Talk:Sexual harassment in education in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eacat27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scubasarah8. Peer reviewers: Sandratorres28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RouBa1998. Peer reviewers: Justinlc, LaurenLevine731.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No way these numbers are correct

I have a hard time believing that 14% of high school students have had sex with a teacher... somethings tells me 13.5% of those students just said they had for the heck of it. thats the problem with these tests, most people don't give a crap what the results are when their being tested so they just full it with crap. DurotarLord 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, and I don't know why people feel the need to mess with those test. I mean don't they relize it for their own good in the end? Skeletor 0 (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New article and plan

This article was created after a vote on the article "Academic seduction," (sexual relationships between students and teachers) requesting a title change that referred to the phenomena as abusive. See the old article talk page for the transcript of this.

The new article will retain almost all of the same information. However, with the new title, I'll be restructuring it to have the subject of sexual relations between students and teachers as simply a sub-topic within the larger article of "Sexual harassment in education." The section on peer harassment will be expanded. Also, there will be as much global content as I can dig up.

Ultimately, this article will now be a sub-article of Sexual harassment, with the plan being to give it as much scope with as few redundancies as possible. (I want to keep the current references to sexual harassment in education that already exist on the main article, and expand on them in the new article.)

In addition, because this will really be a new article, I'm not going to transfer the Talk page content over to this Talk page. Discussions should focus on the content of this article in it's new form.

Please give the article a few weeks to take shape before you all jump all over it. (grin) Thanks! Aine63 22:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am not going to create a re-direct from Academic seduction for a few days. I will as soon as there is a more definitive "shape" to this article, and the "Student-on-student" harassment section is expanded--this is the most common form of sexual harassment in education. Aine63 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the re-direct, but plan to add more to peer harassment and effects. Again, the goal is an expansion of the Sexual harassment article, so I'll be moving things around for a few days to keep things from getting redundant, but also so that the two articles are clearly linked. Aine63 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "modi operandi"

Redundant--these are already touched on in the main Sexual harassment article with a link to a web page with more in depth information. Aine63 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalise

I think that this is a very good article, in as much as it deals with sexual harrassment in education that takes place in developed, English-speaking countries. However, this topic is a rich one indeed, and this article would benefit from a discussion of the ways in which the issue is seen differently in in different countries and cultures. For example, while I am certainly no expert in the matter, I do know that in some countries student-teacher relationships in tertiary education is permitted, or at least tolerated. Of course, there are other issues to examine as well, but as I've said, I'm not a cross-cultural expert on this issue. --Zantastik talk 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! Feel free to discuss it if having sex with students means so much to you. Aine63 01:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Aine63, incivility here isn't particularly helpful. Let me iterate: I am impressed with the work that you have done on this article: it is well-written, informative and neutral. A {{globalise}} tag is not an attack on an article; it merely serves to point out that an article is lacking in this particular way. After all, all articles, except perhaps featured ones, are works in progress. --Zantastik talk 08:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

POV in section?

I hate to cause controversy on a touchy subject, no offense is intended, but from my personal opinion, the "The gender double standard" section seems a little POV.

The gender double standard

There is a myth regarding the extent of the damage caused by women who sexually abuse or harass. In an interview about the rise of sexual abuse by female teachers, Dr. Jeff Brown, a psychologist who treats female sex offenders stated, "There is definitely a double standard.....The impact they have is significant on their victims and sometimes we don’t regard the impact in a similar way as we do men."

Maybe the quoted text, especially, from that section could benefit from some rewording, or an added argument on that subject in the opposite direction? I, personally, agree with what the quote says, but nevertheless, Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV.

Just my thoughts. Thanks. --Evening Breeze 13:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand of the wikipedia policies, this doesn't violate NPOV because it is quoted in context, and attributed to an authoritative source. I'm not sure what you mean by "the quoted text... could benefit from some rewording." If you re-word a quote, it's not a quote.Firenech (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV?

Interesting edit by Koala06: using the stated reason "refs not formatted correctly" the citation of a serious essay was removed in its entirity. The observation on formatting is quite possibly correct (I am no expert at W formatting) but that would be a reason for correcting the formatting, not removing the text. Can someone help with rv and clean up of the formatting? Testbed 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Testbed

The same edit, again by Koala06, but this time for an entirely different reason. Which strongly suggests there are some problems here. So the reference is reverted. Just to be clear, the section is called Sexual relationships between students and teachers and the Harper's essay (which I have read in full) is *entirely* about sexual relationships between students and teachers.

Here for reference is the "offending" passage in full: In her September 2001 essay in Harper's Magazine, The Higher Yearning, academic Cristina Nehring celebrated the educative nature of such sexual relationships: “Teacher-student chemistry is what fires much of the best work that goes in universities, even today” [1]

Also having looked at other "work" by Koala06 I would suggest that experienced admins etc consider a block - or at least a warning.Testbed 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, discussions of chemistry is tangential to the section, not to mention the article. There is NOTHING abusive in chemistry. It is merely something that exists. Check your logic, please. Also, since I wrote the section with the argument FOR sexual relationships between students and teachers, your accusations that there are other problems here is groundless, as are suggestions on blocks. Koala06 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Following W rules I will of course assume the best. So - before you rv yet again, have a look at the article itself - which consists of an extended discussion of exactly what this section is about, and supports what you say is the argument in "your" section (there is no ownership on W). The line about "chemistry" is simply a striking illustration that the reference is worth following up: you could choose an alternative if you wanted to deal with the reference in a more constructive way than by removal. And the formatting (which you are also free to improve, as I suggested back in April) now appears to my untutored eyes to follow the rest of the article. It isn't my favoured formatting, but that kind of footnoting seems to be used in e.g. the rest of the section.

Finally, your behaviour suggests that if you are as unbiased with regard to the subject matter as you say you are (I note that others are sceptical) then I can only assume you have something against either Harpers, or the author of that particular essay, which nonetheless deserves to be cited in this important W entry. Please try and make whatever your point is with more delicacy than by simple deletion. Thank you. Testbed 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely NPOV. This is little more than a character assassination of the teaching profession. I added a sentence to the effect that teacher-student sexual abuse is over-reported to even it out a bit, but I'd still suggest that the "Personality traits and attitudes" section be trimmed down or removed. As it stands, it's the sort of sensationalist, fearmongering garbage that's constantly reported on the news and has teachers afraid to pat a student on the back. Discussion? Eceresa 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

IF you do not like the POV being expressed, then please feel free to add sourced information, that stays on topic, and that argues another POV. Too many Wikipedians think that NPOV is acheived by removing information rather than adding more varied and differing perspectives. It's a HUGE problem around here, and not much seems to ever improve. Koala06 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As no discussion ensued, I deleted the offensive section. There's still ample acknowledgment that teacher-on-student abuse occurs, but it's not quite so sensationalized as it was. Closer to NPOV. Also reverted a change by Koala06 that removed my (sourced) statement that false accusations are made. Please discuss these changes here before reverting. Eceresa 13:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as it was nothing more than a deletion of useful, sourced information. Please see my note above on this matter. Koala06 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted yours, as that information is sourced, but not useful. Nor is it anything like what should be found in an encyclopedia article. Eceresa 04:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To the anonymous user who added this info back, it's still useless and off-topic, regardless of whether it's sourced. It reads like something from Seventeen magazine, not an encyclopedia, and it's nothing but a digression from the main topic. I can't see why it was added in the first place. Eceresa 17:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the information deleted as it is useful and sourced. If you don't agree with it, please counter it with other useful and sourced information that counters the POV presented. Deleting the info just because you don't agree with it is far from NPOV. Koala06 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've once again replace this info which is HARDLY off-topic and is certainly as encyclopedic as the Harper's article quote. And it is written by a respected university academic and researcher who focuses on sexual harassment in education.

