Glaser removed as HCC Chair


Robert Glaser

Houston Community College board of trustees member Robert Glaser was removed from his position as chair following allegations that he sexually harassed an instructor.

The board voted on June 25 to replace Glaser with John P. Hansen as chair, according to a university statement. Hansen, who was elected to the board in November 2015, represents District VI and has served on the board for Alief Independent School District for over 20 years, according to his biography on the HCC website.

“Dr. Hansen brings a wealth of knowledge and experience in board leadership in both community colleges and public schools. Dr. Hansen has served in the capacity of HCC Board Chair the previous calendar year and is deeply committed to the mission of our college and the important return to campus across the district,” said HCC’s written statement to the Houston Chronicle Wednesday.

Glaser will remain on the board, according to the statement, and “the Board of Trustees will be cooperating with the appropriate authorities and protecting personnel privacy due to the sensitive nature of these allegations.”

See here for the background. As the story notes, there is an ongoing investigation, about which we know nothing. The Board could not operate with legitimacy with Glaser as Chair while this was happening. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, this was the right thing to do at this time.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Local politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Glaser removed as HCC Chair

  1. Bill Daniels says:

    Guilty until proven innocent. This is a bad trend. And let’s say he did what was alleged….that doesn’t impact his ability to do his job in the slightest. Bill Clinton did a fairly decent job, (with exceptions, of course), and he did a bit more than this guy is accused of. Same for JFK.

    I disagree with removing him from his position pending the outcome, because the allegation has nothing to do with his actual job responsibilities. Follow me here. Say a cop is accused of shaking down motorists for mordidas. OK, maybe, pending the outcome of the investigation, we don’t have that cop pulling over speeders….have him answer the phones or something. That’s maybe reasonable. In this case, though, I don’t see what bearing an allegation of sexual harassment has on this guy’s job description.

    Finally, let’s remember how many of these allegations turn out to be false. Anyone remember the lobbyist at the Texas Capitol? His life was destroyed, the two women (Republican women, by the way) walked Scot free after perjury on their part was proved. Remember the proven lies about Kavanaugh? No one went to jail over that. Avenatti went to jail, but for reasons unrelated (trying to extort Nike).

    We as a society really need a refresher course on “innocent until proven guilty.” If this guy had a history of crime going into this, OK, that’s one thing, but to take a guy with an unblemished record and screw him over before an investigation has concluded? No. That’s wrong. This is wrong.

  2. Lobo says:


    Re: “As the story notes, there is an ongoing investigation, about which we know nothing.”

    Well, if we admittedly know nothing, we ought to withold judgment. Shoudn’t we?

    Unless, of course, we want to make sure that no sexual harassment allegation goes to waste: As far as scoring points goes. As far as exploiting the situation for ulterior public-education and social-progression purposes, to use alternative phrasing.

    Same arguably goes for the board decisions, but it will depend on whether the board has plenary discretion (comparable to at-will power to dismiss) or can take such action only “for cause”. In the latter case, what is the justified cause for the adverse employment/removal action here? And what would be the nature of the immediate threat, if any, to justify the haste to act in light of an investigation that has not yet run its course?

    It can’t possibly be that the dude presumtively has a workable penis and a pair of hormone-producing glands dangling in the propinquity. There are still many appendices of kindred nature in circulation, and it would be impractical to chop them all off, or corral all bearers of such bodily accoutrements to prevent the potential for misuse.

    If you follow Republican logic, of course, even the possibility of a single irregular use/misuse justifies draconian prophylactic measures (as we learned during the voting wars, which still haven’t led to a final solution). And at least one potential singular instance we have reported here.

    So perhaps all originally male-coded profs and administrators who have not timely submitted to sex-reassignment surgery should be fire-squaded or placed on a designated concentration reservation. Summer camp for lechers. The watch words “Gender DoOver Will Set You Free” could be prominently featured at the gates. — As a message to the World.


    Re: “Whatever the outcome of the investigation, this was the right thing to do at this time.”

    No, it’s not. The outcome does matter! — If the guy is innoncent of wrongdoing, he should not only be vindicated with a public statement to that effect, but compensated and made whole. If he is guilty of a recognized sexual offense, perhaps we should talk about remedial court-ordered castration – chemical or otherwise — and mandated gender-identity reformation. Wouldn’t that be more humane than a plain old firing or chamber-bound infusion-execution?

    File under: modest proposals, swift remedies, serious semi-satire

Comments are closed.