Harassment Code Is Embarrassment to MIT

   The Tech received a copy of this letter addressed to President Charles
   M. Vest and Associate Provost for Institute Life Samuel J. Keyser:
   
   We of the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression have grave
   concerns about the comprehensive guide on harassment published
   recently at MIT. We don't doubt that this guide was well intended, and
   each of us in the BCFE deplores harassing behavior. Moreover, we do
   not believe that threats are protected speech nor do we believe that
   the right to impose speech upon another is without limit.
   
   But the MIT harassment code is far too broad. Your definition of
   harassment includes "any conduct, verbal or physical, on or off campus
   . . . which creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
   educational, work, or living environment." The term "intimidating,
   hostile or offensive environment" is so vague and subjective that it
   is nearly devoid of meaning and therefore your code protects no speech
   whatsoever. Your code further confuses the issue by describing
   "ambiguous behavior" that "may be offensive whether or not it is
   harassment." No reasonable person can know with certainty precisely
   what speech is proscribed.
   
   Intellectual freedom, which one might presume essential at a
   world-renowned university, is meaningless without freedom of
   expression. Therefore we are astounded that MIT would consider
   "freedom from unreasonable and disruptive offense" equally essential
   and would ask the MIT community to think of free expression and
   harassment "in terms of interests rather than rights." We beg to
   differ, President Vest. Freedom of expression is a right. Moreover, it
   is an inalienable right which cannot be abridged, without due process
   of law, by any individual or institution -- not even the Massachusetts
   Institute of Technology.
   
   We are also appalled that Associate Provost for Institute Life Samuel
   J. Keyser was quoted in _The Boston Globe_ as saying "What we're
   saying is everyone had the right to freedom of speech, but there are
   consequences to that right. We're just asking them to think about
   those consequences before they speak." According to the guide, those
   consequences include "termination of employment or student status." In
   other words, say what you like, but if we don't like it, your days are
   numbered. We have assumed that Keyser had been misquoted until he
   reaffirmed this alarming statement in a recent letter to the editor.
   
   This guide is an embarrassment to MIT, but the mistake can be
   corrected. We look forward to hearing from you on this important
   matter.
   
   Bill Reever
   
   and Don Davies
   
   _Co-Chairs Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expressio
   

----
Copyright 1993 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on  Friday,  December 3, 1993.
Volume  113, Number 62
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.