Letters to the Editor

   Your story ["Wolff Claims Harrassment By Literature Professors," April
   28.] about Professor Cynthia G. Wolff's lawsuit against MIT repeats an
   allegation made by Wolff that my colleague, Professor Theoharis C.
   Theoharis, told Wolff that I was sexually harassing him. Although I
   was interviewed for the story, your reporter had not read the text of
   the lawsuit at the time she spoke to me and did not give me a chance
   to deny the accusation of sexual harassment.
   
   I do so now. It is false. I have never subjected Theoharis to sexual
   harassment. Nor has any formal complaint of sexual harassment ever
   been made against me, so far as I am aware, in all my 20 years of
   academic life.
   
   I'd like to take this opportunity to assure my students and friends at
   MIT that I do not intend to allow this unsubstantiated accusation to
   deter me from working to end sexual harassment at MIT, from engaging
   in political activism at MIT on behalf of women, gays, lesbians, and
   minorities, from continuing to teach classes in Lesbian and Gay
   Studies, or from carrying out my research into the logic and structure
   of sexual discourse. 
   
   David M. Halperin
   
   _Professor of Literature
   
   _Thistle_ Article Unwarranted 
   
   I categorically disagree with the recent characterization of
   _Counterpoint_ made by Jeffrey L. Newbern '95 and apparently endorsed
   by _The Thistle. His bizarre article is the result of an unethical,
   adversarial, and incomplete investigation, and the myopic picture he
   presents only serves to aggrandize his esoteric political ideology.
   The prominent appearance of such a skewed viewpoint in the May 6 issue
   of The Thistle is typical of that journal's dissemination of extremist
   propaganda.
   
   Newbern approached a staff member of _Counterpoint _some time ago for
   assistance in improving the management of The Thistle's fund-raising
   and accounting activities. When we accepted his request for help and
   offered to explain our fitful start-up process, Newbern revealed his
   true intentions to our staff.
   
   With limited facts in one hand and a political objective in the other,
   and with his tunnel-vision of self-importance quite focused, Newbern
   launched an attack of inspired innuendo against the lured staff member
   through electronic mail. Newbern's disingenuous nature evident, the
   attack was quite rightly spurned and we politely declined his requests
   for further help.
   
   Furious at being dismissed and convinced that his rejection was for
   more than his naive yet serious insolence, Newbern sent off a second
   wave of anger, accusing our magazine of attempting a cover-up and
   demanding answers to his set of now even more adversarial questions.
   I, strained by past dealings with _The Thistle _and its minion,
   continued nonetheless the forced politeness and declined. But intrepid
   as ever, Newbern continued his barrage. Finally irritated, I informed
   Newbern that I would no longer tolerate the harassment and proceeded
   to takes steps in that direction.
   
   Of course, Newbern didn't stop. By then he seemed committed to the
   idea that _Counterpoint _stood as antithetical to his own ideology,
   and decided to harangue the staff through e-mail. This produced no
   results, as we had taken steps by then to discourage contact with
   Newbern and his colleagues.
   
   You see, _Counterpoint _has no responsibility to justify itself to
   unethical fools who masquerade their true intentions. We reject this
   approach to journalism as a matter of principle. As we strive to
   establish ourselves in the MIT and Wellesley College communities, we
   are of course happy to discuss any aspect of our organization with
   anyone willing to listen to what we have to say. But for now we
   politely decline the eager invitation to engage in babble with The
   Thistle and especially Newbern.
   
   Avik S. Roy '93
   
   _Publisher
   
   _Counterpoint
   
   _Counterpoint_ Not Responsible for _Review
   
   The Tech _received a copy of this letter addressed to Jeff L. Newbern
   '95.
   
   _I was fascinated to learn from your piece in Wednesday's _Thistle_,_
   "Counterpoint Exposed as Analyst," that because Counterpoint has
   accepted money from an outside source, the Madison Center, which has
   funded the Dartmouth Review, Counterpoint and its staffers are
   responsible for the Review's content. Both Counterpoint and the
   Thistle have accepted money from the Undergraduate Association Finance
   Board. Does this mean that the Thistle is responsible for
   Counterpoint's views? Does this mean that the Thistle is also part of
   the evil Madison Center conspiracy? Or is it just that the Thistle
   envies Counterpoint's source of funds?
   
