Protesters Should Let the Idiots Speak for Themselves

   By Bill Jackson
   
   Protest Groupie
   
   I'm often asked how I find the time to write columns for _The Tech_.
   The answer, aside from my utter lack of a social life, is that often
   the columns write themselves. 
   
   A case in point: last Friday's rally on the Student Center steps. I
   went to the rally not expecting much, but for my trouble I got a solid
   sampling of campus idiots and reactionary flamers.
   
   The Cliff's Notes version of the anti-harassment rally, for those of
   you who wisely skip the news pages of _The Tech_ and head straight for
   this drivel: The rally was held last Friday on the steps of 77 Mass
   Ave. as a response to the recent sexual harassment case between
   Professor Gabriel Bitran and Marina Erulkar. 
   
   In some ways, it was a typical MIT protest.There were some speakers,
   including Erulkar, and then the procession moved down the Infinite
   Corridor and upstairs to present a petition to President Vest. As the
   procession started, one of the lead protesters whispered to another,
   "You've got to start the chant." They obediently began to chant, "Stop
   harassment, end it now."
   
   In some ways, however, it was not a typical MIT protest.
   
   About eight gentlemen showed up to proudly hold signs such as "Quit
   Your Bitching," "Stop Harassment of Bitran," "Ambulance Chaser",
   "Happy Birthday," referring to Bitran's testimony that one of the
   kissing incidents took place on Erulkar's birthday, "Sore Loser," and
   "Bitran is a stud."
   
   Making these guys look stupid is about as difficult as getting a cold
   french fry at Lobdell. Take Eric E. Fitch '95, who held up a sign
   saying "She wanted it." Why did you choose to hold that particular
   sign, Eric? "It was the one I picked up." 
   
   Good choice, Eric. Brilliant sentiment, too. I'll bet Ms. Erulkar saw
   that sign and slapped her forehead like an old V-8 commercial,
   suddenly realizing that her entire complaint was irrelevant because
   she "wanted it" in the first place. Hypothetical news headline:
   "Erulkar Drops Suit; Says Sign Helped Her See The Light."
   
   What're you smoking?
   
   But I'm a fair guy. I'll give all of you a chance to redeem
   yourselves. Tell me, what's the real purpose of your protest, Eric?
   "The whole thing is more or less a protest of everything that's going
   on, not a reflection of that sign." Oh. "We feel that Bitran was found
   innocent through the American judicial system. He's the one that's
   being harassed." Well, that's a plausible point of view. 
   
   So -- pardon me for asking, but I'm a little slow -- how exactly does
   holding up signs such as "Don't Flatter Yourself" demonstrate these
   sentiments? According to David M. Sukoff '95, "That's irrelevant."
   During the rally, David held up a sign saying "Liar."
   
   I think it's important to know if your sign really expresses how you
   feel, David. Does it? "As much as the signs in Bitran's class
   expressed what _they_ were protesting."
   
   So you can see that these guys were just a bunch of... well, I can't
   print what I think they are, but I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with
   "crass holes."
   
   And as you can also see, it doesn't take a lot of effort to show that
   they were idiots. Unfortunately, those in the crowd who were in
   support of the rally didn't realize how easy it is. Emily Winston, a
   member of the Women's Action Corps (a local women's rights group),
   insisted on holding a "No More Harassment" sign in front of the faces
   of the eight men as they were interviewed by newspaper and television
   reporters. She said that if they were going to get any publicity, she
   wanted her sign to be in the shot as well. 
   
   Good in principle, but misguided. The best thing that could come from
   the rally is that people see these idiots plainly and clearly. Winston
   had more success in showing them up when she asked one "Do you go
   around kissing your professors?" "If I have that type of relationship
   with them, maybe," he quickly responded. Well, when your professors
   find out what sensitive guys you are, I'm sure they'll be falling all
   over themselves to have "that type of relationship" with you. Really.
   
   Another man in a black trenchcoat tore the "She wanted it" sign out of
   Eric Fitch's hands. A heated exchange ensued, but Dean Art Smith,
   doing his best Henry Kissinger impersonation, stepped between them and
   calmed things down. The man in the trenchcoat, who first gave me his
   name but then declined to let me print it, had been a classmate of
   Erulkar at Sloan and called the sign "distasteful and vulgar." 
   
   But don't you understand? Besides the free-speech arguments, the best
   advertising the anti-harassment people can have is to allow publicity
   of signs like Fitch's.
   
   When I went to this rally, I knew that sexual harassment was a
   problem, but I now readily admit I had no concept of the magnitude of
   the problem. What made me understand was not some speech or flier but
   the mere presence of those men and their signs. 
   
   Don't hide them or their sentiments; as Professor David Halperin told
   me, they simply "dramatize the need for a clear, equitable harassment
   policy at MIT."
   
   Tech _Opinion Editor Bill Jackson '93 wants to be the guy who starts
   the chant next time._
   
   
   

----
Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on Tuesday, November 24, 1992.
Volume 112, Number 60
The story was printed on page  5.
This article may be freely distributed electronically,
provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes
this notice, but may not be reprinted without the
express written permission of The Tech.  Write to
archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.