The former vice-chancellor of the Australian National University said he acted on every single instance of bullying, harassment, sexism and racism he knew about in the university’s medical college, but didn’t go far enough.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
As anyone who has taken a psychology course likely knows, discussing parts of human psychology can inevitably lead to some uncomfortable places. Whether it’s discussing sensitive topics like the psychology of psychopathic violence, the ethics of human experimentation, or the sex-based roots of the concept of “hysteria,” psychology courses are often unavoidably provocative. That is especially so for doctoral courses.
For Gregg Henriques, a faculty member in James Madison University’s Clinical and School Psychology Doctoral program, these sorts of uncomfortable topics were a fundamental part of understanding the full range of human psychology. Henriques had taught in the program for more than 20 years, where he established his bona fides as a passionate, if colorful, professor.
That career longevity is part of the reason why Henriques was shocked to learn that a Title IX complaint had been filed against him by an anonymous student in April 2023. The complaint alleged that over the course of three classes and four months in early 2022, Henriques made two dozen harassing comments that created a hostile environment in his doctoral courses.
Among the objectionable comments were phrases like “emotions are like orgasms,” which was meant to analogize the experience of human emotion to the sexual response cycle, and “pinky dick” as a way of referring to inferiority complexes and overcompensation in a class on psychodynamic theory. Henriques also landed in hot water for acknowledging his own fundamental human desire to have sex during a lecture on Sigmund Freud.
Yes, Henriques often had a colorful way of describing psychological concepts. But he only used such phrases to convey concepts to his students in memorable ways. Faculty members enjoy wide protections regarding their pedagogical speech in the classroom because the First Amendment protects speech “related to scholarship or teaching.” That’s especially so when they approach difficult or controversial issues in the classroom, since even offensive speech that is “germane to the classroom subject matter” — including Henriques’s provocative descriptions of psychological concepts here — is protected.
We live in an age where heterodoxy is often called ‘harm’ and where every word out of a professor’s mouth is uttered beneath the brooding and Orwellian omnipresence of the Title IX Office.
Despite Henriques’ stellar reputation established over decades of teaching, James Madison plowed forward with the investigation. Henriques reached out to FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund, which provides faculty members at public universities with experienced First Amendment attorneys, free of charge. FLDF quickly set Henriques up with Justin Dillon, an accomplished attorney who helped Henriques navigate the investigatory process.
Over the course of nearly a year, JMU called Henriques into several meetings with investigators about the complaint. With the help of his FLDF attorney, Henriques was eventually cleared of all wrongdoing in January 2024, as the university determined that his comments were pedagogically relevant and did not constitute sexual harassment.
“I owe Justin and FIRE a tremendous debt of gratitude,” Henriques said. “As soon as he took the case, he homed in on the key issues, grasped the logic of why I taught the way I did and saw its value and legitimacy, and started to effectively game plan our approach. He was a tremendous help in navigating the system, understanding the procedures, and ensuring my rights were protected.”
“It’s hard to overstate the difference that I have seen the FLDF make in the lives of terrific professors like Gregg Henriques,” Dillon said. “We live in an age where heterodoxy is often called ‘harm’ and where every word out of a professor’s mouth is uttered beneath the brooding and Orwellian omnipresence of the Title IX Office. The FLDF helps keep the world safe for ideas, and I am so honored to be a part of it.”
With his pedagogical rights vindicated, Henriques is now back in the classroom, able to teach knowing that FLDF and FIRE have his back. But he is just one of the hundreds of scholars punished for their speech.
If you are a public university or college professor facing investigations or punishment for your speech, contact the Faculty Legal Defense Fund: Submit a case or call the 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).
by CUPA-HR | November 8, 2023
On November 7, CUPA-HR, joined by 49 other higher education associations, submitted comments in response to the Department of Labor (DOL) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations. In the NPRM, the DOL proposes to update the salary threshold for the “white collar” exemptions to the FLSA overtime pay requirements from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 per year — a nearly 70% increase.* Additionally, the department proposes to automatically increase the salary level every three years.
CUPA-HR’s comments highlight the concerns from institutions across the country and ask that the DOL consider four recommendations:
1) The DOL Should Not Update the Salary Threshold at This Time
The DOL most recently updated the minimum salary threshold in 2020. CUPA-HR welcomed updates at the time, given the minimum threshold had not been successfully updated since 2004 and the level proposed in 2019 was appropriate at the time. With the most recent update becoming effective in 2020, we believe it is too soon for the DOL to move forward with another update to the minimum salary threshold.
