Letters to the Editor

   _The Tech_'s recent editorial on fighting sexual harassment gives
   undue credit to the Institute's harassment policy and makes two
   suggestions which may be impractical ["A Plan to Fight Sexual
   Harassment," November 6, 1992].
   
   _The Tech_ is far too generous in calling MIT "a leader in identifying
   and dealing with sexual harassment." MIT's definition of harassment,
   based on workplace harassment rules, is too broad and too vague to be
   appropriate for the personal lives of students. Because of the range
   of speech it regulates, the policy probably violates state law, and
   the Institute's materials give no clear guidance regarding what is
   harassment, stating only that certain behaviors, including allegedly
   sexist jokes and remarks, "may" constitute harassment.
   
   Given the vagaries of the definition, _The Tech_'s suggestion that
   "every single member of the MIT community attend an `awareness
   session'" on sexual harassment may be unproductive. If examples of
   harassment are given without counterexamples of behaviors not
   considered harassment, the participants will learn little about the
   boundaries of harassment. But under MIT's vague definition, giving
   counterexamples may be impossible, because virtually any slight can be
   construed by the hypersensitive as harassment. The sessions may also
   have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, by suggesting that
   expression of controversial views could be punished.
   
   _The Tech_ suggests a special harassment committee, composed of a
   representative group drawn from the community, to judge cases. In
   principle, this is a good idea. But unless the committee's members
   were chosen at random, it would probably not be representative.
   
   From my experience as an interviewer for the Undergraduate Association
   Nominations Committee, I know that participants on Institute
   committees are largely self-selected. Rarely are more than a handful
   of people are willing to devote time to serve regularly on a
   committee. Those who do volunteer for narrowly-focused committees,
   particularly those dealing with politically charged subjects like
   harassment, are rarely disinterested parties. In many cases, they have
   an ax to grind.
   
   Where interest is low, permitting elections to choose the members will
   not necessarily provide balance, either, as demonstrated by the
   Graduate Student Council, which has been repeatedly captured by
   activists from the Science Action Coordinating Committee. Assuming
   non-random selection, the harassment committee would probably end up
   composed mostly of strident feminists, committed to teaching alleged
   offenders a lesson without much concern for guilt or innocence.
   
   The views of ordinary students on what constitutes harassment would go
   underrepresented. For this reason, discipline should be meted out by a
   committee with a mission sufficiently broad that single-issue
   partisans will not swamp the committee -- perhaps the Committee on
   Discipline or one of the student judiciary committees.
   
   Lars Bader G
   

----
Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on Tuesday, November 10, 1992.
Volume 112, Number 56
The story was printed on page  4.
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.