A 'Disgraceful' Policy

This is a copy of a letter sent to Dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky.

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS) believes that the University's handling of the recent sexual harassment case involving Professor Jorge Dominguez points out a number of serious flaws in the University's policy and grievance procedure on sexual harassment. Professor Dominguez' behavior was disgraceful. Yet even more disgraceful is Harvard's continued refusal to address this problem with the seriousness it deserves. This refusal has been costly both to individuals and to the community as a whole. For this reason, we feel it is important to shift the focus of public attention from Professor Dominguez to the issue of Harvard's responsibility for protecting its faculty, students and staff from the destructive impact of sexual harassment.

The Dominguez case is not an isolated incident. Sexual harassment intrudes on the lives of many members of the Harvard-Radcliffe community. The lack of a strong university stance only makes it more likely that such cases will continue to occur. In fact, we must ask ourselves if a stronger University position might not have deterred this particular case.

At present, Harvard's policy statement is too weak to serve as an effective deterrent. The language and tone of a policy statement are critical in conveying to potential harassers that such behavior will be taken seriously, and to potential victims that the University will respond sensitively to reports of sexual harassment. Harvard's statement achieves neither of these goals effectively.

Other university policy statements place prohibitions against sexual harassment in the context of strong anti-discrimination statements (MIT, Wisconsin); discuss the "devastating effects" of sexual harassment on individuals and the academic community (Yale, Minnesota); encourage victims to use the university grievance procedure (MIT, Stanford); and emphasize that such behavior is grounds for strong action by the university (Stanford).

An ideal policy statement would include all of these provisions'. Harvard's policy (as it appears on p. 75 of the Student Handbook) contains none of them. It states only that sexual harassment is "unacceptable" because it is "unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic enterprise." The latter part of this statement is good, but it is still an understatement of the effects of sexual harassment. Furthermore, sexual harassment is far more than merely "unprofessional behavior." It is sex discrimination and it is illegal under federal law.

The policies and procedures of other universities give the impression that these institutions take the issue seriously and are sincerely concerned about the effects of sexual harassment. Harvard's policy and procedure seem, in contrast, to be passive and designed to meet minimum standards (if that).

Harvard's grievance procedure reflects a similar lack of understanding of the nature and extent of sexual harassment. RUS shares the University's concern with due process, and with protecting the rights of all parties in a formal complaint. However, we believe that the present procedure is heavily biased in favor of the harasser.

The flaws which create this bias are largely sins of omission. Harvard could (and in fact may be legally required to) do much more than it presently does to encourage victims to come forward. Some of these flaws include:

1)Illegality. The policy does not contain any statement that sexual harassment is illegal. Realizing that it is a right, not a privilege, to be able to work or study in an environment free of sexual harassment can make a critical difference in the willingness of victims to come forward.

2)Fear of Reprisal. It is illegal to seek retribution against someone for filing a complaint of sexual harassment, and the University is required to protect victims from reprisal to the best of its ability. Because Harvard makes no mention of this fact in its policy or procedure, fear of reprisal probably prevents many victims from reporting incidents of sexual harassment.

3)Due Process. Harvard's approach to formal complaints violates ordinary conceptions of due process. In the legal system plaintiff and defendant are equally situated--each has an advocate and the case is decided by an impartial body which is not closely aligned with the interests of either party. Not only does Harvard not provide for victim advocacy, but several aspects of its approach give the harasser a privileged position vis-a-vis the victim.

For instance, once a formal complaint is filed, the University will ask the accused harasser for a written response. The harasser is therefore allowed to see the victim's complaint, but the victim is not necessarily allowed to see the harasser's response. Harvard thereby omits a critical component of due process; the right of each side to respond to the evidence gathered by the other.

In the criminal justice system there are also stringent rules surrounding the gathering and admissibility of evidence. The fairness of the investigation of a case is an important issue in the fairness of the overall proceedings. Harvard has no set procedures for investigating a case. Harvard presents the victim with its conclusions, but ordinarily allows no input from her or him during the investigation, and no response after the investigation. The victim has no means of verifying any of Harvard's findings in a case. This situation essentially places the burden of proof entirely on the victim--yet another violation of due process.

