Allies of William I. Robinson may well mount a forceful movement to resist his university's investigation of an Israel-bashing e-mail he distributed three months ago to 80 students in his sociology class.

University of California's Santa Barbara campus probably feels like a pin cushion.

By now, the administration at the University of California's Santa Barbara campus probably feels like a pin cushion. Both Robinson's friends and foes are applying intense pressure on the university.

It is not so likely that anyone can coerce a government agency with legal authority to investigate this kind of incident. Possibly, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has jurisdiction to investigate any complaints filed by employees at the campus. The same applies to any local and state anti-discrimination agencies.

True, Robinson's January 19 e-mail was directed to his students, but employees at the Santa Barbara campus could feel victimized by the very fact that Robinson, who is Jewish himself, used university resources to blame Israel for "a slow-motion process of genocide."

Robinson's e-mail, sent to students in his Sociology of Globalization class, was entitled, "Parallel images of Nazis and Israelis". His message featured juxtaposed photos of concentration camp inmates and of Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. In one collage, Nazi soldiers herd a group of civilians through a camp next to a photo of Arabs waiting to be processed at a checkpoint by Israeli troops.

Robinson wrote, "Gaza is Israel's Warsaw - a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians, subjecting them to the slow death of malnutrition, disease and despair, nearly two years before their subjection to the quick death of Israel bombs. We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide."

Two Jewish students filed grievance complaints with the university on grounds of feeling intimidated by Robinson's unwelcome comments accompanied by the graphic images.

To its credit, the university is investigating. A panel is reviewing if Robinson violated university policy barring professors from intimidating students, and using campus resources for personal or political reasons unrelated to their classes, the Associated Press reported.

That is not enough. Robinson's action could have violated workplace discrimination laws, which are investigated and enforced by the EEOC and local and state anti-discrimination agencies. Campus employees could inquire of these agencies if they were subjected to a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment by virtue of Robinson's e-mail distribution.

If an agency investigates, there is no guarantee that it will find against Robinson, but at least he will be forced to account for his acts. That's no fun. A high-level manager at my office afforded me with experience in this arena, provoking me twice to file complaints with the EEOC. She was cleared in both complaints, but she hated me for it. She slammed a door in my face once and on another occasion proclaimed within earshot of me that "they're building a concentration camp in Palestine."

Like Robinson, she presented her original message in an antagonistic style. On May 28, 2002, I was on her floor delivering reports when I discovered a sign on the floor's bulletin board that depicted an image of a Palestinian flag accompanied by these words: "There will be no peace until there is justice."

Jewish employees regarded this sign as anti-Israel, complained to the administration, and the sign was taken down. We learned that a high-level manager posted the sign; she was a director in charge of 150 social workers and clerks making more than $90,000 yearly. She posted a similar sign two days later. Of all places, we work for a child-welfare government agency charged with protecting abused and neglected children. 

Both Robinson and this woman had to know they were creating "a hostile environment" - an EEOC term - since anyone with their education and work experience should have anticipated the enmity that resulted.

Jewish employees filed complaints with the EEOC. My complaint was rejected by the EEOC, which stated this was "a free-speech issue." The EEOC also stated that they had indications that the agency's commissioner sent her a memo stating that her actions were inappropriate.

I have no doubt that the EEOC violated its own policies. She knew what she was doing, as did Robinson. Of course, I assumed that political considerations influenced the EEOC's decision.

There were even more disturbing incidents. After the EEOC decision was issued, this woman informed 200 or more employees by e-mail that she was making a presentation on "the Berlin wall" in the Middle East at Temple University in Philadelphia. If memory serves, this occurred in February or March 2004. She also posted an

Management is still responsible for what happened.

announcement to this effect on her bulletin board. I filed a second complaint with the EEOC and they reached the same conclusion for the same reason.

When she retaliated against me, I complained to top management and they ignored me. Eventually, I was barred from going on her floor. She retired this past February, but the agency has not said what it will do in the case of a comparable incident, and I am still bitter about their inaction.

We can appreciate the U of C administration's effort to investigate, but management is still responsible for what happened. These incidents usually occur because management failed to establish or enforce policies against such harassment in the first place. In my situation, the manager had made a second career of insulting Jewish employees over the years, so her posters surprised nobody.

Let's hope that some of Robinson's co-workers give it the old college try, and have better luck than I did.