2) The DOL Should Lower the Proposed Minimum Salary Threshold and Account for Room and Board
If the DOL does choose to move forward with an increase to the threshold, we believe that the proposed minimum salary threshold is too high. Updating the salary level from $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $1,158 per week ($60,209 per year) leads to a nearly 70% increase, which will result in a large number of employees being reclassified to nonexempt status. To avoid having to reclassify certain employees to nonexempt status, we ask that the DOL consider room and board as part of an employee’s total salary when considering if such employees meet the minimum salary threshold.
3) The DOL Should Not Implement Automatic Updates to the Salary Threshold
In the NPRM, the DOL proposes to implement automatic updates to the salary threshold that would occur every three years. CUPA-HR believes that the DOL does not have the authority to implement automatic updates under the FLSA and that automatic increases will negatively impact institutions’ budgets, their ability to provide merit-based increases, and employee morale.
4) The DOL Should Extend the Effective Date of Any Final Rule Implementing a Higher Salary Threshold
According to the NPRM, the DOL anticipates providing 60 days for compliance with a final rule once it is published by the agency. CUPA-HR believes 60 days is too short a timeframe to assess the impact, plan, and implement appropriate changes on campus. Instead, we ask for an effective date that is at least 180 days after any final rule is published.
CUPA-HR’s president and chief executive officer, Andy Brantley, shared the following: “To say campuses are extremely concerned with the Department of Labor’s proposed rule increasing the minimum salary threshold to the FLSA overtime pay requirements by almost 70% would be an understatement. Employees in positions that clearly meet the three criteria to qualify as white-collar employees who are exempt from the federal overtime pay requirement will be forced into nonexempt positions.”
In addition to submitting these comments, CUPA-HR also joined the Partnership to Protect Workplace Opportunity’s comment letter addressing concerns with the proposed rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates relating to this proposed rule and our advocacy efforts as the department moves toward finalizing these regulations.
* The discrepancy between our figure of $60,209 and the DOL’s preamble figure of $55,068 arises from DOL’s own projections based on anticipated wage growth. The DOL’s proposed rule is rooted in 2022 data (yielding the $55,068 figure), but a footnote in the NPRM confirms that the salary threshold will definitely change by the time the final rule is issued to reflect the most recent data. Our comments, aiming to respond to the most probable salary threshold at the time a final rule is released, references the DOL’s projected figure for Q1 2024, which is $60,209. We do not believe DOL will be able to issue a final rule before Q1 2024, so we are incorporating this projected figure into our response to the NPRM. In essence, our goal is to provide members with a clearer picture of the likely salary figure when the final rule comes into play.
by CUPA-HR | September 13, 2022
On September 12, CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the Department of Education (DOE)’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Title IX. The NPRM seeks to rollback and replace the Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX rule, specifically with respect to its grievance procedures, and establish expanded protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy or related conditions.
CUPA-HR filed comments to bring attention to the possible impact the proposed regulations could have on how higher education institutions address employment discrimination. In our comments, we highlight the two sets of grievance procedures promulgated by the proposal: procedures used for cases involving employee-on-employee sex-based harassment (section 106.45) and procedures used for sex-based harassment involving an employee and student, regardless of whether the employee involved is the complainant or respondent (section 106.46). Our comments argue that such procedures in cases where the employee is a respondent may be unnecessarily prescriptive and will interfere with existing obligations, policies and procedures already utilized by institutions that are required to handle such incidents of sex-based employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and state and local employment laws.
In light of our concerns, our comments ask the DOE to exempt any sex-based harassment of employee respondents against a student complainant from the section 106.46 requirements, and to exempt all sex-based harassment claims where an employee is the respondent, regardless of whether the complainant is a student or an employee, from the section 106.45 requirements. These comments directly align with the concerns and requests written in the American Council on Education’s comments, which CUPA-HR also signed on to.
Finally, our comments suggest that the DOE consult with other federal agencies with jurisdiction over discrimination law, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to rationalize the requirements instituted by the Title IX regulations and Title VII, and to issue joint guidance on how to minimize potential conflicts between the obligations to claimants under Title VII and respondents under Title IX.
The DOE received over 200,000 comments in response to the NPRM, which they must now review prior to issuing a final rule to implement their changes. It is therefore unclear when we can expect the final rule and effective date of the new regulations. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the Title IX regulations.
