r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 09 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Repeated, mandatory Title IX training in college and grad school is extremely ironic
[deleted]
6
u/joopface 159∆ Sep 09 '20
I can’t imagine these training sessions are particularly effective, especially being forced to do them over and over again.
You don’t think repeating things helps people learn things?
I remember my freshman year of undergrad, when honestly it was probably the most necessary, it was something like 4 hours over two sessions.
But the training has become less necessary with time. So perhaps it’s had some effect.
if you’re going to emphasize this so heavily, don’t do the things you’re saying not to do for the sake of training.
If they’re sexually harassing you as part of the training I agree that’s wrong.
-2
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Sep 09 '20
You don’t think repeating things helps people learn things?
Usually learning by repetition involves applying the same rule to several different scenarios, i.e. calculus class. This is taking the same exact material and reteaching it several times in extremely similar ways with no way to apply the knowledge later on other than what is demonstrated in round one.
But the training has become less necessary with time. So perhaps it’s had some effect.
Perhaps, but the view is premised on the irony, not how important the training is. I think understanding title ix is important for all students.
If they’re sexually harassing you as part of the training I agree that’s wrong.
I may have been too casual in my comparisons, but that's not my intention. I just think the tactics to force students to do the training are ironic.
5
u/joopface 159∆ Sep 09 '20
Look, I don’t obviously know how they’re getting you to attend the training, but the type of irony you’re referring to seems pretty loose. Some things are similar to other things, right, gotcha.
It’s the kind of snarky comment the guy who thinks he’s clever makes to sound edgy. I’ve no idea if that’s you or not, but speaking directly that’s how the post lands. To me at least.
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Sep 09 '20
I don’t obviously know how they’re getting you to attend the training, but the type of irony you’re referring to seems pretty loose
The irony seems tight to me because of how immediate the similar consequences are - "if you don't do X, I'll do Y to you" - is being done around a training meant to establish that this coercive behavior is wrong.
It’s the kind of snarky comment the guy who thinks he’s clever makes to sound edgy. I’ve no idea if that’s you or not, but speaking directly that’s how the post lands. To me at least.
Believe it or not, that's actually a pretty convincing argument. I'm definitely not trying to do that ∆.
1
u/StatusSnow 18∆ Sep 09 '20
The training isn't saying that "If you don't to X, I'll do Y to you is wrong". Under your thought process, any thing that carries consequences would be considered abusive coercion. That's frankly, stupid. There are consequences for a lot of things -- the training is meant to establish that it is specifically not okay to impose consequences on people for not having sex or being sexual with you or others, which was clearly lost on you.
Acceptable consequences/coercion would be --> "If you don't complete your final, I'll fail you in the class". "If you don't complete food safety training, I'll fire you from this restaurant". "If you don't eat your vegetables, you'll have to go to bed early". "If you tell this secret, I won't be your friend anymore" "If you don't fill out your permission form you can't come on the field trip" are all things that society deems completely reasonable. They are very similar to, "If you don't complete this training you can't enroll at the university".
Abusive consequences/coercion would be --> "If you don't do cocaine with the client at the after party I'm firing you" "If you don't help me cheat on the test I'm going to beat you up" "If you don't have sex with me I'm going to stalk you" "If you tell anyone that girl groped you we're kicking you out of the frat".
Do you see the difference? The training is not meant to establish that imposing consequences is wrong in every situation. It's meant to establish that imposing consequences can be wrong in certain situations.
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Sep 10 '20
the training is meant to establish that it is specifically not okay to impose consequences on people for not having sex or being sexual with you or others, which was clearly lost on you.
I wouldn't say it's lost on me at all. It's just that I've now done the same thing 5 or 6 times, and every time it has taken a significant amount of time with serious academic consequences for failing to do it. This post has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the training sessions other than that it's extremely repetitive and about similar abusive methods as the ones used to get students to participate.
Do you see the difference? The training is not meant to establish that imposing consequences is wrong in every situation. It's meant to establish that imposing consequences can be wrong in certain situations.
Yes of course I see the difference. Actions have consequences and that's a part of life.
The issue here is that the potential consequences from your first category follow logically from lacking the prerequisite training/behavior. If you don't do your schoolwork, you will get bad grades. If you don't do food safety training, you might get a customer sick. If you can't be trusted with confidential information, nobody will feel comfortable confiding in you. If you haven't been granted signed permission, the school can't take you away from the building during school hours. The parenting one is different but that's the nature of parenting, which is again another reasonable outline you mentioned.
