Institute Readies New Guidelines on Harassment

   By Rahul T. Rao
   
   Staff Reporter
   
   In an effort to eliminate confusion and further awareness, MIT will
   release a revised version of its sexual harassment guide sometime this
   spring.
   
   Samuel J. Keyser, associate provost for institute life, said the
   revision was prompted in part by criticism from many in the MIT
   community that last year's sexual harassment guide was not detailed
   enough. "The community's attitudes and awareness of the problem
   changes with time," also making a revision necessary, he added.
   
   Keyser emphasized that the revision is unrelated to the controversy
   surrounding the recent sexual harassment lawsuits involving Marina R.
   Erulkar SM '92 and Professor Cynthia G. Wolff.
   
   Jennifer E. Carson '94, president of Students Against Sexual
   Harassment, said last year's booklet was inadequate since it "simply
   listed a bunch of phone numbers." Many of the contacts suggested in
   the booklet have no power to take action in harassment cases or were
   not properly trained to handle the situations they could encounter,
   she said.
   
   Keyser emphasized three specific issues that will be expanded in the
   new guide: confidentiality of records, standards of proof, and
   appeals. Other than saying that "confidentiality of records has always
   been of concern," Keyser would not elaborate on details of the
   expansion of these issues.
   
   The revised booklet will also include more procedural information for
   the accused than the previous version, he added.
   
   Keyser also said that the Institute may modify its sexual harassment
   policy but that these issues are still being deliberated. He refused
   further comment on these changes.
   
  MORE OPTIONS FOR STUDENTS
  
   
   
   The booklet will once again include a "road map" to the various
   resources available in MIT's multi-access system. This system provides
   students with a variety of places to begin when filing a sexual
   harassment complaint. Several new options will be added to help keep
   the "individual filing the complaint in control of the process for as
   long as possible," Keyser said. Each harassment case is unique, and
   having many options is necessary for the victims, he said.
   
   Carson disagreed, saying that rewriting the booklet on guidelines will
   not help until the policies have also been changed. "The present
   multi-access system simply confuses many people and makes them feel
   lost," she said. Having a centralized resource system, as suggested by
   the ad-hoc Committee on Sexual Harassment, would be less traumatic for
   victims, Carson added. Listing more options in the booklet is a bad
   idea and will further delay the creation of a centralized resource
   system, she said.
   
   One new step in the revised procedures is the suggestion that the
   person filing the complaint write a letter to the accused explaining
   his or her view of the situation. Keyser said that though such a
   letter will not be suitable in all cases, it would be a good idea in
   many situations.
   
   Carson called the letter-writing suggestion inappropriate. "There have
   been cases where these types of letters have been later used against
   the individual filing the complaint," she said. Carson pointed out
   that because the Institute does not encourage letters from the accused
   to the victim, the new step results in an inappropriate disparity in
   procedures.
   
   Keyser emphasized that the booklet does not reflect significant
   changes in Institute procedures but is a more detailed compilation of
   the various resources available. Some of the changes reflect continued
   implementation of the suggestions set forth by the Committee on Sexual
   Harassment in 1989, he said.
   

----
Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on Friday, December 4, 1992.
Volume 112, Number 62
The story began on page  1
and jumped to page  9.

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.