If you can't tell the difference from the quality of writing in the section you keep adding in and the Harper's article, you have no business here. Eceresa (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you don't agree, add some information that counters what is here. To delete the informatin just because you don't agree with it is far from showing an NPOV. (BTW, if you truly think that this info is just an "attack" on teachers, then it proves the sorry state of education as you are saying that this is how all teachers approach their students.) The article does not focus on ALL teachers, but only teachers who sexually harass students. Koala06 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you suggest that, by objecting to a sensationalized digression, I'm proving that education is in a sorry state? I won't disagree that it is; it's underfunded and overtaxed. I just can't seem to follow your reasoning. Eceresa (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While the additions may be useful to some article, I don't understand why the analysis is germane only to teachers. It seems to me that much of this pertains across the board at all people who harass. Maybe the generalized stuff could be placed elsewhere and referred to from here?Student7 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But the source is specifically one for sexual harassment in education, taken from a repsected book on sexual harassment in education. Also, sexual harassment by teachers isn't always generalizable as the power imbalance is much more extreme than in other harassment situations, involves mentors and "parental figures" and is much more akin to abuse by parents then abuse by others. That is why it has it's own article(a sub article of the main Sexual Harassment article, which also has a section on ways that harassers can target people) Koala06 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, stuff like that may belong in Seventeen Magazine. It's got no place in an encyclopedia. It's a digression that's completely unwarranted and unnecessary. Adding material that contradicts it would only make the problem worse. It doesn't belong here. Eceresa (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does a discussion of sexual harassment patterns not belong in an article on sexual harassment? Your logic is bizarre. (I've once again replaced the information.) Koala06 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that much of an expert on fallacies, but I wonder if we aren't coming close to "Begging the Question" on this one. The article is supposed to describe and report sexual harrassment in education. Instead, we assume this is happening and analyze the behavior. I'm pretty sure that is begging the question, isn't it? Or close  :) Student7 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that this happening. I don't think it's begging the quesiton, just looking for arguments. Koala06 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this has gone way past the time of asking for a third opinion. I would be wary about asking for mediation. Take forever. You will grow old before that pays off. It appears that we have two editors that don't like the new changes. One that inserts them and insists that the others are crazy and me who is not quite that certain that the entry is useful. Kind of 2 1/2 to one. I've tried asking for third party before without any response. The offenders went away!  :) If someone else would like to pick one, go ahead. But this can't go on. The one editor is quite angry and frustrated. It is silly to continue in the same vein. Though your continuation with the discussion is a positive step. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Koala06, you need someone on your side. Why don't YOU pick a third party? Please don't disucuss it with them! Just say you would like an opinion on the changes to section --- in this article. Thanks. If you need a pointer, I'll furnish one. There is a category, "Third opinions" I think. That's where I found mine, anyway. Student7 (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't need someone on my side, and I don't think any of you are crazy--just male. With my work on other gender-related articles and issues (males are not usually the targets of sexual harassment in schools, it's females), I'm used to dealing with groups of male academics/students who don't want these issues included in wiki, or discussed with any depth. It's more an issue of their agreeing with the POV, than whether or not the topics or information included is sound. Weird semantic arguements--such as "I don't like the tone!" and "This is off topic!" are guite common when it's just a POV issue. 76.204.243.133 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Sexual harassment in education

This is a dispute about whether (and how) to include a reference to an essay published in Harper's Magazine

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• using the stated reason "refs not formatted correctly" the citation of a serious essay was removed in its entirity. The observation on formatting is quite possibly correct (I am no expert at W formatting) but that would be a reason for correcting the formatting, not removing the text. Can someone help with rv and clean up of the formatting? Testbed 16:41, 19 April 2007
• 18:45, 25 June 2007 Koala06 (Talk | contribs) (27,696 bytes) (→Sexual relationships between students and teachers - illogical addition, "sexual chemistry" is NOT the same thing as a sexual relationship)
• The same edit, again by Koala06, but this time for an entirely different reason. Which strongly suggests there are some problems here. So the reference is reverted. Just to be clear, the section is called Sexual relationships between students and teachers and the Harper's essay (which I have read in full) is *entirely* about sexual relationships between students and teachers.

Here for reference is the "offending" passage in full: In her September 2001 essay in Harper's Magazine, The Higher Yearning, academic Cristina Nehring celebrated the educative nature of such sexual relationships: “Teacher-student chemistry is what fires much of the best work that goes in universities, even today” [1]

Also having looked at other "work" by Koala06 I would suggest that experienced admins etc consider a block - or at least a warning.Testbed 16:57, 26 June 2007

• Again, discussions of chemistry is tangential to the section, not to mention the article. There is NOTHING abusive in chemistry. It is merely something that exists. Check your logic, please. Also, since I wrote the section with the argument FOR sexual relationships between students and teachers, your accusations that there are other problems here is groundless, as are suggestions on blocks. Koala06 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Following W rules I will of course assume the best. So - before you rv yet again, have a look at the article itself - which consists of an extended discussion of exactly what this section is about, and supports what you say is the argument in "your" section (there is no ownership on W). The line about "chemistry" is simply a striking illustration that the reference is worth following up: you could choose an alternative if you wanted to deal with the reference in a more constructive way than by removal. And the formatting (which you are also free to improve, as I suggested back in April) now appears to my untutored eyes to follow the rest of the article. It isn't my favoured formatting, but that kind of footnoting seems to be used in e.g. the rest of the section.

Finally, your behaviour suggests that if you are as unbiased with regard to the subject matter as you say you are (I note that others are sceptical) then I can only assume you have something against either Harpers, or the author of that particular essay, which nonetheless deserves to be cited in this important W entry. Please try and make whatever your point is with more delicacy than by simple deletion. Thank you. Testbed 16:18, 27 June 2007

• 20:36, 30 June 2007 Koala06 (Talk | contribs) (27,696 bytes) (rv (and not wasting any more energy on the academic windbags that so often plague Wikipedia))

Seeing as an interaction between two people is a 'relationship', and seeing as 'chemistry' refers to how this relationship plays out, isn't a relationship that has 'sexual chemistry' a 'sexual' one by its very nature, even if the two people involved are not having sex with one another? In either case, it seems that this article from Harper's deals closely with the Wiki article, and having a source like this at one's disposal and not using it seems a waste. It looks like one editor is using original research or simply saying 'I disagree'. This isn't good Wiki editing. Also, it would probably be best if Koala were mindful of the fact that calling academics 'windbags' is unlikely to get him/her very far and really only serves to make others angry. CaveatLector^Talk 18:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, and I aplogize to testbed. Frankly, it isn't like me to do this--if the info is cited and sound, I've never deleted it before. Frankly, I think this was just my startign to do--to-another what keeps being done to me here--that is, users deleting info just because they don't agree with it and calling it NPOV. I've complained myself to the administration before about this, and nothing was ever done.