   I was also intrigued by your attempt to smear _Counterpoint _by citing
   associations of people on its list of contributors. The list contains
   every person who has ever written an article for Counterpoint, most of
   whom are not on the staff. One of these is listed because of her
   article supporting freedom of choice on abortion, an article which was
   reprinted in your publication. I am also on the list of contributors,
   for an article on how the MIT harassment policy violates freedom of
   speech. The Thistle has published letters from me twice, one being a
   very politically incorrect satire and another expressing my concern
   with the harassment policy's free speech issues. Does this make you
   and other Thistle staffers tools of the Analyst or the Collegiate
   Network? I have sent this letter to The Tech, which has printed my
   letters on four previous occasions. Does that mean that all of the
   campus publications are an organized right-wing conspiracy?
   
   You complain that Avik S. Roy '93 silenced you using the "vagueness"
   of MIT's harassment policy, yet you have publicly advocated that the
   policy be applied to others. Why this hypocrisy? Why isn't what's good
   for them good for you? Perhaps Roy was just giving you a taste of your
   own medicine. You assert that _Counterpoint_, and other publications
   like it, have opposed "strong harassment policies," but you produce no
   evidence. The only criticisms of the policy in the pages of
   Counterpoint have been written by outsiders, Adam L. Dershowitz G and
   myself, both of which focused on its vagueness and the way it can be
   used to chill discussion, abuses of which your article complained.
   Neither called for a weak policy.
   
   It's sad you fear _Counterpoint _so much you have to vilify it in
   print. Its funding from the Madison Center gives it no power to
   control you. It will have to compete with you in the marketplace of
   ideas, and if you lose it will be your own fault.
   
   Lars Bader G
   
   Activism Cannot Replace Justice
   
   Rodney King was beaten excessively and savagely; that is a conclusion
   which is difficult to avoid if one watches the videotape of his
   beating. By my standards this constitutes wrongdoing and the
   wrongdoers should be brought to justice. However, I am equally
   frightened by the reaction of some people to the verdict as I am by
   the obvious lack of justice the trial allowed.
   
   It is not the riots in Los Angeles which frightened me most, despite
   the fact I have to move there in three weeks. While I feel the death
   and destruction caused by the rioters is wrong, I can at least
   understand the need of the people in South Central Los Angeles to let
   off a loud roar so those in power will know of their outrage. I
   especially applaud Dale L. Le Febvre '93 and other organizers of
   Monday's silent protest as far as they attempted to make their outrage
   known through a more noble media.
   
   Rather, it's comments like "I hope the government realizes what we're
   doing here and reverses the [King] decision" ["Walk To Common Prompted
   By Verdict," May 5.] which make me shudder. Yes, I hope the
   "government" takes note. Yes, I hope that the pending Federal
   re-investigation of the King trial brings the four LA policemen to
   justice. But I worry when the language of protesters and rioters
   degenerates into talk of preempting our justice system by activism.
   
   I want those policemen brought to justice, but I want it done through
   the legal system despite the system's flaws. If the re-investigation
   convicts the policemen according to current laws, fine. If the
   re-investigation cannot convict the policemen with current laws, then
   the laws need to be changed. Government does not need to bow to
   pressure from rioters and activists when judging legal matters; isn't
   that why the Constitution provided for non-elected Supreme Court
   justices? Instead, the government should to adjust its laws according
   to what the population deems "right."
   
   I seriously doubt that the four policemen can escape a Federal
   re-investigation without at least one man being convicted; there is
   simply too much political pressure involved. In the King case, this
   would seem to be justice. However, I hope that justice is what becomes
   generalized in our legal system and not coercion by politics.
   
   Focusing on reconstructing the legal system will prove vastly more
   productive than focusing on reconstructing individual verdicts. All
   future silent (or not-so-silent) marchers: please keep this in mind.
   
   Christopher E. Couch '92
   
   End-of-Term Rules Will Relieve Stress 
   
   With finals just around the corner, the Undergraduate Association
   Committee on Educational Policy feels that every faculty member and
   student should be aware of the faculty end-of-term regulations. Below
   is an excerpt from the 1991-92 MIT Bulletin regarding these
   regulations, which are meant to relieve some of the stresses
   associated with the end of the term. If a violation of any of these
   regulations occurs, feel free to contact us using the SCEP hotline
   (scepathena).
   
   The following Faculty Regulations governing end-of-term examinations
   and assignments, together with the Faculty Policy Committee's
   interpretation, apply to both undergraduate and graduate subjects:
   
   ¥ For each subject that has a final exam, no examination may be given
   and no assignment, term paper, or oral presentation may fall due
   during the six days preceding Reading Period. The scheduled time for a
   final exam cannot be changed once it has been officially published;
   inquiries about limited exceptions to this policy should be directed
   promptly to the registrar.
   
