In Security Unit, Silence is Deafening

Eight months ago, Vice President and General Counsel Margaret H. Marshall issued a report intended to heal Harvard's security guard unit, which was then bitterly divided over charges of discrimination made by unit employees.

"This report brings to a close a difficult chapter in the history of the security guard unit at Harvard," Marshall wrote in a memo to all of the University's roughly 100 guards after the report was released last summer.

Marshall said at the time the report's recommendations would be used to help solve many of the problems in the unit.

But eight months later--and nearly two years after the unit was rocked by the discrimination allegations--Harvard has yet to act on many of the report's 17 recommendations for improving the unit.

"I haven't seen any of the changes. It's been eight months, and they don't even have a new manual to give us," said another security guard, referring to one of the report's recommendations.

"I don't know why they're taking so long, unless they don't want to do it at all," said security guard Howard Reid, one the guards who alleged discriminatory acts. "More or less, the report served to cover their butts in the case of a lawsuit--that's all it was."

In independent interviews in 1992 and early 1993, 11 former and current security unit employees-including Reid--charged that the department's management discriminated against employees on the basis of race and ethnicity. Management officials denied the charges.

The Marshall Report found all allegations of discrimination to be groundless and blamed the guards, The Crimson and guard union steward Stephen G. McCombe for the controversy. The guards responded by arguing that James A. Ring--the investigator hired by Marshall to probe the allegations-had failed to follow up on leads they provided.

The guards also charged Ring had a conflict of interest because he worked with Marshall at the Boston law firms of Choate, Hall & Stewart.

But the security unit's head, Manager of Operations for Security Robert J. Dowling, and Police Chief Paul E. Johnson, who is Dowling's boss, insist that the report remains an important document. Many of the recommendation, they said this week, are still likely to be implemented.

"All of those recommendation are being looked at, some have been implemented and some are in the process," Johnson said. "More than that I'm not willing to say."

"I'm working on all of the recommendations," Dowling added.

But recent interviews with two dozen guards indicate that the report hasn't come close to achieving Marshall's stated goal of providing "a working environment free from any discriminatory practices, or the perception thereof."

The Marshall Report has resulted in a quieter unit, but very little else, guards said. Interviews with guards show the unit is still badly divided over the discrimination claims. And the report has done little to change opinions on either side.

For example, recommendations that standards for uniforms and interpersonal conduct be strictly enforced have been all but ignored, guards said.

Security supervisors, who are charged with monitoring uniform and conduct violations, rarely check up on guards. One guard said he had been visited by a supervisor just three times since September.

Dowling acknowledged there are problems with supervision, but said he hasn't been been given the manpower to fix it.

"It's certainly a concern," Dowling said. "That's why we need more supervisors."

The lack of action on many recommendations has undermined the credibility of the report, particularly in the minds of those who did not charge discrimination but were sympathetic to those who did.

Particularly disappointing to some guards has been the administration's failure to act on one particular recommendation that most agree would help the unit significantly.

That recommendation--that a police lieutenant or sergeant be used to run the unit for at least one year--drew widespread support.

"You need someone totally neutral running the department," said one guard who disagreed with the employees' claims of discrimination.

Marshall could not be reached for comment this week.

Department sources said that Dowling, who was the subject of several of the employees' charges, has attempted to enact many of the report's recommendations--even those with which he does not personally agree.

Dowling said in an interview this week that he has completed a revision of the guard service manual and is simply waiting for the goahead from Marshall and Johnson to distribute it.

Other recommendations are still in the discussion stage, Dowling added. He said two recommendations--an expansion of the number of security security supervisors and the implementation of regular performance reviews for guards--are being discussed and are likely to be approved.

Dowling also said he will likely follow the report's recommendation and conduct more thorough background checks the next time he hires new guards.

In addition, a requirement that new security supervisors be required to take management courses is in the works, and he said changes in this summer's annual training session for guards are under consideration.

"We should talk about racism, descrimination, bigotry--all of which should have been addressed a long time ago," Dowling said.

The manager said Harvard has become suddenly generous about spending money on the unit--a key recommendation of the report. Dowling said he now has money to buy "things I haven't seen in five years."

And Marshall herself appears to have made some efforts to reach out to guards. After Yard security guard Steven Thompson, who was one of those charging discrimination, asked Marshall for a heater for the Johnston Gate guard shack recently, the general counsel arranged for one the next day.

But carrying out recommendations designed to prevent discrimination has been left largely to Dowling--an awkward position for someone who has himself been accused of discriminatory acts.

Dowling said he has taken the initiative on trying to heal the unit by publishing a newsletter called "The Communicator" which occasionally deals with issues of race and ethnicity.

"We have been through many trying times during the last few years, and I believe we can not stress how important it is that any perception of racism or act of discrimination be reported immediately so we may nip it in the bud," Dowling wrote in the December newsletter.

"But let us also understand that racism and/or discrimination used as an excuse only to muddy the waters will not be tolerated," Dowling added.

Any changes will come too late for two of the guards who alleged discrimination. Both Pierre R. Voss and Viatcheslav Abramian lost their jobs after alleging publicly that they were harassed on the job by their supervisors.

The supervisors denied their charges. And Security department management claimed that both employees were bad workers with long histories of disciplinary problems who deserved to be terminated.

Both Voss and Abramian countercharged that management trumped up disciplinary infractions against them in an attempt to get them fired. Voss and Abramian are two of four guards currently being represented by Waltham attorney Richard H. Spicer in discrimination complaints against the University.

Abramian was briefly homeless, and Voss has not been able to find work since he was effectively fired last July. Voss had to wait longer for the firing to be made official, and the University delayed the guard's appeal of the decision for five months in an apparent violation of the the guard union contract.

Voss, who was the first security employee to make public charges, blasted the report as a "cover-up" in an interview this week. The former guard, who was all but accused of lying about his charges in the report, said he still believed coming forward was the proper thing to do.

"If hadn't said anything in the first place, no one else would have come forward," Voss said. "They got rid of me, but at least some people's eyes were opened. It will be harder for them to do this type of thing again."