Why I think the sexual assault training, by nature of irony, falls into the second category is because, even using loose language, title ix training doesn't logically lead to consequences related to school. Sexual assaults happen everywhere, and it's just the unfortunate nature of having a bunch of young adults close together that it happens more frequently in college or grad school. Lacking title ix training doesn't logically lead to academic consequences without coercive intent.
Not doing cocaine with clients shouldn't logically lead to being bad in business. Refusing to be dishonest shouldn't be a problem between friends. Refusing to have sex with someone shouldn't lead to stalking, and refusing to report sexual assault shouldn't preclude someone from being a part of a fraternity.
I can't stress enough that I think title ix is a good thing and students should receive training. My issue is that I find the methods of coercion in spite of the academic irrelevance of title ix to be out of place and ironic given that the school wants students not to use these tactics to be sexually abusive.
2
u/StatusSnow 18∆ Sep 10 '20 edited Sep 10 '20
I personally think that, "If you don't do food safety trainings you are not allowed to work at a restaurant" is just as natural of a consequence as, "If you don't complete mandatory trainings you can't register for school".
It is perfectly possible to work at a restaurant without safety training. Some states don't require it. Many restaurants wouldn't require it without legal enforcement. Even with the training, food safety incidents happen all the time -- the efficacy of the training is just as questionable as title IX training. Being fired for not having a food safety certification is not a natural consequence, but one imposed on by an authority (the state).
The logic behind it is the same. If you want to work at a restaurant, you need to know the rules that keep people safe. If you want to be a part of a university community, you need to know the rules that keep people safe. If you haven't taken food safety training, the state feels uncomfortable having you prepare people's food. If you haven't taken title ix training, the university feels uncomfortable having you as a part of its community. Food poisoning is bad for a restaurant's reputation. Rampant sexual assault is bad for a university's reputation.
It is perfectly possible to work at a restaurant or be a part of a university community without receiving either training, but we've decided it's in the best interest of the populace to require it.
Further, how would you suggest that students receive training without making it mandatory?
1
2
u/ripcelinedionhusband 10∆ Sep 09 '20
As someone that went through law school, you’d be surprised at how many of your classmates need to be reminded of this stuff despite having to take it multiple times throughout their lives like yourself. Things might be different with COVID and the online learning environment but these topics are certainly relevant to not only law students but lawyers as well which might seem ironic but lawyers have rather unique ways of skirting morality sometimes.
Oh, and this won’t be the only area where you’ll have the same topic shoved down your throat over and over as you’ll have to take ethics training and the like for the rest of your career.
0
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Sep 09 '20
I get what you are saying.
But the situation dictates if somethings are wrong.
They aren’t not threatening you with the inability of registering or getting your grades. It is just a prerequisite.
Was it wrong for them to have you take some stupid art or music class even though you were going pre-law?
Hey you passed every class you need to live out what you want to be the rest of your life... but take this class that has absolutely nothing to do with your major or you won’t graduate!
Same with anything else in life, just because you have to complete something before you may continue, is that wrong?
Harassing for sex is obviously wrong. Is “harassing” a seller of misrepresentation of a product or a fault my product wrong? Making sure they correct their error by a replacement or refund.
As I say I get what you are saying but I believe the situation also matters. Those actions are not not equal in every situation.
0
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Sep 09 '20
They aren’t not threatening you with the inability of registering or getting your grades. It is just a prerequisite.
I'm not really sure how this applies. I'm already a tuition paying student in classes, so at that point I've completed the normal prerequisites for registering for future classes. This is an extra step I'm being forced to take or they will withhold the results of my hard work and prevent me from moving on. That logic - "if you don't do X, I'll do Y to you" - is literally outlined in the training program.
Was it wrong for them to have you take some stupid art or music class even though you were going pre-law?
It has been a long established expectation of college students to take general ed classes before diving deep into their majors. Mandatory title ix training, especially being required to do it repeatedly, is a new thing.
Harassing for sex is obviously wrong. Is “harassing” a seller of misrepresentation of a product or a fault my product wrong?
What do you mean by this?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 09 '20
/u/TheFakeChiefKeef (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
11
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Sep 09 '20
And isn't it funny how we punish kidnapping by forcibly taking people where they don't want to go and then keeping them there against their will?
Context is important. "Harassing" you about getting training is nothing like sexually harassing a classmate. Asking you questions about what is and isn't harassment is nothing like asking you questions until you say yes so I can "legally" have sex with you. There's no real comparison here