INTRODUCTION
Nathan Drake, a homosexual student, was studying finance at the University of RhodeCali when he was faced with explicit, sexual conduct by his instructor, Professor Alesia Ludlum. Professor Ludlum referred to Nathan as a "half-male abomination" and continually referenced his sexuality and body during class. These actions affected Nathan to the point where he avoided attending class and his grades plunged. While he spoke to Ludlum and a university counselor about the offensive conduct, they took no action, saying Ludlum meant no harm and was probably joking. Nathan is investigating if he can sue the university over Ludlum's actions. There are three issues in this case. First, can a student sue his professor under a workplace sexual harassment claim? Second, did Professor Ludlum's actions constitute sexual harassment? Finally, is the University liable for Ludlum's actions?
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes, for all issues. Workplace sexual harassment, which occurs when "a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate because of the subordinate's sex [and therefore] discriminates on the basis of sex" can occur in student-teacher interactions (Steig, 66). In order for the teacher's actions to be considered sexual harassment, the instructor's actions must create a "hostile environment" (Mina, 826) for the victim. In this situation, the instructor's conduct must be "objectively hostile and abusive, [. . .] permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, [and] sufficiently severe or pervasive" to alter the conditions of the victim's educational environment (Mina, 825). In addition, a school cannot be held responsible for an instructor's actions unless an official "with authority to take corrective action to end the discrimination" has actual knowledge of the conduct and "fails adequately to respond" (Clovis-Morrison, 290). Moreover, the official's response "must amount to deliberate indifference to discrimination" (Clovis-Morrison, 291). Finally, a student's sexual orientation is irrelevant in determining if sexual harassment has occurred. (Oncale, 300). The elements here are all met in this case, given Professor Ludlum's outrageous behavior and the school's attempts to dismiss the case without giving the student an opportunity to be heard.
DISCUSSION
I: STUDENT-TEACHER SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS COMMON IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS
Unfortunately, Nathan Drake's experience in the classroom was not a rare event. In Steig v. Iles Unified School District (1995), a high school student was continually harassed by a coach, who pulled her out of class to have "forced intercourse" with her (Steig, 64). In Clovis-Morrison v. Board of Education (1992), a high school English teacher made sexually suggestive comments towards his students and engaged in a sexual relationship with one of them (Clovis-Morrison, 278). Finally, in Mina v. University of Tennessee (2003), a college student was continually referred to as "Paris," in reference to the ongoing Paris Hilton sex-tape scandal (Mina, 739). Because "the number of reported cases involving sexual harassment of students in schools confirms that harassment is an all too common aspect of the educational experience" (Clovis-Morrison, 292), the courts have held that workplace sexual harassment rules "should apply when a teacher sexually harasses and abuses a student" (Steig, 75).
II: PROFESSOR LUDLUM ENGAGED IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT BECAUSE HER ACTIONS CREATED A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT
To determine if Professor Ludlum engaged in sexual harassment, a court would determine if Ludlum created a hostile environment for Nathan Drake. A court would first look to whether Ludlum's actions were objectively hostile and abusive. Nathan writes that Ludlum singled him out from her first day of class. She humiliated him in front of his classmates by suggesting his presence was arousing other male students, and even referred to him as a "crime against Creation" and a "male-whore" on a written exam. An objective, reasonable man would likely be deeply offended by Ludlum's behavior and would likely have difficulty in class, as Nathan did. Such problems occurred in Mina, where the abused student suffered academically and was placed on academic probation (Mina, 720).
Second, a court would look to if Ludlum's actions were permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. It is clear that Ludlum singled out Nathan because he was an effeminate-looking man. She referred to him as "Adam Lambert," because she felt he shared a similar physical build to the homosexual singer. The same problems occurred in Mina; in that case, the student was targeted "for her resemblance to Hilton" (Mina, 748) and was continually referred to as "Paris," because of that likeness. Moreover, Ludlum's comments ridiculed Nathan - his "male-whore" comments were on a written exam distributed to the whole class, which caused some of his classmates to ridicule him.
Finally, a court would look to if Ludlum's comments were pervasive and severe enough that they altered his educational environment. The court in Mina explained that pervasive comments are "more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted" (Mina, 745). In this case, Ludlum's comments were certainly pervasive - Nathan explained that she has made offensive remarks "just about every day since the year began." These comments were also severe as they "transcended the bounds of propriety and decency, let alone harmless humor, and become actionable harassment based on . . . sex" (Mina, 729). To refer to a student as a male-whore "who is actively taking an inventory of the other men in the classroom" is hardly a harmless joke. These comments definitely altered Nathan's educational environment at RhodeCali's. He "can't walk into that classroom anymore" and failed several of his final exams as a result of the stress. The same result happened in Mina - the student testified she that "because of her treatment, she was unable to concentrate on her studies." (Mina, 748)
III: RHODECALI IS LIABLE BECAUSE THEIR ACTIONS CONSTITUTED DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO DISCRIMINATION
The courts have created challenging hurdles for a plaintiff who wants to sue a school over an instructor's sexual harassment. In Clovis-Morrison, the school was not liable for the English teacher's actions because the principal - who had been alerted about the teacher's offensive comments - was not given enough information to see the "possibility that [the teacher] was involved in a sexual relationship with a student" (Clovis-Morrison, 291). Likewise, "the failure to promulgate a grievance procedure does not itself constitute 'discrimination' under Title IX" (Clovis-Morrison, 286). However, Nathan's case is different. She did not wait until the next semester to file a complaint like in Mina (Mina, 741), nor were administrators only told a partial story, as in Clovis-Morrison. Nathan complained to Ludlum and her guidance counselor during the semester, but the latter insisted Ludlum was just joking. The guidance counselor had actual knowledge of Ludlum's actions and had the power to stop them - she could have taken the complaints to school administrators or to Ludlum directly. Doing so likely would have initiated a formal inquiry as in Mina and the actions probably would have stopped. Instead, the counselor failed to act and Ludlum's offensive conduct continued. Such inaction constitutes deliberate indifference to discrimination.
CONCLUSION
Nathan Drake's experiences at RhodeCali's State University reflect the unfortunate pattern of unwanted sexual conduct between teachers and their students. Professor Ludlum's conduct constitutes sexual harassment - not only did she isolate Nathan from his peers and cause him deliberate anxiety, Nathan's academic problems directly stem from Ludlum's actions. Finally, the counselor's attempt to ignore the problem - perhaps to the effect of willful blindness - allowed the harassment to continue - thus, a court would probably hold the University liable for Ludlum's actions.
|
Home
