encountered the claim that squeezing someone's leg anywhere -- ankle, knee, or thigh -- was an indication that one did NOT want the sexual attentions of the other to desist.  Squeezing a knee, traditionally, is associated with the desire to have sexual attentions continue.  How could she not know this?

Not only is her nonverbal communication kinda iffy, but her colleagues report that she seemed positively responsive. " Executive Dean of Student Development and Learning Resources Jim Eustrom stated it “appeared to him that they were cuddling and (seated) very close to each other.” At a later interview, the claimant said of her colleagues’ observations that she did not feel uncomfortable with Lanning’s advances: “Well if that is what they saw, then it must be true.”"

 So if she was afraid that she would lose her job, I can understand why she might fake her positive response to his come-ons.  But if she wasn't afraid, if she was part of a staff or faculty union, this just seems goofy to me.  Of course, it's always possible that she is a person with a brain injury or problems with cognition and is not able to monitor appropriate and inappropriate nonverbal communication in the "collegial beverage consumption" situation.

Of course, I still believe that Lanning should have come clean.  I am one of those people who believes that sexual infidelity is not an indicator of a lack of leadership skills.  One may fuck around like Casanova and still be a decent executive.  (See FDR or Catherine the Great)  But one needs to OWN that behavioral worldview and choice.  Lanning, like Bill Clinton before him, should not have lied to those who had an interest in his leadership abilities.  He should have been open about his leave of absence and the reasons for it.  What is problematic to me is the hypocrisy and prevarication (and possible coercion) not the depantsing itself.

Of course I also understand that someone with "nontraditional" values around sexuality will have trouble getting a job placement in a society that has developed from a history of puritanical protestantism.  Nevertheless, one should either own up or shut up if one is seeking a job or talking with the American people.

We are all fallen and most of us, both men and women, have had trouble with our naughty bits at one time or another.  But just because such thinking and behavior is common, doesn't mean we should participate in it every time the potential for seduction raises its beautiful but scaly head.

Last Year #2: My Last Faculty Retreat

Today the faculty met at Aspen Hall from 8:30 to 1:30 to eat and talk about such concerns as assessment, promotions and tenure, and negotiations.  No one planned team-building games for this year, which was probably just as well, considering the chill and sprinkles.  (Last year's retreat had some awesome games run by Tim Peterson, our fearless director of the Outdoor Leadership program.)  We are starting very late this year!  (Gruntlement has been dissed among some parties who feel they had no part in the  decision to piggy-back on the September 30 class start of our "partner," OSU.  [It's interesting how we use the word "partner" to describe a soon-to-be competitor.]) 

We also welcomed newcomers, including Charles Abasa-Nyarko, our new Vice-president of Instruction. He in from Ghana and said that in Europe and Africa there are no part-time university teachers and that he thought everyone should be full time.  A very interesting idea.

I talked with two colleagues, Art Benefiel and Margaret Petersen, who arrived at COCC the same year I did.  We chatted a bit about "the old days" of the first retreat we attended.  I also spoke with 32 year veteran Peter Casey about those retreats.  He said that they were special and I agreed.  They were overnight, in the woods, and involved beer and wine.  Some folks played poker and got somewhat cockeyed by the early morning. We roasted corn over fire and sang camp songs.  We rowed on the small Dark Lake or jumped into it at night, with or without the proper attire.  Administrators and faculty got close.  It was a very different time, for both good and ill.

The positive outcomes of this kind of ritual was that it produced a quality of almost filial connection.  The openness of that connection was, of course, problematic in a contemporary professional organization.  It was also very difficult for single parents to be part of this kind of bonding.  Even the gender mix was a bit challenging as there was at least one and perhaps more senior faculty who didn't quite get the customary social rules about not propositioning newcomers even if everyone is a bit squiffy.

When the college presidency shifted in 1990, the new president, Robert Barber, with advice from a variety of folks and facing the impact of successful anti-tax measures, decided that the retreats should no longer be off campus and limited to faculty and administration.  So the retreat became an "all college" event and wound up on campus.  Shortly thereafter, the faculty forum decided that faculty still needed their own event so we went to a half-day get together somewhere off campus.

A few days ago I ran across some ethnographic letters I wrote to friends in my graduate program about my first quarter in my new job.  Here are some notes from the letter sent September 13, 1988, a few days after the retreat.

I went on a hike featuring the "Geology of the Region" and then went running back to camp with Art and his new boss R. (a character long gone from the college).  I quote:  "When we hit the brush at the bottom of the hill, R. warned Art and I not to get too wild at the retreat, even though everyone seemed to be so comfortable because someone had gotten too drunk and it had not gone well for them at promotion time. . . . Later that evening, I met a fellow, X., who admitted to being the character who had had trouble at promotion time because of his staff retreat behavior. . . . "  He made a suggestion about "going into the lake together" in a somewhat suggestive way.  "The next mornng I learned that the behavior he had gotten into trouble for was propositioning 'every female staff member in the place' (that's another female staff member -- and by staff I mean workers who would be at the retreat -- administrative and teaching personnel.)"
 
And, critically conscious as I was in those days, I ended my long analysis of events at that first retreat with this paragraph.

"Sure I see the power relations.  I also interpret, through my own frame, the deep hunger that drives them.  I can look at X. through the socially conscious awareness of his maleness, whiteness, Americanness -- and see him as corrupt in his innocence of his own corruption.  Or I can see in him myself.  Or I can do both.  Which I do."