Surveying Sexual Harassment

Although the results of the Harvard Sexual Harassment Survey have been widely publicized and much discussed, there continues to be widespread confusion over what the figures really mean. We feel it is important of clarify some of the most important issues raised by the survey and to present what we understand to be major implications for change in the University policy and procedure on sexual harassment.

Much of the misunderstanding has centered around the "definition" of sexual harassment used in the survey. Deans Rosovsky and Lewis, in an apparent attempt to minimize "press sensationalism" have implied that the definition used in the survey was overly broad because it included verbal harassment and behaviours such as "unwanted looks and gestures."

However, the leagal definition of harassment includes not only directly corcing sexual relations, but also "the creation of a hostile of offensive work or academic environment." Clearly verbal comments, and looks and gestures can create a hostile or offensive environment, depending on repeatedness or context. This is why we included a long list of unwanted sexual attentions on the survey, and then categorized the seriousness of incidents with regard to a whole set of critical factors, including repeatedness, context and the impact on the victim.

This focus on the "broadness" of the definition has created the unfortunate misconception that all this fuss is about a few off-color jokes. It is not. The fuss is about the fact that one out of five women--by the time they graduate from Harvard--have experienced a serious of very serious incident of harassment, from someone with authority over them. This translates into a yearly rate of serious harassment cases, nearly three times as high as the which Dr. Mary Rowe, the Equal Education Opportunity Commission (EEOC) officer at MIT, estimates as the norm in similar institutions.

Lest there be any confusion, "serious" and "very serious cases," as defined in our classification involved repeated behaviors, persisting after a person's attempts to stop them; implicit or the attention; and significant personal and academic or professional upset. Every case so classified would almost certainly fall well within EEOC guidelines of what constitutes sexual harassment. Many of the other incidents, classified as less serious, would also fall within the legal guidelines.

It is important to point out here that the underlying issue throughtout various forms of sexual harassment is one of POWER and not sexuality. These serious incidents of harassment involve abuses of trust and power and are not simply cases where someone momentarily "loses control" and deserves a slap on the wrist and "the dignity to recover." While many cases do not involve such serious abuses of authority, the overriding "theme" present throughout the spectrum of harassment cases is one of power; power used to intimidate, powere used to cocrece, power used to create a hostile environment.

Despite the alarming results the survey relates, the official line from University Hall has been that the data "are not surprising." This is a puzzling and disturbing responce, considering that the survey results point to serious flaws in Harvard's present procedures; the procedures which were deemed entirely adequate by last year's Faculty Council.

To respond to the survey with "non-surprise" instead of alarm implies acceptance, not only of a high frequency of harassment, but also of ineffective procedures. They survey data show that when people were harassed, they did not use the procedures. Only 6 percent of the women who were subject to the most serious incidents of harassment filed a formal complaint.

Moreover, people frequently don't use the procedures because they're afraid reporting a case will be held against them, the the University would be unreceptive, or that nothing can be done about their case. Many are unaware that their experience constituies harassment at all. Clearly, these data indicate a need, and a possible direction, for change.

In addressing the survey's policy implications, we must first clarify that just on the problem of sexual harassment includes a broad range of experience of varying severity, so must effective procedure include a continuum of options for revolution.

On the one hand, harassing situations can evolve from cases of genuine misunderstanding. In such cases of no ill intent it should be possible to resolve a complaint with minimal fuss, and generally without official intervention. For such cases falling into this "first tier," advice on possible solutions and support may be all this is required to arrive at a satisfactory solution. The existing "safety-net" of tutors, proctors and advisors is in many ways ideally suited, structurally, to meet this need. Clearly members of this safety net must be trained and sensitized however, so they may provide adequate support and counsel.

More problematic cases of harassment often require extra assistance for the victim or some form of intervention to reach a satisfactory resolution. In such cases a formal inquiry may not be necessary, or the victim may decide, despite the seriousness of the case, not to pursue a formal complaint. For this "second tier" of cases we have recommended the creation of a central office which would provide an ambudsperson to handle all intervention into cases, and also be responsible for campus-wide training and education on the issue. While the primary goal of this office would be to mediate solutions between the individuals involved, it should be empowered in certain circumstances to issue informal warnings to multiple offenders.

Finally, cases of harassment involving serious abuses of power should, at the victim's request, be investigated and acted upon through a formal process. We recommend that such cases be investigated and decided by an official, impartial board rather than a single administrator. This process should respect traditional nations of fairness and due process for BOTH parties, including the reciprocal right to respond to evidence, the right to and advocate and the right to appeal.

It is critical at all tiers in the procedure that the victim be carefully informed of her or his rights within and without Harvard's procedures. All victims should be informed of the option to pursue their cases to the next tier, and also of the right to file a complaint with the United States' Office of Civil Rights or with the EEOC, if dissatisfied with Harvard's handling of it.

If Harvard is really committed to creating an educational and work environment equally accessible to all its employees and students, it must take quick and effective action to address the problem of sexual harassment: first by convencing the community of its sincerity in dealing with sexual

(continued on page 5)

Joseph P. DiNunzio '84 and Christina Spaulding '84 are co-directors of the Sexual Harassment Survey Project.