@Pizzagirl I do think the “We were friends” part makes a difference. There are times when coworkers cross the boundary separating work from personal life because they do become friends, but that doesn’t make it okay in a general office context.
I think it was a poor word choice. I would have gone with “dynamic”. But if I were the one writing the speech, I probably would have avoided talking about what I perceive as her personal characteristics and just focused on the professional aspect of the dean-I think that was the biggest downfall of the use of “vivacious”. It was a weak word, and it was inappropriate to the context of the speech, imo.
The ensuing effect of the speech, though, sheesh. People get so butthurt over stuff when instead it should be an invitation to dialogue over better choices…
I don’t think too many people think it is okay to comment on someone’s looks in an office setting, unless the people have a relationship of some sort that is beyond just coworkers, as in friends.Friends in an office can kid one another, men say disparaging things to one another as part of joking around that if you did it with a coworker you didn’t know, would be inappropriate. There is also a difference between commenting on looks, like a guy telling a woman she looks hot or a woman telling a man he looks sexy, then telling someone “you look good, you look like you have been working out, how have you done it”, the first is reducing someone to the way they look, the second is admiring how someone has been able to keep themselves fit and wanting to know how they did it, sharing tips and so forth if you will. If you don’t know someone, though, it is better to stay away from anything approaching looks, things you thought were innocuous could be taken wrong.
All one has to do is look at the Roger Ailes situation or the culture at Fox News apparently to see the problem with talking about looks, attractiveness, and so forth, it can turn employees, usually women , into objects of harassment and so forth, so yes that kind of thing does matter.
Roger Ailes would have been fine if he merely commented on the women’s looks. It was the demanding sex in return for plum work assignments that was the problem there, not commenting on someone’s hairdo or outfit.
@gouf78, I have to ask, who’s making these threatening phone calls? Also, how did it come to light that the dean reamed the student out in her office? Do you have a link to a story, or do you know the people in question personally?
@nottelling:
Actually, he wouldn’t have, making comments about looks or hairstyles is inappropriate in the workplace, especially regarding a senior level executive with women underneath him, even if they were not meant to be harassing, if an executive routinely comments on how female employees look (assuming a straight guy here), HR would not be too happy. More importantly, what that leaves out is someone who feels free to comment in the workplace on what women look like generally has the kind of opinion that attractive women are there for the taking, a pig who thinks it is okay to comment on a woman’s looks like that isn’t going to have any compunction from trying to get sexual favors from the women IME.
Good question Sue. They are anonymous cowards as per usual of the threatening phone call ilk. Stupid morons of society I’m guessing.
Actually it is a great question. When you don’t know where the calls originate from you don’t know if it’s local–students? other faculty? That is something you can work with.
Somebody from a totally outside source who only wants to fuel the fire? Not so easy.
@gouf78,
Can you give us a link to the info about harassing phone calls, etc.? I’m interested in the larger story and the dean’s response to it.
I would also like to ask what the world is coming to when a Harvard Law student is presumed by an HLS faculty member to have just recently learned the meaning of “vivacious” from the faculty member. 
I recently gave a professional reference by telephone for a colleague who was seeking a position at another institution. She’s highly energetic, an ambitious, prolific, and highly accomplished scholar, a real workhorse on institutional matters, and a rising star in her field. She’s also quite a bit younger than I am. I described her as “dynamic,” a term that is descriptively accurate and appropriately focuses on how she performs her professional role. Never in a million years would I have chosen to describe her as “vivacious” in that context; it just sounds weirdly personal, as if I were saying she’s fun-loving and gregarious, the life of the party, someone who’s fun to be with in social settings because of her buoyant, upbeat personality, etc. Which is probably all true, by the way (though I don’t socialize with her a great deal), but it’s just irrelevant given the context. That description would actually operate to undercut her professionalism by taking the conversation away from her professional accomplishments and how she goes about doing her work. Much less would I have said she’s “young and vivacious”; that would further undercut her professional stature by suggesting she might not be seasoned enough to have the appropriate level of gravitas for the position she was seeking. I think it’s often a real uphill struggle for younger women scholars to gain the respect of their colleagues and their students. It’s sexism, pure and simple, but it’s there, the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Anything that points out a woman scholar’s comparative youth and draws attention to personality traits that have nothing to do with professional performance is undercutting. That said, I don’t think it’s a cardinal sin for the student to have used those words, certainly not enough to justify harassing phone calls. It’s just a rookie mistake.
^I think bclintock has just more eloquently said what I was trying to express. As far as I’m concerned that’s it in a nutshell.
Vivacious = compliment.
Ah yes…but by complimenting anyone they were “obviously” being microaggressive by thusly implying that said person is not normally worthy of a compliment, hence marginalizing them without first supplying a trigger warning and not providing an appropriate safe space.
Clearly an overt sexist act. :-@
There’s a big difference between commenting on someone’s face/body and commenting on their sartorial taste:
Nice eyes/legs/rack!
Nice jacket/dress/scarf!
.
I am baffled by this anti-safe-spaces rhetoric that has cropped up several times in this thread.
This brouhaha is about sexism. You’re really mocking people wanting to be safe from sexism? Have you ever experienced it? It’s freaking exhausting. Nothing makes me sympathize with safe spaces like sexism.
Mocking people who want to be safe from sexism? Absolutely not.
Mocking people who think this is sexism? You bet.
The only times I’ve seen the term “vivacious” commonly used was in social settings or in ads and pop culture articles relating mostly to consumer aesthetic choices, fashion, and home decor.
Would be exceedingly weird to hear that term used in a professional introduction of anyone in the academic/professional context…especially a senior level professional with many accomplishments.
I just did an experiment. I told my wife, “You’re vivacious!” She said, “Wow, you really think so?” She was clearly pleased. So calling a woman vivacious is clearly not sexist because it’s been scientifically proven.
@wein2nc On Monday, try it on the highest ranking female at your employer and report back to us. 
The highest ranking female at my company is the LEAST vivacious of our senior women! She would laugh.