Harassment Guide Misguided in Scope

   Those of us who are greatly concerned about free speech and harassment
   on campus find it ironic and sad that some fellow students, faculty,
   and staff insist on pitting free speech rights against concerns over
   various forms of harassment. There is, in fact, no fundamental
   conflict between these two serious issues. A clear, definitive, and
   harsh policy on true forms of harassment would allow the Institute to
   concentrate all of its limited resources on preventing violations.
   Instead, we have a dangerously broad and hopelessly shallow policy
   that both jeopardizes freedom of expression, and relies too heavily on
   the arbitrary interpretations of individual complaint handlers to be
   effective in curtailing severe cases of harassment.
   
   Yet, in a recent letter to the editor, ["Harassment Guide is a
   Valuable Reference," Nov. 12] Albert L. Hsu '96 and Per E. Juvkam-Wold
   '94 have obviously read neither _The Tech_ article ["Protesters Burn
   Harassment Book," Nov. 2] nor the harassment guide very carefully
   because they persist in viewing the issues in the simplistic terms of
   free speech versus harassment. Hsu and Juvkam-Wold wrote that some
   "were worried that the guide wouldn't go far enough in dealing with
   [harassment]," whereas those concerned about free speech "are worried
   that the guidebook goes so far in protecting people from harassment
   that it endangers the rights of others." People who are concerned
   about free speech are in fact worried that the guidebook goes so far
   in endangering the rights of others that it can't possibly protect
   people from harassment.
   
   The guide lumps telling offensive jokes with physical assault or being
   threatened with one's job. For example, in a form for complaints in
   the appendix (p. 63), it actually lists "verbal" as a form of sexual
   assault. How can we claim to be serious about outrageous criminal
   actions when we trivialize them to the point of anything which has the
   effect of creating an offensive environment? They aren't throwing the
   baby out with the bath water, they've thrown the baby out and left the
   bath water behind!
   
   We cannot accept the argument of vigilantes and authoritarians, that
   if you're really concerned about the crime you must be willing to
   sacrifice freedom and due process: "string 'em up now, ask questions
   later!" History has shown that only a commitment to reason, due
   process, and the rights of all, leads to a serious decline in crimes.
   This is because only when people know the rules and procedures to be
   fair, open, and just can they truly come to respect -- and abide -- by
   them.
   
   Either the administration does not understand the seriousness of the
   activity going on, or prefers to placate the concerns of harassment
   victims rather than truly address them. Instead of a policy harsh and
   definitive in true cases of harassment, they have come up with a
   policy that is vague, timid, and selectively enforceable in all areas
   of personal interaction. They have shoved everything into the
   mysterious nether world of advisors and administrators, where
   decisions are made behind closed doors and away from scrutiny, even
   from the interested parties. We've seen this before. One formal
   committee rules one way, a dean or associate provost rules the other.
   End result? Who knows?
   
   Instead of a taking a bold approach, the guide tells us to "avoid
   putting these essential elements [speech and civility] ... to a
   balancing test" (p. 18). The insinuation is clear -- in order to
   really do anything about one we must sacrifice the other. They've set
   up the straw man that speech may be in conflict with harassment
   because they do not understand that a person's expression of ideas --
   no matter how hostile and offensive they may be -- have nothing to do
   with the dangerous power play that is harassment. Almost thirty years
   ago, students across the nation fought hard for the freedom of
   expression we now enjoy. Are we supposed to sit idly by while those
   hard won freedoms are tossed out the window like a sacrificial victim
   for the angry mobs?
   
   A university is a place to be stripped of your naivetŽ, to have heated
   debates, to hear your core beliefs trampled on like so much garbage.
   In that firestorm of conflicting ideas you find out what you truly
   believe, what stuck, what held up under scrutiny. You come out
   stronger and better able to assert yourself. That's not harassment,
   it's self discovery! The saddest part of all of this is, we have real
   people here in need of serious help. Don't make them pay by demanding
   a loss of freedom that will confuse the issue and won't even help them
   in the first place. As the saying goes, "those who would sacrifice
   liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither."
   
   Vernon Imrich G
   
   Han Huang '94
   
   Lars Bader G
   
   _Student Association
   
   for Freedom of Expression_
   

----
Copyright 1993 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on  Tuesday,  November 16, 1993.
Volume  113, Number 58
The story began on page  5
and jumped to page  6 .

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.