Harrassment Article Unfair

I was dismayed at the irresponsibility of the Feb. 7 Crimson article, "Allegations Divide Wing," and even more dismayed to find that irresponsibility amplified by the staff editorial and the editor's note accompanying the letter from Meredith Chesson printed on Feb. 9.

The original article was remarkable for the degree to which it relied on anonymous sources and heresay, A said that B said, and even, in the case of one statement attributed to Dean Gill, A said that B said that C said. Particularly egregious is the attitude that such heresay reporting is justified if the purported ultimate source declines comment.

I find this attitude chilling, not only for the particular disregard in this case of Ms. Chesson and other individuals, but for it's larger ramifications. By this rationale, if Jones says (for example), "Smith is widely known to be a homosexual," and Smith, when contacted by a Crimson reporter, says "I don't want to talk to you," and hangs up, because he doesn't care to discuss his sexual orientation with the reporter, on or off the record, the reporter is now justified to put Jones' statement in print.

This irresponsible corruption of journalistic ethics seems to me particularly destructive in the context of sexual harassment. Fundamental to our ability to preserve and protect the rights of individuals in this area, both accusers and accused, are the principles of confidentiality and due process. If we are to offer individuals who are aggrieved or upset or even confused and unsure the protection of confidential channels of discussion and recourse, we must all, as a community, respect that confidentiality.

Those, like Dean Gill, who accept the responsibility of upholding that confidentiality should not be pilloried for their faithfulness, nor should their silence be viewed as license to fill the void with gossip and heresay.

If, on the other hand, we are unwilling to consent to the need for confidentiality, or if we are unwilling to place our trust in those who must bear this responsibility, and feel instead that heresay and anonymous accusation are sufficient grounds for condemning and casting aside the principle of confidentiality and the process that depends on it, I see no hope that we will ever provide a mechanism by which issues of sexual harassment can be responsibly addressed.

There is no "with hunt" in the Anthropology Department (nor does the Department I belong to bear any resemblance to the riven, embattled department so colorfully described in The Crimson). I have made and will make no efforts to "discover" The Crimson's sources, nor have or would I pressure, or even ask, the reporters in question to disclosed their sources to me, in part because I respect the confidentiality the reporters no doubt promised them. Similarly, I would never seek nor allow any adverse consequences for individuals who might have spoken to The Crimson, even those who chose not to extend me the confidentiality that I extended them.

Rather, I will continue to try to do what I can to support and foster an atmosphere of respect and consideration, to listen to any individual who brings a complaint to me, to discuss options with them, to act only in ways that they are comfortable with in seeking to resolve their complaints, and to make them aware of alternative channels that may be available, all with a promise of confidentiality that I will honor even in the face of an irresponsible reporter.

There is no law that I am aware of that prohibits Crimson reporters from printing heresay and anonymous accusations, just as there is no law prohibiting them from publishing incendiary sexist tracts. There are only shared standards of responsibility and respect, the same standards that are violated when inappropriate and unwanted sexual remarks are made. I can only hope that The Crimson will see fit to realign itself with these principles and to learn from its mistakes. Peter T. Ellison

Chair, Dept. of Anthropology