Faculty Asks RUS About Harassment

The Faculty Council yesterday discussed sexual harassment policy with three members of the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS) and asked the group to prepare a formal recommendation of what policy and definition it would urge the Faculty to adopt on the issue.

RUS has lobbied heavily this term for the Faculty to implement clear guidelines on sexual harassment, but the organization, which represents female undergraduates, has never said specifically what it wants to see in the policy.

"We've always felt that the Faculty would want to set their own policy, but they seemed 'very interested in student input." Victoria L. Eustus '83, one of the RUS members to address the Council said afterwards RUS members will offer a policy to the group at its next meeting on November 24, according to RUS President Sharon J. Orr '83.

"Substantial progress was made in uncovering and defining the issues, but clear answers are still a good way off." John P. Murquand, secretary of the Council, said yesterday.

Disagreement

Members of the council disagreed on several issues that are viewed as crucial to defining a policy. The unresolved questions include how sharply to circumscribe contact between Faculty and students, and how to deal with publicity of particular cases of sexual harassment and of the issue in general.

While publicizing the issue could help victims see that the University cares about their predicament some members of the Council reportedly expressed concern that too much exposure might lead to a general parnaoia which would decrease overall contact between professors and students.

Faculty members have repeatedly expressed concern that informing student. about the details of how any particular complaint is resolved gives the student power to punish the professor further by publicizing the case in the national media.

Marlyn M. Lewis 70 assistant dean of the College, submitted memorandum at last week's meeting warning that informing a student of the resolution of a case is complicated, because of the difficulty of restricting the use of that information.

"They did seem to agree that they ought to do more publicity, and that they want some kind of policy statement," Orr said. The specifics remain to be cleared up, she added