Law School Brands Professor As Sexual Harasser Over Test Question Featuring Bikini Wax Job

Daily Caller ^

[TigerClaws]

After a protracted 16-month investigation, officials at Howard University in Washington, D.C. found a law professor guilty of sexual harassment because he presented students with an exam question about a hypothetical person who was molested while undergoing a Brazilian wax job.

Administrators at Howard University School of Law labeled the professor, Reginald L. Robinson, as a sexual harasser in May, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Higher Education (FIRE), a civil rights organization.

Robinson gave students the hot wax question way back in September 2015. The question involved a person who slept through a Brazilian waxing (which is the removal or all or pretty much every bit of pubic hair and other nether-regional locks using heated goo and pieces of fabric).

Robinson’s full question mentioned a “landing strip” and a lack of hair from “belly button to buttocks,” according to Inside Higher Ed.

At some point, a student disagreed that a person could possibly sleep through the Brazilian waxing process.

Later, two unidentified students filed an official complaint about Robinson’s question.

One of the complaining students allegedly said she believed that the question somehow forced her to divulge whether or not she had undergone a Brazilian wax job process herself.

Administrators at Howard were also deeply troubled by Robinson’s use of the word “genitals” in the test question.

Candi Smiley is the Title IX coordinator at Howard who conducted the 504-day investigation of Robinson and ultimately determined that he was guilty of sexual harassment for giving students a hypothetical test question about a molested bikini wax customer.

Smiley’s LinkedIn profile shows that she has a law degree and has previously worked as a contract attorney and document reviewer at various law firms.

Robinson’s very extensive curriculum vitae includes a multitude of academic publications and two advanced degrees. He received his undergraduate degree — magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa — from Howard in 1981.

Howard University has punished Robinson. School officials will force him to undergo sensitivity training and require him to submit future test questions to prior administrative review. Administrators also warned the professor that he may be fired if is found in violation of Title IX for a second time.

Title IX is a comprehensive 1972 federal law that prohibits federally-funded entities from discriminating on the basis of biological sex.

“Robinson’s test question clearly does not constitute sexual harassment,” said FIRE spokeswoman Susan Kruth, in a press release. “Howard’s overreaction to a simple hypothetical question is a threat to academic freedom and a professor’s ability to effectively teach students.”

In a statement provided by FIRE, Robinson suggested that sensitivity training and policing course material for anything someone may find offensive are bad ways to prepare law students for the often unpleasant factual scenarios encountered by attorneys.

“My case should worry every faculty member at Howard University, and perhaps elsewhere, who teaches in substantive areas like law, medicine, history, and literature,” Robinson said. “None of these academic areas can be taught without evaluating and discussing contextual facts, especially unsavory and emotionally charged ones.”

“I also can’t prepare my students adequately for legal practice if I can’t teach them new developments and require them to read unedited, unfiltered cases,” the professor added.

Robinson’s attorney, Gaillard T. Hunt, charged that Howard’s administration “wants to treat its students as delicate snowflakes who must be protected from unpleasant hypothetical cases,” according to Inside Higher Ed.

Hunt also described Howard’s sexual harassment finding against Robinson as “libelous of him as an individual.”

In 2014, a Harvard Law School professor, Jeannie Suk Gersen, predicted that law professors would become increasingly hesitant to teach students about laws regarding rape because of the generally awful fact patterns which are necessary to provide students with any sort of context about rape laws and rape cases.

Howard University School of Law charges students about $102,000 for a three-year degree preparing them for legal careers. Bar-passage rates for Howard students are frequently lower than average state bar-passage rates.

As an expensive private school, Howard is not susceptible to First Amendment litigation. However, FIRE notes, school policy guarantees academic freedom to students and professors.

[TigerClaws]

Feminists said after the intern BJ story first broke that they were more concerned with his SCOTUS picks rather than his ‘personal life.’

Different standards for Democrats.

[LeoTDB69]

I’m trying to imagine todays law students 10 years from now in an actual courtroom:

Defense Atty:
Your Honor, I object to the prosecutions line of questioning in that I find it offensive to my clients ears.

Judge:
Objection sustained. Prosecution, please try to respect the defendants safe space...

[TigerClaws]

Or just imagine the snowflakes in the actual working world.

Trigger words, safe spaces, everything is racist, everything is sexist, rewards without work or merit. College is preparing a generation to be leftist morons who will mooch off their parents and vote for Demoncrats.

Saw a story today that the economy grew 7+ percent in 1984 alone. All the snowflakes know is high college debt, no jobs, and the U.S. is racist and oppressive. Not exactly preparing them for success in life.

[Timpanagos1]

“16 month investigation.”

That was 16 months of exhaustive research and investigation.

[morphing libertarian]

somebody became a bikini wax expert

[Sasparilla]

If these snowflakes really want to be lawyers, they should prepare themselves to likely be told real life stories by clients and would be clients that will be truly sickening to a person of normal sensibilities, Those can be found in criminal defense and prosecution, personal injury, family law, and medical malpractice.
It’s called the real world. It’s part of life. If they can’t handle it, then do insurance defense or corporate law.