The University also excludes the victim from discussions of appropriate sanctions once a finding has been reached and she or he is not ordinarily informed of the punishment which is ultimately determined. This is considered to be a "private matter between the instructor and the Dean," and is based on the "Dean's assessment of the instructor's individual circumstances." Again, this is precisely the reverse of the accepted procedure in the criminal justice system. It is somewhat akin to a judge accepting the defense attorney's sentencing recommendations while the prosecuting attorney and victim are barred from the courtroom.

Harvard's priorities were summarized rather clearly by Dean Marylin Lewis' comment in The Crimson last year that this secrecy was to allow the harasser "time to recover."

Harvard's procedures, or rather the lack of set procedures, make the complaint process as difficult as possible for the victim. Their approach violates almost all the notions of fairness we would expect to be respected in a judicial proceeding of this kind.

Ironically, this policy of secrecy, which is supposed to protect the harasser, has backfired on several occasions. The fact that Professor Dominguez is back in the classroom this semester has been taken by many as an indication that Harvard does not take sexual harassment, of even the gravest sort, seriously. It is the great public outcry against Harvard's nonchalant attitude which is ultimately subjecting Professor Dominguez to the most grueling punishment of all--having to face the disapproval of his students and colleagues in the midst of widespread publicity.

Publicity of cases is thus not an issue in itself, but merely a symptom of the unfairness of Harvard's procedures. If all parties involved felt the case had been handled fairly, and if Harvard's approach to the problem did not offend the community's sense of justice, it is unlikely that cases would find their way to the press with such regularity.

The recent publicity has also sparked a reaction of sympathy for the harasser. However, unfortunate as the consequences of public opprobrium may be, they should be considered before harassing one's students and colleagues. We should be concerned instead with the devastating impact this case has had on the lives and careers of the victims. Prevailing social attitudes tend to subject the victims of crimes like rape or sexual harassment to more scrutiny than the perpetrators, yet the victims in this case have far more at stake than does Professor Dominguez: their careers are not as well established, they do not have the protection of tenure, and the harasser will continue to occupy a leading role in their discipline. Furthermore, the grapevine of academic gossip will brand them as troublemakers.

It took tremendous personal courage for the victims of this case to come forward in such a hostile environment. They have risked a great deal, in the hope that others will not have to suffer the same ordeal.

Unfortunately, the community has not been aware of these tremendous costs to the victims of sexual harassment. It is critical that the level of education in the community be raised.

Sexual harassment involves the abuse of power, to coerce sexual relations and/or the use of sex to intimidate another. The common ingredient in all cases of sexual harassment is an element of coercion or intimidation which gives the harasser control of the situation.

When sexual harassment occurs in the workplace, it creates a hostile and threatening environment which becomes an inescapable part of the victim's daily life. She or he is likely to feel isolated, and frightened by the harassment, particularly when the institution seems in different to the problem. For students, sexual harassment and the fear of harassment can limit one's academic choices. It can cause victims to forego needed assistance with coursework, change or drop class or section, and to alter choices of concentration, research or career.

Sexual harassment is considered to be sex discrimination partly because these barriers in education and employment fall primarily (though not exclusively) on women, and partly because sexual harassment is a product of centuries of regarding women primarily as sexual objects. Sexual harassment emphasizes the victim's sexuality over her or his role as student, scholar, or worker. This behavior is demeaning both to the victim's sense of self, and to her or his work.

Sexual harassment may sometimes be the result of unintentional sexist behavior, but is also used to express hostility to a woman being "out of her place." Regardless of the motives, sexual harassment is a degrading and painful experience.

The fact that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination means that Harvard has a responsibility, under federal law, to provide an effective and fair policy and procedure to prohibit and combat sexual harassment. We do not believe that the present policy and procedure meet these criteria. We therefore call on the Faculty Council to reopen its discussion of the adequacy of Harvard's present provisions.

We feel strongly that it is in the best interests of the entire community for Harvard to address this issue squarely. We must ask what is there to lose by taking a firm stand on a problem which is so destructive to faculty, students and staff alike?

Towards working constructively with the University on this issue the Radcliffe Union of Students will distribute next week a new pamphlet on sexual harassment produced in cooperation with Harvard College. Christina Spaulding '84   Vice President, RUS   Elizabeth Young '85   President, RUS   Tobin Spitzer '85   Sarah Jane Holcombe '86