Wolff Alleges Professional, Sexual Harassment, Settles Out of Court By Sarah Y. Keightley Contending that MIT breached its obligations as an employer by allowing a "hostile work environment" to continue, Professor of Literature Cynthia G. Wolff filed a lawsuit against MIT in April 1992. The civil action suit was settled out of court in November. As part of the settlement, neither MIT nor Wolff could disclose the terms of the settlement. According to the released joint-statement, the resolution "does not mean that either party attributes blame or concedes merit to the other's position." BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Because Wolff could never comment on the case, her allegations are paraphrased and quoted from the suit. Wolff based her suit on "the Institute's wrongful acquiescence in and perpetuation of a persistent and continuing pattern of professional, political, and sexual harassment towards [her] in the workplace." In her suit she made several allegations. The suit alleged that other professors in the literature section isolated Wolff because of her stance on particular personnel decisions -- when she voted to deny certain junior faculty tenure. In particular, 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. The suit also alleged that when Wolff voted to deny tenure to another junior faculty member in 1988, she and another female professor were verbally abused by some of their colleagues in the literature section. Furthermore, the suit alleged that Professor David M. Halperin had sexually harassed another male professor. Wolff expressed her concerns to then-Provost John M. Deutch '61 that tenure cases "were not being judged on professional criteria," that section meetings were unprofessional, and that Halperin had harassed another professor. Deutch told her that nothing could be done, according to Wolff's suit. Wolff approached the current provost, Mark S. Wrighton, in 1991. He created the Clay Committee "to review the tenure process and the literature section generally," the suit stated. The suit also claimed the Clay Committee found that a certain literature professor's tenure process and rights had been interfered with. In September 1991, Wrighton acted on this finding and suspended the literature section's personnel selection powers. Wolff said Wrighton "laid the foundation for further retaliatory action" when he later identified her as the informant whose actions led to the formation of the Clay Committee. The suit contends that MIT did not prevent retaliation against Wolff during the peer review process, did not take action against faculty who conducted themselves improperly, and knowingly allowed harassment to interfere with Wolff's work. Wolff sought damages "in an amount likely to exceed at least $50,000," according to the civil action document. PROFESSORS COMMENT ON THE SUIT The settlement agreed to by Wolff and MIT, which assigned no guilt to either party, concerned several members of the literature faculty. They felt they had no opportunity to try to disprove claims Wolff made about them. In May, Donaldson said that he was 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." After the suit was settled, Halperin said in a telephone interview that "for me, the whole affair won't be over until I find a way of clearing my name." "MIT's lack of a formal Institute-wide grievance procedure for handling sexual harassment enables charges and counter charges to be used for partisan political purposes by faculty who are fighting with one another," Halperin said. RESPONSE TO THE SUIT Wrighton said in April that the Clay Committee's report led him to conclude that "improvements were necessary." He said appointments and selections in the literature section were being handled by Head of the Literature Faculty Peter S. Donaldson, Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences Philip S. Khoury, and himself. This is "somewhat unusual," he added; normally these decision are made in the sections themselves. After the suit was filed Perry said, "My own feeling is people in the literature faculty have tried to talk to each other about our intellectual differences. ... I think the process has been a healthy and a good one -- that's why [the suit] has been quite a shock." Perry said that the Women's Studies Program could not have excluded Wolff, since she never approached the program. "Wolff has never submitted a course proposal to Women's Studies," Perry said. Isabelle de Courtivron, current head of the foreign languages and literatures section, who headed the Women's Studies Program from late 1987 to early 1989, said she did not remember getting a proposal from Wolff. According to Perry and De Courtivron, course proposals are judged by the Women's Studies Program Curriculum Committee, not by the head of the program. Thus, Perry could not have excluded Wolff from the program. MIT FILED TO DISMISS SUIT IN MAY In May, MIT attorneys filed a motion asking that Middlesex County Superior Court dismiss the case, saying that the "plaintiff's claims [rested] on allegations that she is unhappy in her relations with her colleagues, but do not show that MIT [had] done anything to impinge on any of her legal rights." 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 added. While the case was still in litigation, a member of the literature section said that Wolff was confusing disagreement with harassment. The source said that Wolff blatantly disregarded expected standards of civility with her colleagues by approaching deans and other administrators rather than discussing the problems with the individuals first. The source also said that anyone who has had extended dealings with Wolff would say she is a "notoriously difficult" person. In June, MIT filed motions for a conference and a stay in discovery, which is a halting of pretrial disclosure of pertinent facts or documents. MIT stated that "the plaintiff's complaint makes highly personal allegations about the conduct of her colleagues." The statement went on to mention that the discovery requests included 42 separate categories of documents containing "information of a highly sensitive and private nature concerning the plaintiff's colleagues." After a hearing and review in late June, MIT's motion to dismiss the case was denied. By default, the motion for a stay of discovery was also denied. On Aug. 25, a Middlesex County Superior Court judge issued a procedural order prohibiting further litigation until Sept. 8 in an effort to have the parties resolve the case. The suit was settled in late November. ---- Copyright 1993 by The Tech. All rights reserved. This story was published on Friday, January 29, 1993. Volume 113, Year in Review The story was printed on 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.