93.132 Title IX prohibits sexually hostile environment in schools, 121

93.137 Mother Jones on woman's studies

93.139 Questioning the politics of identity, 132

93.148 The Antioch "ask and tell" policy, 141

93.149 The next "freedom of expression" debate on campus, 142

93.156 Title VII does not protect an "eggshell psyche," 154

93.157 Demanding virtue, while disparaging it in the classroom, 155

94.39 Distinguishing bad treatment from discrimination, 222

94.42 Resolving sexual misconduct complaints in the 1990s, 226

94.48 Feminist theory and the Supreme Court, 237

94.52 Binge drinking on campus [socially acceptable for women to drink], 245

94.63 Dismissed professor awarded $500,000 [wrongful dismissal for alleged sexual assault;inadequate due process], 262

94.65 "Unladylike" behavior and "invited" harassment [vulgar words and "unladylike" behavior do notpreclude winning a sexual harassment suit], 268

94.66 The hidden side of masculinity at the Citadel [male bonding; sense of obligation to the group;men like women seek lasting relationships], 270

94.67 Professor reinstated in sexual harassment case [Silva v. University of New Hampshire; WilliamKaplin on academic freedom and "hostile environment" sexual harassment; sexual innuendo andprofessional competency; Nadine Strossen on feminism and the First Amendment], 271

94.68 E-mail and sexual harassment, 274

94.69 Silva v. University of New Hampshire [case excerpt; AAUP statement on academic freedom;Silva case compared with isolated incident of bad judgment], 275

94.71 Gender motivated violence act adopted, 278

94.73 Gender discrimination against men in college disciplinary cases [Yusuf v. Vassar College], 280

94.75 Evidence of similar acts in sexual misconduct cases, [new rule 413 of the Federal Rules ofEvidence; Nash v. Auburn University], 284

94.77 Court encourages informal resolution of disciplinary cases [guidelines for informal resolution andmediation in student disciplinary cases], 286

94.80 Ban on sexually oriented magazines unconstitutional [Excerpt: Captain Steven W. Johnson v.County of Los Angeles Fire Department; Title VII does not call for punishment of bad thoughts;danger of group stereotypes], 293

94.84 National sexual assault study [1994 crime bill provision on campus sexual assaults], 299

94.92 Silva case settled, 311

95.10 Sexual ethics [young people need guidance on forming relationships; neglecting the emotionaldimension of sex; the impact of exploitative sex on men; Walter Lippman on self-restraint;students seek self-restraint], 328.

95.19 Federal court finds Brown violated Title IX, [Title IX regulations in crisis; possible threat tofootball; danger of growing professionalism in college sports], 345.

95.33 Written jibes aren't sexual harassment [Title VII not a remedy for every tasteless joke;alternatives to censorship or punishment suggested], 367.

96.21 Advocacy journalism and campus crime, [outline of and response to New York Times series oncampus sexual assault; colleges have a responsibility to enforce their own rules, Nzuve v.Castleton State College; significant due process protections must be accorded to the accused;complainants also desire confidentiality; example of St. John's University case; not every sexualassault is a rape; many complainants seek mediation and moderate penalties], 480.

96.29 Individual rights and group rights [excerpts from Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion in the VMIcase; classifications based on gender require "exceedingly persuasive" justification; BettyFriedan on woman's movement as part of a progressive mosaic, in which hatred of women mustnot be countered with a hatred of men; danger of ridicule and stereotyping of military colleges;moving from male bonding to human bonding; Marine Corps boot training compared to militaryacademy hazing; commentary on the denial of certiorari in Hopwood], 502.

96.30 Defining the scope of sexual harassment, [action or inaction of officials must be based on sex;distinguishing personal animosity from sexual harassment; Title IX may not apply to peerharassment], 506.

96.36 Equal Protection and harassment of gay students [in Nabozny v. Podlesny the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a school district and school officials could be held liablefor violating a student's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection by failing to protect himfrom peers who harassed him because he was openly gay; ending the "boys will be boys"stereotype; the role of fathers in promoting self-restraint and empathy], 524.

97.12 Sexual misconduct cases in the news [reducing the number of sexual assaults; adjudicatingcases], 584.

98.8 Expanding the coverage--and narrowing the scope--of sexual harassment law [in Oncale v.Sundowner Offshore Services the Supreme Court held that same sex harassment in theworkplace can violate Title VII; the holding reiterates that sexual harassment law is designed toprohibit discrimination based on sex, not merely sexually "offensive" behavior or horseplay;"reasonable person" (not "reasonable woman") test used to determine whether conduct "issufficiently severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive workenvironment"], 704.