Truthfully, I think the Wikipedia administration protects the male-POV when it comes to the sexual harassment articles. I'm dealing now with a similar situation above--a male user deleting information he does not agree with and calling it NPOV--and will not bother to complain because I've found the W admin to be useless here. Koala06 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a fine reference, and I can't figure out exactly why Koala06 doesn't want it. I'll put it back in. ←Ben^B4 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the specific essay's reference, otherwise editors who come her from the RFC are left to guess which essay is intended. Also, it would be helpful to concisely summarize, or at least group, the arguments for and against inclusion. Thank you. VisitorTalk 09:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This being the first time I have invoked RfC I may well have got the process wrong. Apologies if I have. The bolded statement above by VisitorTalk (an account created this month) was inserted at the top of the page (and into the middle of the summary of the RfC) so I have moved it here (which would seem the right place for it). Two things are asked for:

1) the reference for the article - I gave this (see above) as September 2001, Harpers, Christine Nehring. What is missing?

2) a summary of the arguments used - they were included (see summary of previous statements above).

So there is obviously something I am not following: please clarify. And I would also be grateful for clarification as to why you have bolded your statement (inexperienced Wikipedia readers might be led to believe that this implies some official corrective or suchlike). Thanks. Testbed 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As a new editor, I also may well have got the process wrong. Thanks for the relocation of my comment and for assuming good faith. I was wondering if there is a link available to read the actual article online. I bolded my comment to indicate that I hoped there would be a concise summary of the articles for and against inclusion, rather than multiple pages worth of specific details: a way for editors new to the page to quickly get their bearings and come up to speed.

As for the citation itself: I don't see how the one sentence quoted indicates harassment. "Chemistry" does not necessarily indicate harassment. If there are further quotes from the article which demonstrate the following points, they should be included: 1. That Nehring's comments on education were written within the professional scope of her work as an "academic;" 2. That Nehring was specifically referring to harassment, not just "Chemistry;" 3. That Nehring "celebrated" harassment, not just "chemistry," as a positive force in "the best work that goes on in universities." Unless the article clearly states that these are Nehring's ideas, then your implication that this is what she might have meant is original research point of view. VisitorTalk 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

I tried to construct a subordinate article to this one. It is under severe attack by the deniers. I was careful to only include cases which could be verified and were of a serious nature. I deliberately omitted porno at school, drug pushing at school, even violence. I also omitted "outside" misconduct by teachers. That is, if they met the student outside the school, it was a crime (from my pov) that could have been perpetrated by any occupation. So I omitted it. Since newspaper articles only go back a few years online, without a fee there are very few documented cases.

The article is under extreme attack by the deny-ers. They assert a) the abuse never happened, b) the abuse did happen but it wasn't important. I could use some help (an understatement!). The article is Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa).

Disclosure about my pov: I have nothing against teachers. I think most of them are doing a great job under the burdens society has levied on them. I have never been molested!
Thanks. Student7 12:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually four subordinate articles. The union has ganged up on the article which will shortly be deleted. While they are new articles and could use some improvement, I tried to work with one editor but he already had his mind made up. Incidentally, this has all been done before on List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses.Anyway, if you are interested, try:

Actually four subordinate articles. The union has ganged up on the article which will shortly be deleted. While they are new articles and could use some improvement, I tried to work with one editor but he already had his mind made up. Incidentally, this has all been done before on List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses.Anyway, if you are interested, try:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Florida) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Texas) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts) Student7 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

While I think sexual abuse by teachers is a serious issue, I don't think sexual abuse in a specific state in the U.S. warrants it's own article. Perhaps a section here on how such cases are handled around the U.S. and in other countries would be a better way to approach this. I will be adding a section on how harassment complaints are handled, so this could be a good place for it. Koala06 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Student7's comments

I have been adding material to the main article about the amount of girls that are being punished for sexually harassing boys at classes. In fact the problem is so wide spread it was actually discussed at the NUT conference (National Union of Teachers) in the UK who are going to be combatting I quote: 'This totally unacceptable behaviour'. For Student7's comments saying I have made this up is obsered. How dare you be so rude to me. --88.108.120.191 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul needed

One thing this article needs is an effort to make it clear when high school students are being discussed, and when college students are the subject. As it is, it's often unclear. This could give the impression that there's a LOT of impropriety going on in high schools (which doesn't appear to be the case, at least at the one where I teach), when in fact it's referring to (possibly) consensual relationships between adults in a college setting. Eceresa (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is more of this at the university/college level. The reason for the slant was that this was originally an article on sexual relationships between teachers and students. We discussed deleting it as it was created under a completely made up topic, but I offered to rewrite what was there as it was a good spring board for a sub-article on sexual harassment in education.

But this is why there is so much about that specific type of sexual harassment, and not so much about student-teacher harassment or student-on-student harassment, the latter of which is the most common.

I had not been able to work on the article in the last months and was hoping that someone would add to the student-on-student sexual harassment section, but no one has. There is a lot of data on the Internet about this. Hopefully, someone will step up and do that. Eventually, I may do so.

BTW, like so many editors who come here, you do an awful lot of complaining about what you don't like in this article, and do nothing to make anything better. Did it ever occur to you go go out and find a quote that says "this problem happens less in high schools" and actually put it in the article? Koala06 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Koala06's edits

This needs to be hashed out. If the consensus is against me, this should be left in, but the consensus seems to be on my side. This is the place to have the discussion, rather than continuing to go back and forth in the comments, which is inadequate, or continuing above, where it's getting a bit convoluted.

There are three major reasons that this section needs to go. The first is its tone. The tone is obviously informal, and too much so to really fit into an encyclopedia article. The informality of the tone could be fixed, but that would require an almost complete overhaul, as it's completely inappropriate as is, and would still leave the problem that this section is basically pseudo-psychology. It's not serious. It's the sort of thing that would be found in a women's magazine, listing the different kinds of sexual predators. It's sensationalized, meant to whip up fear in the reader rather to inform. As an encyclopedic entry, this should strive to inform.

The second reason is the length. This is the problem with Koala06's suggestion that countering information be added; the article is more than long enough already, and this digression only makes it more lengthy. There's already a section on the psychology of abusive teachers. That section is more than adequate, and reads as if it's based off of actual psychology as well (in contrast to the passage that's in question).

