Letters to the Editor

   We deplore the comment made by Provost Mark S. Wrighton, "Only one
   complaint was filed against former Associate Dean James R. Tewhey
   during his tenure here and that was without merit." ["Tewhey Complaint
   Was Without Merit," Apr. 27] This comment completely erases the
   complaint made by eight members of Tewhey's staff last spring.
   Wrighton's comment also erases the complaint brought forward by staff
   member Katherine M. Nolan. Unsuccessful in using MIT's system to stop
   Tewhey's harassment (she acquired a cease-and-desist order through MIT
   Campus Police against Tewhey on February 22), Nolan was evidently
   forced to take further action outside the system and obtain a
   restraining order on April 9th from the Newton District Court against
   former Dean Tewhey because of his continued harassment.
   
   Such misinformation and distortion reported on the front page of MIT's
   student newspaper only compounds the problems emanating from the
   Residence and Campus Activities Office. While Wrighton may only know
   of one complaint, we know there were others filed with Dean for
   Student Affairs Arthur Smith, the Personnel Office, and Campus Police.
   Wrighton's evident lack of knowledge only points out the problems
   inherent in a multi-access system and demonstrates the need to
   centralize the process of addressing sexual harassment complaints.
   
   We also strongly deplore the attacks on Nolan and ask that she be
   given whatever supports and relief are possible. It is very disturbing
   that the provost felt compelled to defend Tewhey, rather than support
   Nolan, with his statement, "He [Tewhey] felt the time had come to
   resign... I agreed with his assessment and accepted his resignation
   without any prejudgement on the harassment allegations involved in the
   court order." This statement veils the reality of Tewhey's known
   harassment, evidenced by Nolan's need to use MIT's system to acquire a
   cease-and-desist order which ultimately proved ineffective. It is a
   further distortion on the part of Wrighton to suggest that this
   specific case of harassment was reducible to a contest between two
   people, rather than associated with a larger pattern of power abuse by
   Tewhey, which is the defining characteristic of harassment and
   stalking. Wrighton's comments and stance again substantially reduce
   confidence in MIT's ability to formulate, implement, and practice a
   credible sexual harassment policy and set of procedures.
   
   We also deplore Tewhey's efforts to claim that he is the real victim
   of sexual harassment and present himself as a harmed person in need of
   protection ("fears continued harassment"). From the reports, it seems
   clear that Tewhey was the perpetrator, not the victim. To cite the
   discomfitures to him inherent in the process of redressing his abuse
   of others, as harassment, is a gross manipulation and further
   traumatizing to the individuals he victimized.
   
   We urge the Institute to implement a credible harassment policy and
   procedures, to centralize the process of receiving and resolving
   sexual harassment cases in order to avoid the situation outlined
   above, and to create a system whereby victims of harassment may have
   their claims quickly and honorably addressed and resolved.
   
   Ann Russo
   
   Stephen Brophy 
   
   Selya F. R. Price '93
   
   _For the Ad Hoc Committee
   
   Against Harassment at MIT
   

----
Copyright 1993 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This storied was published on  Friday,  May 28, 1993.
Volume  113, Number 28
The story was printed on page  4.
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.