   ¥ Each subject in which no final exam is given may have at most one of
   the following during the six days preceding Reading Period: either a
   one-hour quiz may be given during a regularly scheduled class period
   or one assignment (term paper, lab report, take-home exam, problem
   set, or oral presentation) may fall due. (A 90-minute quiz is allowed,
   but only if done during a regular class period.)
   
   ¥ It is inappropriate for comprehensive examinations (covering most of
   the term's work) to be given at any time other than during the final
   exam period.
   
   ¥ No classes, examinations, or exercises of any kind amy be scheduled
   beyond the end of the last regularly scheduled class in a subject,
   except for final exams scheduled through the Registrar's Office. Any
   formal reviews of subjects should be held during regular class
   periods, but this rule does not exclude the possibility of sessions
   after the last days of classes at which the instructing staff is
   available to answer questions of students who choose to attend. (The
   architecture design reviews that occur during finals week are
   considered to be equivalent to final exams and are scheduled by the
   Department of Architecture.)
   
   ¥ No assignment of any kind may be given that falls due after the last
   regularly scheduled meeting of the class for that subject. This does
   not prevent an instructor from giving an extension to an individual
   student, but an extension shall not need to be given to a majority of
   the class.
   
   ¥ Any departure from these rules requires the permission of the
   Committee on Academic Performance for undergraduate students or the
   Committee on Graduate School Performance for graduate students, and
   any such approved exception will be announced early in the term and
   emphasized appropriately. Asking students to vote on some deviation
   from the rules is not an acceptable procedure.
   
   Faculty or students with questions regarding the interpretation or
   application of any of these provisions should contact the Chairman of
   the Faculty or request the assistance of the CAP, Room 7-104,
   253-4164."
   
   Keelan K. Yang '94
   
   _Chair, UA Committee on Educational Policy-
   
   Blacks Face Discrimination
   
   Three weeks ago, photocopied signs appeared in the elevator, walls,
   and bulletin boards of Buildings N51 and N52, which house the
   architecture department and the MIT Museum. These signs warned that
   thefts of personal property had occurred and that "suspicious
   individuals" should be reported.
   
   At MIT we have affectionately developed a universally understood
   jargon such as "infinite" to describe corridors, "tool" to describe
   studying, and "hack" to describe perpetrating a prank. But when signs
   alert us to be cautious of "suspicious individuals," what it is that
   we read is "African-American individuals."
   
   Two weeks ago, one of my classes was interrupted when two MIT campus
   police officers entered my third-floor classroom in N51 and asked if
   anyone knew knowledge of a person who was asleep somewhere. I found it
   peculiar that police officers would investigate the high crime of
   sleeping, but thought that the sleeping person might be the victim of
   some sort of medical emergency. I offered my assistance to the
   officers by showing them to the lounge area of N52 where a sofa was
   located. The suspect was asleep on that sofa. One of the officers
   administered a kinder and gentler prod, awakening the suspect to a
   thousand points of light. To my surprise, this turned out to be one of
   my students. She was the victim of the medical emergency of being an
   African-American.
   
   Recent court rulings have deemed it legal for a mob of police officers
   to mercilessly bludgeon those suspected of a crime. This sort of
   blatant violence can be sanctioned only when there is a universally
   understood jargon which translates "African-American" as criminal.
   
   Baldwin Lee
   
   Professor of Art
   
   Minority Preferences Unfair
   
   As a member of the MIT Equal Opportunity Committee, I would like to
   express my concern about certain minority preference policies at the
   Institute. MIT classifies certain minority groups -- African-Americans
   (regardless of national origin), Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and
   Mexicans -- as "underrepresented." This policy excludes Asians and
   members of 16 Hispanic minorities. Members of these other minority
   groups face the same obstacles and prejudices, but cannot benefit from
   the opportunities set aside for those considered "underrepresented."
   Among those opportunities exclusively for the "underrepresented"
   groups are the Second Summer Program, Program Interphase, and MITES.
   
   This policy appears to be discriminatory to other disadvantaged
   minorities groups and undermines the goal of providing everyone,
   regardless of race, color, or creed, an equal opportunity. I would
   like very much for the MIT administration to bring about an inquiry
   into the fairness of this "underrepresented" policy
   
   Esteban R. Torres G
   

----
Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This storied was published on Friday, May 8, 1992.
Volume 112, Number 26
The story began on page  4 and jumped to 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.