[stylin19a]

here's the question:

Question 5.

P owned and member managed “Day Spa & Massage Therapy Company, LLC.” P catered to men and women.

Among other services, P offered Brazilian and bikini waxes – sometimes called “Sphynx,” bare waxing, or Hollywood waxing.

To provide these services, P hired A, an Aesthetician, who had been fully certified and licensed by the school at which A had studied and by the state in which P was located.

One day, T visited P’s company.

T had never sought such services, but T’s friends had raved about P’s waxes. A met T at the service desk. T asked for a Brazilian wax. “A full or modified Brazilian?” A asked.

T looked confused, and so A explained that a Full Brazilian (“FB”) would render T hairless from belly button to buttocks, and a FB required T would be naked from the waist down.

A FB required A to touch T’s body and to adjust T’s body so that A could access every follicle of pubic hair. Next, A explained a Modified Brazilians (“MB”). A MB left a thin strip of hair at the top of T’s genitalia, viz., a “landing strip.” T opted for FB. A again told T that A would have to touch T’s genitals to complete the waxing. T agreed, and T signed the service contract and initialed the space for acknowledging A’s information.

T got undressed in a private salon, where T also drank hot herbal tea. At A’s behest, T, w who was waist down naked, got on the waxing table. Once on the table, with instrumental tones wafting, T drifted into light sleep; A completed the FB.

Upon awaking, T felt physically uncomfortable, asking A if A had touched T improperly. A, saying no, and feeling offended, walked out.

Two weeks later, P received a letter from T’s attorney, in which T alleged that A had improperly touched T, causing T to seeking counseling and drugs for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Having worked with A for 10 years, P responded that A was a certified, licensed Aesthetician, who’d never had any such allegations filed by clients.

T sued P, and in deposing A, P and T’s attorney learned that A had properly touched T during the FB. Nevertheless, T still felt that A’s touching was improper.

In the suit, T alleged that A, cloaked with the apparent authority, had induced T by false representations to rely reasonably on A, so that A, while within the scope of employment, could cause harm to T. If P demurred, in effect saying “Yeah, so what!” to T’s pleadings, will the court find in favor of T?

(A) Yes, because T had established that A was a servant who was placed into A’s position as an Aesthetician, which enabled A to harm to T.

(B) No, because T expressly and impliedly consented to A touching T in any manner that was reasonable for A to provide the FB service that T requested.

(C) Yes, because P benefited from the revenue paid by T to P for services performed by A.

(D) No.

[TigerClaws]

No gender indicated. Men or trannies can get Brazilians as well.

No way that question is out of bounds. Sexual harassment?
Crazy.

[IronJack]

I'm a layman (not a lawyer) and I sat on a jury for an obscenity trial. We were forced to watch not one, not two, but three separate porno movies. They were the prima facie evidence in the case.

I wish I could say I was offended, but the truth is, I almost fell asleep.

The point is, the "offense" this professor committed was mostly in the minds of the snowflakes. Otherwise, it was just a boring test question.

[jdsteel]

"All the snowflakes know is high college debt, no jobs, and the U.S. is racist and oppressive. Not exactly preparing them for success in life."

I just spoke to a young woman whose major in college is "Sustainability". I kid you not. When asked what kind of career path she might have she wisely informed me that "sustainably is big in corporations. Or I might work in government."

Guess which one of those two is more likely???🤣🤣🤣

[Taxman]

Yet another example of LIEberal insanity!

[tbw2]

Then these lawyers cannot handle real life cases of rape, murder, gang rape, sexual molestation, etc. And they shouldn’t be allowed to be in law school.

[The Westerner]

It does seem like the Professor was trying to inject a bit of levity in an otherwise tense situation, e.g., sleeping through a Brazilian wax job would get a laugh out of any sane human being.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Howard started purging white conservatives and liberal Jews from their university staffs in the 1960’s. I remember one Jewish professor named Rubin who was literally framed on some made-up charge and fired.

This also took place at a few traditional black southern colleges where many Jews became teachers after fleeing Nazi Germany. They had taught their successfully and had earned the respect of their students until communists and black racists like Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, and other radical SNCC/SCC militants seized control of the universities.

Then for white Jews, over time, it was Germany 1930’s all over again.

Now a black professor who “thinks” about legal issues in, horrors, his law class, is made into a “sexist” target of the new black stupids.

The students will be the losers, which explains why so many black politicians (who were lawyers) are so incompetent.

[Bernard]

It’s the anti-experience crowd trying to pretend that reality won’t want to be a client. Exact opposite of the insurance company commercials; “We know a few things because we’ve seen a few things.”

[Albion Wilde]

You may not have intended your use of Ebonics to surround what I presume is the professor’s photo to indicate anything about him or to appear racist; nevertheless it came off that way, in direct contrast to his advanced abilities with language demonstrated in the original post. He looks like a very intelligent man, and the quote from him far exceeds the ability of the average freeper to construct an argument.

Just sayin.’