Cary talks about "...'the real world' of flawed institutions and flawed humans".

And yet there's another "real world" to consider: the real world of what actually happened.

As far as I can see, LW, and I closely read what you wrote, what you have so far is a third-hand rumor. It's not at all clear from your letter that it was one of the graduate students who approached you who was the student in the story.

So actually what you've got is "someone told me that someone they know..." and suddenly all sorts of doubts spring up. Please ask yourself, before you go further, what actually happened, and consider that there were no witnesses. Emails are not evidence unless the professor's computer is seized -- and ask yourself where that leads!

Having been through a sexual harassment "investigation" (and I use the scare quotes to scare, as very few institutions are capable of running anything like a fair and impartial process -- it's not their core competency!) I can tell you that it's horrible, utterly horrible, and I was the person harassed, in full view of third parties!

Unless your university administration is unusually professional and adept at "this sort of thing" I urge extreme caution. There was no groping. There was no attempt at restraint -- even in your 3rd-hand version of the story -- when the student tried to flee. There was a clumsy advance, and a rejected kiss.

Can I suggest a "third way"?

Express your feelings to the dean. Do not, even under pressure, mention the specific rumors you have collected. Suggest that the dean might like to use the school magazine and a staff circular to express the school's commitment to a harassment-free environment.

In the staff circular, explain clearly what the school's definition of harassment is, and the severe consequences of crossing the line. The professor will get a sobering copy, as will all other staff, male and female.

This "third way" deals effectively with what you actually have, which are, in the "real world", nothing more than the kind of campus rumors which collect from time to time and often leave nothing but devastation in their wake.

If the actual student in the story wants to take action, then that, of course, is entirely different, and you should pledge your support to both sides and use whatever power you have to ensure a fair and transparent process that tramples as few rights as possible.

Those who forget history... you know how that goes.

Historically, unions have an extremely spotty record for "getting it" on the whole "Workers of the world, unite!" level.

In fact if you look at history, unions have been on the side of the Luddites and the Protectionists, and championed anti-immigration because, as "we" all "knew", "they" were coming over "here" to take "our" jobs.

Imagine how different the history of industrial relations would have been if unions had set aside, say, 10% of union dues to buy stock in the companies where their members worked. Giving them real power to set company policy. But, sadly, no.

Instead union dues have been spent on enriching union officials and supporting politicians who are notionally "left" but have never spent a day doing anything remotely resembling blue-collar work, and spend their years in office making life ever easier for big biz.

Imagine a world where unions financially supported their members to retrain, rather than running whole industries into the ground (UAW, I'm looking at you!) by refusing to understand even the basic first principles of running a company. Company boss: "We can spend money on making sure we still have a company in 5 years time, or top up the union-mandated retirement fund, make a choice." Union Boss "Ok then, retirement fund it is!"

Go on, check the UAW website right now. I'll be here when you get back. www.uaw.org "Tell Congress NO on Korea Free Trade!" screams a headline.

Why, exactly? Korean auto workers don't deserve jobs?

What part of "tariffs harm everybody" don't you people understand? That's just basic economics.

Supporting the US car industry with tariffs means:

*tax dollars spent on that and not on other things like education and hospitals

*auto worker kids become dumber and sicker

*auto workers (and everyone else) can no longer afford cars, as their money is going to hospital bills

*car companies fall on hard times

*industry shrinks employing less workers

*tax base shrinks as more people are out of work

*Korean car industry shrinks

*Korea retaliates with tariffs making US exports harder to sell

*economy nosedives, putting MORE pressure on tax revenue

Yeah. I'm sure the Korean auto workers union is just chomping at the bit waiting to amalgamate and get a taste of all that good stuff!

Remember the old joke?

Q: Why did The Capitalists decide to allow Unions to form in the first place?

A: Because they realized that if they did, workers would stop fighting them and start fighting each other.

>>Eliminate Korean subsidies to their manufacturing industries

Riiiight, that's the problem.

The US would never subsidize!

http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/

Sir, your argument amounts to the following:

They are hurting their economy with tariffs --- we should to!