The final reason is, as I've mentioned before, that this article tends to devolve into an assault on the teaching profession. I'm starting to get the impression that this is why Koala06 wants this in. By dwelling for such an unnecessary length on multiple pseudo-scientific classifications of abusive teachers, the article gives additional weight to these abuses (which, while horrible, are rather rare). A person reading the article would be likely to focus on this section, as it's given such an amount of space and therefore weight, and infer that the issue is much more widespread than it is, which reflects badly (and more importantly, inaccurately) on the teaching profession.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that the article is shorter, no less useful or informative, and reads better with the passage out. That's why I'll keep taking it out unless a consensus forms here against me. As it is, it seems that it's only one person with a grudge who keeps adding it back in. Eceresa (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is ABOUT sexual harassment in education so of course it is going to discuss patterns. The article is NOT about teachers or teaching. You seem more concerned about the image this will give the profession than whether or not the information is valid--which it is. But valid does not mean that it discusses all teachers.

BTW, your assertion that this section will give teachers a bad image highlights one of the problems with how schools deal with sexual harassment in education--that is, they don't, they work to protect the school's image. Please see this quote by Naomi Wolf:

'Of the women who have approached her to share their own experiences of being sexually harassed by their teachers, feminist and writer Naomi Wolf writes,

"I am ashamed of what I tell them: that they should indeed worry about making an accusation because what they fear is likely to come true. Not one of the women I have heard from had an outcome that was not worse for her than silence. One, I recall, was drummed out of the school by peer pressure. Many faced bureaucratic stonewalling. Some women said they lost their academic status as golden girls overnight; grants dried up, letters of recommendation were no longer forthcoming. No one was met with a coherent process that was not weighted against them. Usually, the key decision-makers in the college or university—especially if it was a private university—joined forces to, in effect, collude with the faculty member accused; to protect not him necessarily but the reputation of the university, and to keep information from surfacing in a way that could protect other women. The goal seemed to be not to provide a balanced forum, but damage control."'

If you don't like the length of the section, then pare it down. If you think the section is too informal, then formalize it.

The truth is, you simply take the section personally, which is way far away from NPOV.

If you feel so strongly about this article, I would like to see you make some constructive contributions, rather then going the VERY EASY way and just deleting what you don't like or criticizing what is here. (THe amount of time you took to write the above paragraphs could have been used to make the improvements you think need to be made.) Koala06 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The "contested" information is being taught in high school and university courses all over the United States--legal courses, social science courses, you name it--I know because we have included it in our own article on sexual harassment patterns, and the number of links to it from school classrooms (their websites and Blackboard web pages) is enormous. Koala06 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been looking at this as much as the rest of you, but I think I would go with removal. 1) The tone of the reference does not quite have the high quality of scholarship that I would expect for this controversial an article. It doesn't seem professional. 2) It does seem like analysis, which doesn't seem appropriate for this article. 3) Disclosure: I tried to write articles disclosing teachers convictions on sexual charges. This was thrown out (deleted) because the powers that be wanted to cover over the teachers role in harassment. While this was annoying, I don't think it necessary to err on the other side either. That is, their mistake in covering this over should not impel me to support an unusual subsection against teachers. Two wrongs don't make a right. 4) I still feel that stating analysis about offending teachers is tantamount to saying "we've haven't really proved anything, but we want you to know that teachers do this sort of thing." I think it should be removed.

Having said that, I would suggest that if it is edited back in, that we submit this to mediation. This is painful and I do not recommend it. We would be much better off coming to some solution ourselves. When one person has criticized me in the past, I have argued with them. When two people criticize me (with no support from anyone else), I gulp, and generally try to cooperate. I have found in the past that if I have no support, it's much smarter to go along and get on with my Wikipedia career. There are a couple of million other articles. Student7 (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Then please "go along" and work on any of those other million articles, as neither of you are adding anything constructive here.

I've been editing the sexual harassment articles at Wiki for several years, and have had to deal with up to five very upset men all at once who looked for anything they could to delete just about everything included in all of them. (They seem to take the issue very personally, and usually go away muttering about how difficult I am, which is fine with me.) I am not likely to "gulp," here, either. It is all nothing more than an attempt to squelch unpopular information, rather than an attempt at quality and NPOV.

I will absolutely add the section back if it is deleted again outright without anyone's attempting to make the changes (tone, length) that have been proposed as being so badly needed.

Like I said to what's his name, the time you took to write the above could have been used to "fix" the (imaginary) problems you think are there, but still you keep arguing about it.

That being said, saying that the section is "unscholarly" is personal opinion, particularly since it was written by a noted scholar on the topic. But it isn't quoted, so I repeat my invitation for you to rewrite it so that the offending tone is "more scholarly" to your ears. And certainly, pare it down if you also think it's too long.

But like any of the other gentleman, I doubt you will do anything so constructive because none of these are the real issues. The issue here is NPOV, which is the cornerstone of Wiki, and which neither of you is respecting. THe fact that neither of you have even made an attempt to "fix" these (imaginary) issues if proof of what I say.

BTW, I haven't worked much on this article for a long time, but you two have really inspired me. I'm going to add a section on sexual harassment reports which will surely include a discussion on the degree to which complainants are silenced by academics who feel that the issue is too POV and too "unscholarly" to take seriously. Thank you both for inspiring me!!!! Koala06 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your bias is clear. Please stop adding this useless information back in. Eceresa (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who keeps saying the section will "make teachers look bad," which makes as much logical sense as saying that discussing racism makes all whites look bad, or a discussion of parental-child sexual abuse makes all parents look bad.

And of course I care about this issue, but that has no bearing one way or the other on the validity of the information. I have invited you repeatedly to rewrite the section to your satisfaction AND to add contradictory information which hardly speaks of my forcing any bias here. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THE WORK YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.

You two gentleman are the ones who refuse to cooperated.

And I restate, information on the ways that teachers can sexually harass students does not generalize to other teachers. It is specific to this problem.

Not only will I continue to replace the information, but I looked up requesting arbitration, and they will not take on issues involving content. So, I guess I keep having to revert till you both begin acting like the educated intelligent adult males you think you are. Koala06 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. The consensus (small though it is) is that that section should be left out. Eceresa (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all. Not only will I not stop, but I will no longer be in a dialogue with you about it. You are clearly not interested in doing anything constructive here and are merely interested in protecting the image of teachers, and forcing a male POV.

Protecting images is NOT the responsibility of Wikipedia, or of any encyclopedia. In fact, your very actions are an abuse of the tool. It's nothing less than censorship of a POV you just don't agree with.

From here on, I will simply be reverting all your deletions, without comment here on the Talk page. "Talking" with you is a waste of time as you don't seem to be even be able to apply logic to your arguments. (I would expect more from a teacher.)

If you begin to make constructive changes to the article, I will be happy to begin to communicate with you again about. But not until then.

