MIT Response to Suit -- Professors and Others Comment on Wolff Case

   By Sarah Y. Keightley
   
   Associate News Editor
   
   Attorneys for MIT filed a motion last week asking that Middlesex
   County Superior Court dismiss a suit brought against the Institute by
   Professor of Literature Cynthia G. Wolff. Wolff filed the lawsuit
   against MIT in early April, charging that the Institute had allowed a
   "hostile work environment" to continue.
   
   In the suit, Wolff claimed that she was excluded from the Women's
   Studies Program because in 1981 she voted to deny tenure to Professor
   of Literature Ruth Perry, who was later granted tenure and currently
   heads the Women's Studies Program. Wolff alleged that other professors
   in the literature section isolated her because of her stance on other
   personnel decisions.
   
   According to the suit, Wolff told the administration about personnel
   problems in the literature section and was later identified as the
   whistle-blower. The administration failed to act when she mentioned
   these incidents and did not protect her during the peer review
   process, the suit adds. Also, MIT did not take action against faculty
   who conducted themselves improperly, and knowingly allowed harassment
   to interfere with Wolff's work.
   
   Stephen H. Oleskey, who is representing Wolff in the suit, said, "I
   think the complaint is pretty explicit and states the case clearly.
   [The motion to dismiss is] a standard action taken by a defendant who
   wants to attempt to get a case taken out of the judicial system at an
   early stage. We'll be filing a brief on our position and expect the
   whole matter to be argued later this spring."
   
   Robert Sullivan, one of MIT's lawyers working on the case, said,
   "Everything that Professor Wolff has said about difficulties she has
   had with colleagues, and so forth, are not the kind of difficulties
   which courts look into judicially for the obvious reason that courts
   think universities and colleges should run themselves." Courts do not
   want to act as "surrogate administrators," he said.
   
   "Wolff has not alleged any acts of discrimination," Sullivan said. "If
   someone is just complaining essentially that they have run into
   hostility or disagreements, the courts don't like to get involved."
   
   A source in the literature section said that Wolff is confusing
   disagreement with harassment. The source said that Wolff blatantly
   disregarded expected standards of civility with her colleagues,
   approaching deans and other administrators rather than discussing the
   problems first.
   
   The source also said that anyone who has had extended dealings with
   Wolff would say she is a "notoriously difficult" person.
   
   Peter S. Donaldson, head of the literature faculty, said he did not
   want to comment on MIT's legal response to the case. He did say that
   he is concerned about characterizations of the literature section made
   by _The New York Times _and The Boston Globe in their articles about
   the suit. "We've been characterized as politically correct, but the
   curriculum we offer is one that ... has a strong traditional element
   to it."
   
   Perry said, "The case has no legal merit," and emphasized the fact
   that the Women's Studies Program could never have excluded Wolff,
   since she never approached the program.
   
   Perry said that according to Denise K. Magner, a reporter for _The
   Chronicle of Higher Education_, the suit was faxed to the press at the
   same time it was filed in Middlesex County Superior Court. It was
   filed on a Tuesday afternoon, and Magner called Perry for an interview
   on Wednesday. "I was stunned when [Magner] called. It was the first I
   had heard of it," Perry said.
   
   "I'm pleased that the Institute sees no merit in the suit and intends
   a vigorous defense," said Professor of Literature David Thorburn.
   "There is no substance in her suit. It is a shocking smear of decent
   faculty members."
   
   Thorburn added: "Her description of me as a tyrant of the politically
   correct is ludicrous. ... My intellectual and ideological commitments
   have always been recognized as democratic and pluralist."
   
   Provost Mark S. Wrighton said he is not in a position to comment on
   the case. Professors of Literature David M. Halperin and Theoharis C.
   Theoharis both declined to comment on the suit.
   

----
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  1 and jumped to page  14.

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.