Marshall, Lawyer Square Off on Report

In an interview and written statement this week, President Neil L. Rudenstine backed Vice President and General Counsel Margaret H. Marshall and the authors of a recently-released report on alleged discrimination in the Harvard security guard unit that has been strongly criticized by eight guards.

"I have no reason to question the findings," said Rudenstine. "It appears the report was done carefully, thoughtfully."

But Rudenstine, in a written statement, did not say whether he agreed with the findings of the report, which cleared the guard supervisors and the University of any illegal discrimination or harassment. And in an interview in his Massachusetts Hall office, Rudenstine twice skirted direct questions about what he thought of the substance of the report's finding of no discrimination.

Pressed on his opinion of the report, Rudenstine repeatedly said he trusted Marshall and emphasized the thorough nature of the investigation of the unit conducted by attorneys A. Hugh Scott and Karen I. Cartotto and investigator James A. Ring of Marshall's former law firm of Choate, Hall & Stewart.

Rudenstine, who says he read the report twice, also said his personal experience in reading and evaluating reports led him to believe there were no problems with this one.

"I've read a lot of reports in my life," Rudenstine said. "Everything I see in the depth and the extent to which the person went suggests that they were being conscientious and thorough."

Over the past year, 11 former and current security employees have charged that they were discriminated against on the job. The report, released August 6 by Marshall, found that while there were problems of communication, training, perception and disciplinary procedure within the department, there was no evidence of what is defined in legal terms as discrimination or harassment.

The 86-page report blamed guards, a union steward, the student press, fiscal constraints and management weakness for the perception by some guards of discrimination. It also offered 14 recommendations "to ensure for the guard service a work environment of respect, professionalism and communication among guards, supervisors and managers."

Marshall said in an interview earlier this month that she accepts the report's findings. Both Rudenstine and Marshall have refused to answer a variety of specific questions about the report, with the general counsel frequently citing confidentiality and the president citing a lack of firsthand knowledge. "I don't want to talk about the report," Rudenstine said. "I wasn't in any of the discussions. I have not talked to the investigators. I've read it, it seems to have been done very, very thoroughly."

In the interview, Rudenstine appeared to suggest that he believed guards who were not satisfied with the report should sue the University.

"If there are people who feel this doesn't answer every one of their concerns, there are appropriate steps for them to be able to take," Rudenstine said. "Nothing is closed in individuals" ability to take appropriate steps. If that's what they feel they should do then they should do that."

The president also steered conversation away from the report's findings to its recommendations. He said he trusted Police Chief Paul E. Johnson and Marshall to decide which recommendations to accept.

"(The recommendations) now need to be considered very carefully by both the chief and the general counsel," Rudenstine said.

Rudenstine said he had asked Marshall to look into the matter in her role as the administrator responsible for the guard unit and not as Harvard's lawyer. He said Marshall's choice of her former law firm was done after a survey of other investigators, although he declined to say how many other investigators had been contacted or name any other competing bids for the job.

He said the fact that the investigators who ended up being hired were former colleagues of Marshall's was not a factor in hiring them. "I don't think that had anything to do with it," Rudenstine said. "I think there was a survey of people who do this kind of work."

Rudenstine added, "Anyone who reads (the report) would feel that it was done in a thorough, conscientious, professional way with a real effort to get at what that person believes to be the findings.

Over the past year, 11 former and current security employees have charged that they were discriminated against on the job. The report, released August 6 by Marshall, found that while there were problems of communication, training, perception and disciplinary procedure within the department, there was no evidence of what is defined in legal terms as discrimination or harassment.

The 86-page report blamed guards, a union steward, the student press, fiscal constraints and management weakness for the perception by some guards of discrimination. It also offered 14 recommendations "to ensure for the guard service a work environment of respect, professionalism and communication among guards, supervisors and managers."

Marshall said in an interview earlier this month that she accepts the report's findings. Both Rudenstine and Marshall have refused to answer a variety of specific questions about the report, with the general counsel frequently citing confidentiality and the president citing a lack of firsthand knowledge. "I don't want to talk about the report," Rudenstine said. "I wasn't in any of the discussions. I have not talked to the investigators. I've read it, it seems to have been done very, very thoroughly."

In the interview, Rudenstine appeared to suggest that he believed guards who were not satisfied with the report should sue the University.

"If there are people who feel this doesn't answer every one of their concerns, there are appropriate steps for them to be able to take," Rudenstine said. "Nothing is closed in individuals" ability to take appropriate steps. If that's what they feel they should do then they should do that."

The president also steered conversation away from the report's findings to its recommendations. He said he trusted Police Chief Paul E. Johnson and Marshall to decide which recommendations to accept.

"(The recommendations) now need to be considered very carefully by both the chief and the general counsel," Rudenstine said.

Rudenstine said he had asked Marshall to look into the matter in her role as the administrator responsible for the guard unit and not as Harvard's lawyer. He said Marshall's choice of her former law firm was done after a survey of other investigators, although he declined to say how many other investigators had been contacted or name any other competing bids for the job.

He said the fact that the investigators who ended up being hired were former colleagues of Marshall's was not a factor in hiring them. "I don't think that had anything to do with it," Rudenstine said. "I think there was a survey of people who do this kind of work."

Rudenstine added, "Anyone who reads (the report) would feel that it was done in a thorough, conscientious, professional way with a real effort to get at what that person believes to be the findings.