P.S. Since the number of male Wiki editors vastly outnumbers the number of female editors, you will always find an imbalance in the discussion, particularly where Wiki topics are gender-related. That is why using things reasons such as "group consensus" has to be taken with a grain of salt. Throughout history, men have used this to silence the dialog when it comes to any POV that is regarded as female. It WILL NOT be happening here.Koala06 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have requested mediation at mediation site. You may agree to it by going there and filling in the appropriate box. Student7 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have agreed, but deleted the lies you put in "other options," as no third party opinion has been invoked, and this discussion has been only for a few days, and not months. I also find it interesting the other gentlemen you invited, one who has nothing to do with this and who hasn't edited here since last summer, and one who will undoubtadly act in the same manner as you. I note, you didn't invite the only other women who have edited here. You have only invited male editors who will agree with your point of view. I have noted the lying, and biased invitations on the mediation talk page. I will be surprised if they take this on considering your actions. But anything can happen. (I have also noted your actions in a new section at the bottom of this talk page.)Koala06 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

They've fixed it. The place to sign up is Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sexual harassment in education. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed because I FIXED IT. Testbed isn't a part of this at all. I assert that you are deliberately trying to inflate the conflict and pull in people to take your side of the issue. Koala06 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Mediation request highlights gang-up mentality

Just a note on the recent mediation request and how it highlights problems with this recent discussion/conflict. (See above)

Student7 invited only male editors who agree with his POV (no others, and no women who have edited here) including one male who hasn't edited here for months and isn't even involved in the dispute. The dispute is only between me, Student7, and Erzatz or whatever his name is. The other male Student7 invited, testbed, has nothing to do with any of this, but will surely take the side of the others.

Student7 also lied on the mediation request, saying that RFC had been invoked, when it hadn't. He also said that this has been going on for months, when it's only been going on for days.

He also lied and said that this is a dispute about the entire article, and not one small section. (I've clarified this on the mediation talk page.)

This is very much an attempt to create an even more lop-sided discussion and a guys-against-the-lone-female dynamic. But I'm pretty much used to that here. Koala06 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some new issues to be discussed in the mediation if it is accepted:

• Whether censoring content should be used to protect the image of an institution
• When is it constructive deletion, when is it censorship of unpopular speech
• who gets to decide what is and isn't "relevant" in Wiki articles
• Using "mediation invites" to people not involved in disputes to create a gang-up mentality at article discussions

Koala06 (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Student7 sent me a note inviting me to invite others. Which I won't because this is purely a dispute between three people. I assert that Student7 is deliberately trying to inflate the conflict. Koala06 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Student7 added an issue to be discussed, that being a problem with my not assuming "Good faith." How can I do this when he so blatently lied, and lied repeatedly when he made the request.

If the Wikipedia administration takes this on, I will fall over in shock. (As it stands, I hope they see it as beneath them.) Koala06 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1) I had no idea that editor Testbed was no longer involved. I was simply inviting everyone that had been involved in the discussions. I was not aware of having overlooked anyone. The system allows participants to invite others as desired. 2) I suggested getting a third party opinion earlier. No one took me up on that. I looked around on the discussion page which is in total disarray, saw a third opinion and thought that it was applicable. 3) I had no idea Koala06 was a woman until she disclosed it shortly before I asked for mediation. Actually my best Wikipedia "buddy" is a woman. 4) I tended to favor your side. You are certainly free to decline allies. 5) I am a graduate of a school which subscribes to a strict honor system. I still support that system. I do not deliberately lie. Student7 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bull. It would be really great if you two took the energy you have put into the conflict and actually contributed some content to the article. Jeeze, neither of you have even contributed a single word to it.

Are you joking?? You haven't favored my side at all, but have continually argued against it. But it's fine, as I don't need any help. This conflict mirrors almost every other interaction I've had at Wikipedia at the sexual harassment articles: a group of guys crying that the articles aren't NPOV, while at the same time refusing to add content or make rewrites that will fix the problems. (And they ALWAYS cry "not assuming good faith" when you call them on the bullshit.) You guys are no different, and you won't be the last.Koala06 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to editing this page, though I am knowledgeable on related topics (and modest too!). I thought I'd mention my guess that this mediation request will not be accepted. There has not been sufficient attempts at other forms of dispute resolution, especially, there has been no WP:RFC. The prior RFC on this talk page was long ago and seems to be on a different issue. The issues listed for meditation also seem overly broad.

I could be wrong, maybe they'll accept it, but from seeing other mediations come and go, my guess is it's doubtful.

Here's a suggestion: Start a new seection at the bottom of the talk page here, titled something like "Open issues" or whatever seems appropriate. Each person add a few points of concern, so they can be addressed in an organized way. If the process stalls, then, reformat the issues into an organized outline, and file an RfC, using the new WP:RFC template system, to invite more editors to participate. If that doesn't solve the problems, meditation can be approached later. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

PS... My suggestion regards the content issues, not the behavior or motivations of editors. If there is an editor who is regularly uncivil or disruptive, there are other forums for addressing that. The best talk page progress can be made by keeping the focus on the content and references, not editors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done Koala06 (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting information is far from NPOV

Controversial articles will always express opinions that people do not like. This has been an issue in all of Wiki's abuse articles, articles about racism, gender issues, etc. (I've been editing here a couple of years) You do not achieve NPOV by deleting information that you don't agree with, or by going into exhaustive arguments about semantics or tone. You achieve NPOV by including all POVs, not deleting them. That information may not be useful to you personally, does not make it in inappropriate. Koala06 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I challenge people to quit spending so much time critisizing what is here, and spending more time adding good content to the article. It needs expansion, particularly in the effects section, and student-on-student sexual harassment. (I wrote the vast majority of what is here, and the main Sexual harassment article, under a different username--Aine--but had to change the name--I ran this by the Wiki admin before I did it.)

If more editors spent time contributing rather than deleting and arguing about made-up issues such as "well, this doesn't sound 'scholarly enough'" then there would be a lot of more quality at Wikipedia.Koala06 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Need a section on students who sexually harass teachers

In seeing the current debate that is going on concerning this article at this very moment, I noticed that this article focuses way too much on teachers sexually harassing students. It feels like only yesterday that I was in high school, and from what I saw there, I will never view a mid to late teenager as some innocent preyed upon by a teacher...unless they were really prey. From what I saw, it was the other way around, though, yes, I am aware that some teachers sexually prey upon their students. And, yes, of course, we are supposed to say that teachers know better than to get sexually involved with an underage student (or even an 18-year-old student), no matter who initiated the sexual contact, and in those cases...we are still supposed to see the student as the victim. If it's an elementary or middle school student, I say yes. But when it's a high school student, I'm more so skeptical. All of us have been in high school...and we know what it's like. A lot of high school students sexually harass their teachers. There most certainly needs to be a good section about that in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this as I know for a fact that it is an issue. They do this to undermine the teacher's authority, test boundaries, etc. Though some are also misguided "crushes." Can't point you to any literature on this topic right off the bat, though. (However, I don't think the article focuses too much on teachers harassing students. There is far less of students harassing teachers then the other way around.)

What it really needs is more about student-on-student harassment, as this is the biggest problem of all. Koala06 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there are less students sexually harassing teachers than the other way around, but, yes, a section on students sexually harassing teachers is needed, as well as expansion on students sexually harassing students. Definitely. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about, fewer reports of students sexually harassing teachers. :) Koala06 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, and a section like that would work fine, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is definitely needed. Its conspicuous absence presents a biased view of this topic. Teachers and professors can be sexually harassed by students. Unfortunately, there is very little research or literature on the subject. I found a few sources, and I'm thinking of adding this section. Any objections?Firenech (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Understanding where this article has come from

Just a note to explain why there is so much about SH by teachers in this article. If you read the history above, you will see that this article began as a way to salvage another article called "academic seduction" which was a completely made up topic, but which had some good information in it. We voted to change the name, and make it a sub-article of the main sexual harassment article, get rid of the "crap," keep what was useful, and expand on all that.