98.10 Isolated incidents or hostile environment? [Taylor v. Metzger: New Jersey Supreme Courtdecision holding that a demeaning racial epithet directed to a subordinate by a high-rankingpublic official can create a hostile work environment; Skouby v. The Prudential InsuranceCompany of America: 7th Circuit decision holding that crude pictures and occasional offensivelanguage directed to a female employee by fellow employees did not constitute sexualharassment; public mood of forgiveness for "sexual misconduct" reflected in views of GloriaSteinem on the sexual harassment charges against President Clinton], 710.

98.11 A reflection on sexual harassment after Jones v. Clinton [federal court held that Clinton's alleged"actions as shown by the record do not constitute the kind of sustained and nontrivial conductnecessary for a claim of hostile work environment"],713.

98.28 Sexual harassment in the workplace [In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City ofBoca Raton the Supreme Court held that employers will be liable for the tangible, discriminatoryemployment actions of supervisors. However, in cases where a discriminatory "hostileenvironment" is created by a supervisor--but no tangible employment action is taken against aplaintiff employee--employers may escape liability by proving that they used "reasonable care toprevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior" and that "the plaintiff employeeunreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided bythe employer or to avoid harm otherwise"], 747.

99.4 Sexual harassment: Law and policy issues in 1999 [William Kaplin's analysis of two cases recently decided by or pending before the U.S. Supreme Court: Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education; impact of Jones v. Clinton ], 815.

99.9 Peer harassment and the "Violence Against Women Act" [in Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the "Violence Against Women Act" exceeds Congress' power], 830.

99.18 Defining hostile environment sexual harassment [in Minor v. Ivy Tech State College the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a hostile environment must be "extreme" to be actionable; boorish behavior distinguished from sexual harassment; related holding in Jones v. Clinton], 851.

99.22 Limited liability for sexual harassment by students, part I [in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education the Supreme Court held that Title IX authorizes a private cause of action for student-on-student sexual harassment; deliberate indifference to "known acts" of such harassment is required.], 859.

99.23 Limited liability for sexual harassment by students, part II [an interview with Catholic University Law Professor William Kaplan], 862.

00.19 Defining the limits of congressional power [In Brzonkala v. Morrision the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the private civil remedy provision in the Violence Against Women Act], 980.

00.21 Judicial hostility to hostile environment theory, part I [Recent cases highlighting judicial reluctance to give an expansive interpretation to "hostile environment" theory], 986.

00.22 Judicial hostility to hostile environment theory, part II [Eleventh Circuit decision in Gupta v. Board of Regents narrowly defining a "hostile environment in the college and university setting; review of George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen's proposed alternative to hostile environment theory, grounded in the right to privacy], 989.

00.25 Employer liability for online harassment and defamation [In Tammy S. Blakey v. Continental Airlines, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an employer who knows about a pattern of retaliatory harassment in a work-related online forum may be liable for taking effective measures to stop it], 999.

00.33 Limiting the "qualified immunity" defense, Part II [U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wood v. Strickland, warning from Justice Powell about defining "unquestioned constitutional rights"; expanding Section 1983 claims to "supervisory liability"; the importance of being educated about the law�and shifts in public policy], 1022.

00.34 Due process in sexual assault cases [In Schaer v. Brandeis University the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts applied a limited "basic fairness" standard in reviewing disciplinary cases at private institutions of higher education; growing press criticism of how campus sexual assault cases are resolved; OCR Title IX policy guidance requires colleges to "respond promptly" to sexual assault allegations], 1025.

00.35 Resolving sexual assault allegations: A case study, 1028.

01.8 Narrowly defined stalking law upheld. ["An instructive case on the legality of stalking laws": Stanley v. Jones, decided on February 5, 2001 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit], 1077.

01.14 Defining and responding to sexual harassment. [Two cases highlighting the reluctance of federal courts to give an expansive reading to sexual harassment law. Star v. Togo West (CA 9); Mosher v. Dollar Tree Stores (CA 7)], 1091.

01.24 Defamation, invasion of privacy, and fundamental fairness in sexual misconduct cases. [Review of the Washington State Supreme Court decision in John Doe v. Gonzaga University; subsequently reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court], 2017.

01.28 Distinguishing vulgarity from sexual harassment. [Two recent cases highlight ongoing tension between sexual harassment "hostile environment" theory and freedom of expression: Clark County School District v. Shirley A. Breeden (U.S. Supreme Court) and Russell v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, CA7 ], 2029.