¶ … Court Was Correct: Silva Deserves to Teach Exordium:

OJ Simpson was one thing; this time, the courts got it right. Professor Silva used questionable teaching methods, yes, but the federal court's decision was correct: Any possible improprieties did not amount to sexual harassment, and indeed fell into the category of protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. As a result, exonerating Silva and reinstituting him with pay is the only possible correct result.

Narratio:

J. Donald Silva was a tenured Communications professor at the University of New Hampshire's Thompson School of Applied Science. (Court, 1) In his lectures in class, Silva once compared writing's focus to sexual activity, and on another occasion elucidated the meaning of a simile with a famed belly dancer's description of her craft. (Greve, 12)

Several female students complained that Silva's comments were inappropriate, and the University Appeals Board suspended him without pay for a year and asked him to begin counseling. The sanctions stemmed from the fact that he was in violation of the University's Sexual Harassment Policy.

Silva sued, and the court found that the University violated Silva's right to free speech and reinstated him to his position with full pay.

Partitio

Silva did not sexually harass anyone by making the "offending" comments in class. Sexual harassment has ceased to focus on harm to individuals, and has instead begun to implicate any impropriety at all, and this is unjustified.

Also, Silva has a constitutional...

Silva used the sexual analogies well within his pedagogical style, and they served to advance his lectures and discussions. As a result, he did nothing wrong, and his free speech rights remain paramount.
Finally, firing Silva would set a very dangerous precedent for university professors nationwide. Certain topics do justify and necessitate frank sexual discussions, and forcing the professors to skirt the issues only harms the students in the long run; and in some occasions may even preclude the professors from doing their appointed jobs: Sexual discussions are often necessary to understand complex texts or sociological phenomenon, and simply disallowing free speech because it is of sexual nature in the classroom is too draconian a solution.

Confirmatio

Linda Hirshman is not at all thrilled with the district court's decision in Silva's case. She, though for a long time skeptical of sexual harassment suits, is of the firm belief that professors and teachers often use their exalted status simply to sexually harass: "Yet the more I know about the offending teachers, the more I realize that what really matters to them is the privilege of sexual abuse. The academics' attachment to acting out has made me realize the importance of this issue." (Hirshman, 511)

In fact, Hirshman even cites that her professors managed to teach their classes without sexual references. Michael Greve responds by saying, it seems, "Congratulations." He believes that the lines have been blurred between harmful and innocuous speech: "The current legal rules, which define a 'hostile environment' on the basis of a case-by-case, multifactor analysis and with reference to the perception of a 'reasonable person,' are exceedingly vague. By that very virtue, they deter not only genuine harassment but also harmless and desirable speech; faced with legal uncertainty, individuals will avoid any speech that might be interpreted as creating a hostile environment." (Greve, 512)

Jeffrey Tobin agrees. He cites Paula Jones' and Monica Lewinsky's cases and notes that sexual harassment is no longer about harm to the victim; it is actually now about simple impropriety. To punish for impropriety is far too close to punishing for bad morals, or bad thoughts. Indeed, that is a very logical extrapolation of the…