That is also why there is such a big section on sexual relationships between teachers and students. Personally, I think it could be pared down.

Also, the effort to make the sections "global" makes them all longer, as does including all POVs.

This is where it is now. It greatly needs expansion, particularly in terms of sexual harassment in education in other countries (trends, laws, complaint processes, etc.), and on the issue of student-on-student harassment, which is the bigger discrimination problem in the U.S. education system (than sh by teachers), but I don't know about other countries.

I'm beginning the section on complaints (see note below), which is a huge issue because schools are notorious for either over-reacting to the problem, or ignoring it. But it would be great if someone could pick up on the other sections and run with them.

Please don't just complain about what is here or not here, or when your POV is not represented. Take part and start making active, constructive contributions to the article. Koala06 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Beginning section on complaints of SH in education

As promised, I'm beginning the section on complaints. As education has one of the most abysmal records in dealing with this issue--they ignore serious problems almost as much as they over-react to minor problems--I'll be including different points of view, statistics on frequency of reports through the U.S. Department of Education (if I can find them), etc.

I will also globalize it like I did the main Sexual harassment article by trying to include what I can dig up on how complaints are handled in other countries. This may be hard to find, and I can't translate, so if any other Wiki editors in other countries can lend a hand here, that would be greatly appreciated.

This will be a process, so please wait until I have included all this before you all "jump all over" what is there and what is missing. :) Koala06 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Open issues

Okay, I'll start off. But I think that anyone who adds to this should be willing to work to make the changes or additions they are requesting--this does not include just deleting content. Additions here should focus on CONTENT, not editor behavior

• content should not be deleted from this article because it might make teachers "look bad."
• there have been complaints about the tone and length of the harassment patterns section, but I've repeatedly invited those editors to rewrite the section to their satisfaction already, and they have refused to do so.

actually, I agree that the patterns of harassment section could be less wordy. It also needs to be paraphrased (otherwise I'm violating my own copyright LOL), so I will take that on--but I won't delete it

• This article is lop-sided and needs more about student-on-student sexual harassment, which is a bigger problem than sexual harassment by teachers
• There needs to be more information that contradicts or tells the "other side" of the issue (ie. when is the problem cultural, done out of ignorance, immaturity, miscommunication, too much regulation of behavior, etc.) In the main sexual harassment article, I included a "Debates" section, and something like that would probably work here, too. Koala06 (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Apparent bad faith edits and personal attacks
• Blatant bias (specifically, adding loads of content about teacher-on-student harassment in order to get a response)

When content is tangential, non-encyclopedic, and makes the article weaker, it should be deleted. Eceresa (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Add

Add

:Well, the above template didn't seem to work. I don't know why. Student7 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)apparently corrected by angel Student7 (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section for discussion

Since Koala06 has decided to talk to me again, I'll point this out here. This section has been discussed. Two people, Student7 and I, feel that it's unnecessary and weakens the article. One person, Koala06, disagrees. Since the consensus is that it should be removed, it should stay out of the article. I've reposted it below in case any additional discussion is necessary, but because it's tangential, inappropriate in tone to an encyclopedia, and overlong (focusing too much on teacher abuse in an article that is already slanted that way despite the fact that peer to peer abuse is more common), I think that we've already had enough to agree to keep it out. Eceresa (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Personality traits and attitudes

People who engage in sexual harassment and abuse in school don’t necessarily look as if they would ever harm a student. Attorney Mary Jo McGrath writes:

"Most of us have a mental image that people who hurt other people look odd and act differently than ordinary folk. To the contrary, frequently the perpetrator is someone we think of as a winner. Though always dangerous to generalize it is important to challenge our beliefs with some disconcerting facts." [2]

Zalk (1987) has described several personality dimensions, or "themes," evident in teachers who sexually harass students. Each dimension is comprised of two profiles, each representing the end of a “pole.” (These are not entirely mutually exclusive dimensions, and a harasser's placement into any is a matter of judgement.)

The Untouchable and The Risk-Taker: The Untouchable does not consider the consequences of his or her actions, believing themselves to be in control, free of any real risks, and beyond the ranks of censorship or reprimands. They may flaunt sexual liaisons with students, viewing this as a challenge to the system. For the most part, they are narcissistic and grandiose, viewing themselves as “untouchable,” much like the egocentric adolescent who does not believe they will ever “get caught” or who continually drives drunk. The Risk-Taker knows they are being “naughty” and their actions are a statement, but at the same time, the risk-taker fears punishment for the transgressions. They will vacillate between the “high” of breaking-the-rules and guilt at the immorality of their actions. The student will symbolize the transgression, and symbolize the harasser’s weakness. Because of this, the harasser will blame the victim, labeling them a “tempter” or “temptress” who has taken advantage. Indeed, the Risk-Taker will view themselves as being the victims, and not the other way around.

The Seducer-Demander and the Passive-Initiator: The Seducer-Demander is a “power player” who actively plots sexual encounters using his or her position to do so. A Demander has little more than contempt for their targets, and they broker favors for sex as their way of keeping people in their “proper place.” A Seducer also uses their position to facilitate sexual encounters but they have a need to be desired and loved, and the power of their position, and the effect it has on their targets, is part of this dynamic. The Passive-Initiator is the person who pays special attention to a student, is flirtatious and flattering, but who does not make the first overtly sexual overture. They will argue that, if the student is the one to initiate sexual contact, then the teacher is not guilty of any transgressions. However, it has been argued that an unequal power distribution in this kind of relationship makes the teachers concession to the overtures exploitation. That the subordinate "asked" is not an excuse for complying. The Passive-Initiator "draws the line between morality and immorality at who does the asking."

The Infatuated and The Sexual Conqueror: The Sexual Conqueror is the typical Don Juan (or Juanita) who seduces many people. They will remember little about each conquest, as they are only interested in numbers. In many cases, they will not even be able to match a name to a face. The Infatuated begins by developing a “crush” on a student which may evolve into stronger feelings. The primary attraction to the target is that they are student which makes the Infatuated feel stronger and more powerful than they would in a relationship with a peer. They want to be looked up to, and to be the center of the relationship. They want to be the teacher who “guides” the lover. In many cases, the Infatuated are very discontented with their own status within their departments or companies, and the relationship with the students is a panacea to this, and helps to bolster the Infatuated's self-esteem. (Zalk, 1990)

For some examples of these kinds of personality traits at work, see Naomi Wolf's article The Silent Treatment, about her relationship with her professor, the renowned writer Harold Bloom, while she was a student at Yale University. See also SESAME survivors stories, Mary Kay LeTourneau, Pamela Smart, and Debra Lafave.

