Equal Respect

CLOSE TO 10 years after women first moved into Harvard dorms and began receiving Harvard diplomas, a series of events this year gave a harsh reminder that equal acceptance for women has not proceeded as completely as some had thought. Perhaps more than any other recent year, the 1983-84 academic term has witnessed several jarring manifestations of discriminatory treatment of or attitudes toward women on campus.

The incidents have revealed and intensified a cynicism among some women about their acceptance at Harvard. While the University has, to its credit, taken certain steps to combat its historical poor treatment of its women scholars and students, many remain unconvinced of Harvard's commitment to women's rights. Harvard has simply been unable or willing to take the bold measures needed to dispel this skepticism.

The first shock came early in the fall, with the news that Professor of Government Jorge I. Dominguez had been officially punished by Dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky for sexually harassing a junior faculty member in the department. The University confirmed that a "serious" harassment case had occurred in the Government department, but refused to disclose the name of the harasser, or the punishment meted out. The response was in keeping with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences' official policy not to disclose any particulars in harassment cases, and its more informal policy to consider such cases a "private matter" between the Dean and the harasser.

Rosovsky's refusal to detail the action taken in the Dominguez case understandably provoked strong protest from sections of campus. The Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS) strongly condemned the University's response as inadequate while several graduate and undergraduate students chose to boycott a class taught by Dominguez to protest the University's handling of the case. "Because there is no public statement (on the case), the University makes taking his course a political act," one student said at the time.

Concern about the University's treatment of harassment intensified a month later when, in late October, the results of a University-wide sexual harassment survey showed that more than one-third of campus females felt they had experienced some form of sexual harassment. Of that number, however, a scant 15 percent discussed the matter with a University official and virtually none filed formal complaints. Many respondents cited ignorance of grievance procedures or a perceived lack of University concern as reasons for not filing complaints against their harassers.

The survey seemed to spark the Faculty into action at last. Despite a year-long review of harassment grievance procedures last year that ended with no proposals for change, the Faculty Council, the Faculty's executive steering committee, reopened its discussions on the issue. After hearing the views of RUS officials and several experts on harassment, the Council debated a sweeping proposal, to establish a general harassment policy to address conflicts arising on the basis of gender, race, religious, sexual orientation or other factors. The plan stressed informal channels to handle complaints, but also called for the creation of a central office to handle grievances and disseminate information about harassment.

Despite a favorable response from student groups active on the issue, the Faculty Council backed off on establishing a general harassment policy and with it, the idea for a central office--instead opting to clarify and streamline existing procedures. This, despite the indisputable fact that such an office would provide a highly visible resource for harassment victims, as well as a tangible indication of the University's commitment to deterring harassment. Only with such a demonstration of commitment on the part of the University will victims feel comfortable enough to step forward with complaints, the proponents of a central office have correctly argued.

THE QUESTION OF GOOD FAITH, then, has become the focus of much debate, but it is precisely on this issue of credibility that the University's efforts appear to be flagging. Skepticism arose during the handling of the Dominguez case; it became more widespread as the results of the survey became known; and, for some at least, gained a bitter edge with the Faculty Council's decision to reject the proposal for a general harassment policy and central office. "They're saying, 'We're giving you an opportunity to trust us,' and not giving us any reason to trust them," said Joseph P. DiNunzio '84, one of the authors of the harassment survey. "I don't trust them, given the way they've handled the Dominguez case, the data and the debate," he went on to say.

University commitment to the full equality of women within the community was again at issue this spring when a copy of the Pi Eta Club's official newsletter became public. The newsletter used violent and crude imagery to advertise in upcoming "Pigfest," including referring to women as "slobbering bovines fresh for the daughter and "grateful heffers [sic]." Cries of outrage were coupled with calls for the University to issue a prompt condemnation of the document, and this time officials were more prompt in their response. President Bok and Dean of the College John B. Fox '59 issued strongly worded condemnations--as did Radcliffe President Matina S. Horner a week later.

Nonetheless, the statements were not enough to dilute the accumulated cynicism about Harvard's lackadaisacal attention to women's concerns. The high incidence of sexual harassment and the Pi Eta newsletter are symptoms of the same disease--sexism. And it is hard for many women here not to be discouraged by its manifestation this year, especially in light of--despite some progress over the past several years--Harvard's laughable percentage of female professors and administrators.

No doubt progress is being made, Harvard, for example, this year tenured three women--increasing its number of tenured women scholars from 18 to 21, The Faculty has also taken a decisive step to holster its long-stagnant Women's Studies program, as it started a search for its first tenured professor in the area.

But the fact of the matter is that the University is reaping the bitter fruit of its past negligence. Administrators may be sincere when they voice a commitment to vigorously deterring harassment and punishing actual transgressions, but such protestations cannot dispel the cynicism engendered by remarks from male professors ridiculing the idea of sexual harassment for example, a professor's remark, as reported in the survey that harassment was only the product of "feminine hysteria." Bold measures are needed to combat such myopia. Sadly enough, however, when hold measures were proposed this year--for instance to establish a central harassment office--the courage of the Faculty evaporated.