A brief analysis of the Ad Hoc Committee Proposed MIT Harassment Policy:
-Seth Finkelstein

	To begin with, all actions, even those away from MIT's
jurisdiction, are covered. (.. any conduct, on or off campus ..., I,start)

	The definitions of harassment are extremely vague and broad:

"It includes, but is not limited to, the following behaviors:
1) sexist remarks and sexist behavior
2) insults, including lewd, obscene, or sexually suggestive remarks or conduct
3) visual displays of degrading sexual images or pornography"
... (I,middle)
	This is further extended by "... which are also anti-gay,
anti-Semitic, classist, anti-disability, or otherwise discriminatory are
actionable under this definition.". Since the "harassment behaviors",
which 1) above includes "remarks", and "suggestive remarks" this becomes
a very extensive speech ban.
	This potential for abuse is further strengthened by "Persons who
have been harassed by actions not specifically directed at them can seek
redress through this policy." (I,middle).
	In addition, any adjudged violation, no matter how minor, will subject
the convicted to unspecified "mandatory minimum penalties" (III.D,start).

	Note that in several places (II.B,middle, III.A-1, III.A-1-a) the
language slips out of qualifiers such as "accused harasser", to
prejudicial statements such as "The Advocate informs the harasser that
his/her name has not been recorded at this point, recommends that the
accused harasser stop the harassment, and informs him/her that if the
harassment continues, further action may be taken by the complainant."
(III.A-1-a) Only an accusation has been made at this point, but the
above clearly treats that as equivalent to guilt.

	The complainant receives the assistance of an appointed staff
member to prosecute the case (II.A,middle, III.C-3), and the people who
decide the cases are recruited by the same prosecuting staff (VIII,end).
The defendant receives no such benefits (III.C-3).

	There is no presumption of innocence, no concept of innocent
until proven guilty (III.C).

	There is no standard of proof required (III.C-5).

	The defendant has no right to question their accuser (III.C-4).

	The appointed person prosecuting the case and the deciders may
go through records, specific to the accused and general, (IV-3, note how
interacts with III.C-3 and VI.A-8) to help in constructing cases. The
defendant has no such assistance to refute this, and cannot have someone
look for or obtain similar evidence against the accuser.

	The people deciding cases are appointed by various activist and
advocacy groups (VIII). Note the phrase regarding Sloan "... or from
other graduate student women's groups as they form" makes this very clear.

	The skeptical might point to the phrase "In some cases, selected
behaviors on the list above, may not have the effect of creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for any persons
involved.  In such a case, this policy has no application." (I,end) as
a potential limiting construction and safeguard against abuse. Given the
massive stacking above, it makes far more sense to view this as a
specific escape hatch to let off the accused harassers with whom the
deciders are in political sympathy, even though they may be otherwise
clearly guilty under the given definition.

	In sum, the policy has a scope which encompasses almost
anything, extremely biased procedures, and decisions made by very
partial parties.  I cannot see how it can reasonably be thought of as an
effort to deal with an important social problem, as opposed to an
attempt to impose extensive ideological policing.