I failed to mention it earlier but I also agree with Eceresa's comments on student on student harassment. I suppose it should be mentioned somewhere since this topic is so generic (won't find that kind of loophole in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases). But it seems to distract here. The issue is teacher on student. If the article needs to be forked so each can be discussed, fine. But there is little to substantiate student on student or student on teacher. Hard enough problem to get convictions with teacher on student. Almost impossible the other way. I will amend our requests to include this issue as well. Student7 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "personality profiles" should be excluded in perpetuity. In addition, I think that the corresponding "further reading" suggestion be removed. The views presented are very likely politically motivated, not factually motivated. That is, the end goal of the source material is to advance a political movement, not to contribute to the understanding of the issues. The cited source, Sue Zalk, made several politically motivated and biased statements of dubious benefit on this subject. Since this would tend to detract from the informational quality of this article, I believe that they should be excluded permanently.Firenech (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic confusion?

Having been away from editing for a while (got really fed up with a cover-up Wiki gang who keep censoring sex abuse cases out of the history of the boy scouts) I have had a look back through a lot of heated debate to see if I can bring anything new to the party. Yes, one seemingly obvious point has struck me now: what exactly are we talking about? The heading refers to "education" and the content of the article to "students", which may seem clear enough - but is it? Education can mean school (i.e. primary and secondary education) but it can also mean university or college (i.e. tertiary education).

Also "student": I am from the UK and (at least until recently) the British reserved the term for undergraduates or post-graduates. Those of us Europeans who have to read a lot of North American CVs are well aware of the admirably positive tendency to inflate (so that every kid in the mail room becomes a Vice-President) - therefore we have been resistant to the (to us alien) use of the word "student" to refer to schoolchildren. This is changing, but there is still plenty of room for confusion in this article.

Both points are non-trivial, I think, as there are distinct differences, not least in law, because of the ages concerned. There may be merit in sorting this out, or even separating the article into two.Testbed (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It seems to me to be a deliberately vague title. There is no doubt what a parallel article involving priests are about. Priests, too, are subject to sexual advances from their parishioners, which never came as much of a shock before 2000. But we don't need to read about it in any case. If we were to try to change this to "public school in the US" ("public" meaning something quite different than the UK of course) the unions would be all over us. It can't happen. Vagueness is mandatory. There is at least three times the reported abuse in school as there is in the church, but you would never find that out reading Wikipedia.

The other problem we have is that there are 51 or so state jurisdictions, each of which handles harassment slightly differently than the others. In one state, it is illegal for a high school teacher or maybe college professor to have relations with a student regardless of age. In others, up to 21. In others, to 18. Still others, over 16 is treated somewhat more benignly than in younger students. So those differences become part of the problem of reporting generically.

But to answer the original question, I think that the article was originally intended for non-college students, American grades 12 down. But it's vagueness attracts just about anything an editor wants in the article. Student7 (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. I got the impression that it was originally talking ONLY about college students, and that all of the high-school stuff had been added later. A re-write to make clear which statistics are about which group would probably be a good idea. Eceresa (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Parity across sex abuse articles on Wikipedia?

Perhaps there are good/experienced editors who look at this page, who might be interested in taking a look at a (very) different article: Scouting sex abuse cases. There are well-organised vested interests determined to cover-up what goes in the Scouts so some fresh contributions might be useful. Testbed (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Small association, NN spokesperson

An answer from a spokesperson [Chris Keates, Nat'l Assoc of Schoolmaster etc. etc., (a small union in the UK) is in the article. The person is WP:NN and not a well-known personality in her own right. I do not object to the answer being used, but using her name detracts from the article and seems to promote (WP:PR}, and otherwise exaggerate the importance of someone who is not well known. My question is why should she be so prominent in the article which is not about her nor her organization, but is essentially about ideas and not people? I tried to footnote her name and organization and was thwarted by another editor from doing so. If organizations and author were explicitly inserted for every footnote, we'd be overloaded and wondering what the heck the article was really aobut! Which is why this is seldom done. Student7 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

It's unclear why the term child sexual abuse isn't really used in the current article, since illicit sex with underaged minors is usually qualified as abuse by modern media and legislation. Although there is room for distinction between sexual harassment and sexual abuse, the harassment part is often included within the specific abuse, since it amounts to the associated criminal practice of child grooming.

Even if some abuse is more or less consensual, this doesn't take away the fact that the nature of the crime itself involves people below the age of legal consent. Also, the fact that certain abusers are heterosexual women, who have nothing to do with previous clerical pederasty affairs, doesn't necessarily make these cases any more respectable to the general public than other child abuse scandals.

ADM (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Songs?

It is one thing for literature, even fictional, to make a acclaimed presentation on a topic. Quite another for a pop song which contributes nothing intellectual at all. This is an encyclopedia, not an almanac junk collection of random thoughts by song-writers. IMO they should be removed. All of them. Student7 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephanie Ragusa

Since there are pages like Debra Lafave, do you think Stephanie Ragusa [3] and various others would qualify for having a biography on this site? Typical Palo Alto Dweller (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is (usually) not a police blotter. It was for three or four female teachers when it was discovered that they had sex with male students in the 1990s or so, when that was thought to be a rare thing. It isn't. Probably every one of 1000 school districts has, by now, had at least one case.

Maybe 80% of all sex abuse cases are resolved in a mild fashion, with the alleged perp plea bargaining or the DA dropping charges. The victim is usually either unwilling to testify, the parents are unwilling to let him (her, as applicable), or the victim would make a terrible witness, who would be utterly destroyed by a competent lawyer. So these are essentially "fluff" stories, full of sound and fury, resolving into nothingness at the end.

Basically it's against Wikipedia policy unless something is extremely unusual about the victim, the crime, or the alleged perp. This is an ordinary case and is not notable in any fashion. Student7 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

United States

This mostly seems US centric. I suggest moving it all to "Sexual harassment in education in the United States." Anything that is redeemable as a higher level article can be copied back. Other countries will need their own article anyway. Student7 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved to U.S. only article. Tried to reconstruct some semblance of a general article. Please feel free to copy back anything you see of a general nature that applies worldwide and not merely to the U.S. Most studies tend to be US and European in scope. Rarely is the "whole world" considered. Student7 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not done. The target is a separate article. If you want to merge, that doesn't involve moving pages. If you want to move content in "Sexual harassment and abuse in education in media and literature" to the main article, just do so with attribution in the edit summary. Fences&Windows 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Sexual harassment in education in the United States → Sexual harassment in education —

• Hierarchy is way too complicated, we have Sexual harassment, Sexual harassment in education and Sexual harassment in education in the United States
• some material doesnt even relate to the US, for example there are 2 UK refs and an Australian ref, the section Sexual_harassment_in_education_in_the_United_States#Sexual_harassment_and_abuse_in_education_in_media_and_literature relates to wide mix of diverse countries such as the UK, South Africa, France and India, some external links refer to Japan for example.
• any clearly specifically US material such as US law can have its own section anyway as, for example, School_bullying#Legal_recourse_in_the_US and Workplace_bullying#United_States
• there are plenty of international studies, see for example these related articles: bullying in academia and bullying in teaching
• article needs a good cleanup - many of the cited links are dead
• the basic phenomena of sexual harassment in education is a global one where obviously each country has its own cultural and legal variations
• if the US has its own article to be consistent it means that all other countries should have separate articles
• all US specific citations would be clearly identified as US-related in the citation info or by a section being identified as US-specific. The reader can be left to decide how globally relevant a US citation is.
• I think article could do with a {{Globalize|date=March 2011}}
  banner (see for example Sexual harassment, Family therapy or School bullying).

