When Comfort Rules

Harvard's sexual harassment policy subverts freedom.

In the once-quiet corridors of the archaeology wing of Harvard's own Anthropology department, a Victorian sex farce is unfolding. The colorful characters include a foreign professor with a bawdy sense of humor and seven female graduate students whose dainty ears cannot endure naughty words.

Strangely, we live in a time when it is considered criminal that seven female graduates students might have been told sexually explicit jokes by Clay Professor of Scientific Archaeology Nikolaas J. van der Merwe. The students do not claim obvious transgressions such as physical assault or even the demand of sexual favors for career advancement.

And with such accusations, it is not surprising that Professor van der Merwe has denied engaging in any form of sexual harassment. The students allege only that he has told some tasteless jokes. "These allegations are ridiculous," he tells us. And he is absolutely right.

Unfortunately, the tawdry sex farce has the possibility of becoming a full-fledged tragedy. If the allegations against van der Merwe are true, the University has the power to secretly enforce severe disciplinary measures.

Current University policy regarding sexual harassment went into effect in 1984. The guidelines were developed after a female professor in the Government department accused a male professor of sexual harassment in 1983. A secret investigation ensued and the offender was confidentially sent away for a year's leave of absence. The identities and specific circumstances of the case only became public knowledge in 1991--eight years later--when the female professor proudly broke her silence during the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill fiasco.

Administrators admit that they enforce several disciplinary actions every year. And the basic reasoning for the various punishments for sexual harassment are explained in an annual Faculty report--without names, of course.

In the attempt to make the process as comfortable as possible for the accusers, the right of the accused to an open trial is dismissed as problematic. The sexual harassment bureaucracy is on an important crusade. Thus, the careers of the accused can be quietly railroaded as accusers are protected by dedicated and helpful administrators.

This means that the definition of sexual harassment is made as broad as possible--including mere "jokes, questions, or suggestions." It means that investigations and subsequent "trials" are kept completely confidential.

The result is a community which ultimately subverts its own ideals. As former president of the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts Harvey A. Silverglate warned students at Dunster House last week, principles of academic freedom and liberty are being subordinated in order to maintain "peace and quiet on campus."

The select few who decide sexual harassment cases at Harvard clearly value security and comfort at the expense of free speech and free thought. Evidently, we are meant to trust them because they mean well.

With the current policy, however, don't be surprised if first-years come to campus next year to find that the freshman seminar taught by a popular archaeology professor has been quietly canceled. The professor might mysteriously be on a leave of absence.

Brad Edward White's column appears on alternate Wednesdays.