--Penbat (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the target is a separate article. If you think that there is material that is not US relevant, or that is general, you could always edit the article to move it to the other one. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  Comment I think most of the US material has global relevance, at least to some degree, and any entirely specifically-US material (such as US law) can go into a US-specific section. I would prefer to leave the reader to decide how globally relevant any individual US material is rather than impose a subjective judgement where to draw the line. As a matter of course you would expect a sizable chunk of any research in any field to originate from the US. --Penbat (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Taking advantage of Penbat's analysis, possibly the material that is general can be moved to the main article. Not so sure that it isn't European-centric. But that is another problem. I think we can only consider one article at a time.

Don't know about other articles right now. Other countries can go into the main article until they are large enough to have their own articles. Certainly Penbat had found issues with this article that need addressing no matter where the material is located. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Originally only a single subsection (5.1) was indicated to be US-specific - see [4] [5]. It could easily be argued that everything else is "generalised". --Penbat (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content subtleties

There are a few subtleties that this article misses. I'll add my thoughts separately, so that responses can be made to each.Firenech (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a bit of a one-sided view to this article. The content seems to focus on sexual harassment claims as if every claim is justified and true. There isn't any mention of false claims.Firenech (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is also a subtlety in the section on relationships between teachers and students. Actually, there are two. One is that the focus is on teachers who approach students, where the reverse does happen. The second is that, in a higher educational environment, there is a great deal of difference between a student at the university and a student under the direct supervision of a professor. The second one implies a mentor/mentee relationship, and the other is a free association between otherwise unrelated adults.Firenech (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

More extensive re-writes may be needed

The more I read this article, the more I feel that there needs to be an extensive overhaul. As of April, 2013, several of the references are dead, which technically places the informational content in violation of Wikipedia policy; And with good reason. I've noted several politically motivated references, and opinions stated as fact. I've also seen some quotes placed in the wrong section, lending credence to a view which is not supported by the text. I'm going to look into adding some balancing opinions and a section on false claims, but I need to do some due diligence on the sources.Firenech (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As with any large group of felonies or misdemeanors, there are always false reports. I think this is about 15% for sexual harassment, but I don't have a citation right on hand. I would think that one well-sourced statement would summarize false accusations.

"Dead" citations can technically be revived from some sort of deja news source, can't they? Or the "dead" (subscription) html pointer rm from an otherwise hard copy source? Student7 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The link that I'm talking about is: http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/ The link seems to be completely dead. All I see is the "Index of /" that usually means that the site is dead. I don't know if they moved, or if they lost their domain name, but it appears to be completely empty. Do you see the same?Firenech (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the false accusations, I think that there should be a little more than a single statement. One of the arguments that I sometimes hear is "no one would make a false accusation because the consequences are so severe." I think that we can offer a more complete view by citing current research on motives behind false accusations. What do you think?Firenech (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "motivations." Good police work tries to vet all reports of felonies to cut down on the number of "official" false accusations. The article, BTW, says around 10% for types of sexual harassment, lower than I would have thought. Student7 (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sexual harassment in education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060810180454/http://reason.com:80/cy/cy060402.shtml to http://www.reason.com/cy/cy060402.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sexual harassment in education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120307133503/http://wcco.com/topstories/sex.offenders.female.2.355798.html to http://wcco.com/topstories/sex.offenders.female.2.355798.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Some additions

I will be working on making some additions to this article. I plan on going through the current statistics to confirm that the information is correct, adding to the sections on types of sexual harassment in education, as well as researching and adding to the section on the effects of sexual harassment in education. I am including some sources from my bibliography thus far.

• [6]
• Gruber, James E., and Susan Fineran. "Comparing the impact of bullying and sexual harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of adolescents." Sex Roles 59, no. 1-2 (2008): 1-13.
• Lipson, Jodi. Hostile Hallways: Bullying, Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School. AAUW Educational Foundation, 1111 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, 2001.

Eacat27 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I also plan on changing the wording in certain sections as well as editing to eliminate any opinions that may be worded to be viewed as facts. Eacat27 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made some changes to this article that go along with the my previous plans listed above. I am thinking about re-configuring and working on the section titled "Sexual relationships between students and teachers" because it seems to be the largest section in the article and contains information that may not directly pertain to the article. If anyone has any thoughts, that would be great! I am also in the process of adding a section about the ways schools in the United States are preventing sexual harassment from occurring. As I said, any more suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Eacat27 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

For the article in which I plan to edit is on Sexual Harassment in education in the United States. When reading the article, it is very easy to understand and to follow along. Gives great statistics relating to the topic, then goes into the types of sexual harassment, which i found to not be very informative enough and could use some additional information and data. The article does a great job on keeping a bias out of it, even the quotes and examples are non bias. I think that last topic, Prevention lacked a lot of information, which would be a great new edit I could contribute. There are so many references that were used, media and literature references are the most common. I did click on over 5 or 6 novel links and saw that the description of the books were all interrelated with the sexual harassment topic and backed up the articles information.

      -A few of the references that were cited in the article that I would like to get a little more data and information on include in my bibliography; 

http://sexualharassmentsupport.org/speakupse/category/sexual-harassment-in-education/ (which was one of the related topics) Catherine Hill and Holly Kearl (November 2011). Crossing the Line (2011):Sexual Harassment at School (Book or PDF file). Washington, D.C.: AAUW. p. 76. ISBN 978-1-879922-41-9. Retrieved November 9, 2011. "Sexual harassment is part of everyday life in middle and high schools. Nearly half (48 percent) of the students surveyed experienced some form of sexual harassment in the 2010–11 school year, and the majority of those students (87 percent) said it had a negative effect on them."

     -This provided a lot of background information on sexual harassment, data bases where you can go and conventions for this topic. 

Martin, Brian. Campus sex: a cause for concern?. EEO Sexual Harassment Sub-committee Pamphlet, University of Wollongong, Australia, 1993. (http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93campussex.pdf)

      -This PDF gave a lot of examples of harassment in which could be of assistance to someone who may have experienced inappropriate behavior at school, or is questioning something that happened. 

SESAME-Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct, and Exploitation (http://www.sesamenet.org/)

      -This gathers a lot of the statistics that i saw in the article, and i found them to be very helpful and informative to the topic. 

"Hostile Hallways" (PDF). American Association of University Women. 2001. Retrieved June 24, 2016. (http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED454132.pdf)

      Scubasarah8Scubasarah8 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The Demographic Section.

More information on the demographic area of this article is needed. The section does not provide diversity and the information is dated. Information on more groups like LGBTQ would be beneficial for this area for the article. In the race segment, there was a lack of conceptualization of the statistics presented. Sandratorres28 (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)