This is a copy of a letter sent to Dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky.

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS) believes that the University's handling of the recent sexual harassment case involving Professor Jorge Dominguez points out a number of serious flaws in the University's policy and grievance procedure on sexual harassment. Professor Dominguez' behavior was disgraceful. Yet even more disgraceful is Harvard's continued refusal to address this problem with the seriousness it deserves. This refusal has been costly both to individuals and to the community as a whole. For this reason, we feel it is important to shift the focus of public attention from Professor Dominguez to the issue of Harvard's responsibility for protecting its faculty, students and staff from the destructive impact of sexual harassment.

The Dominguez case is not an isolated incident. Sexual harassment intrudes on the lives of many members of the Harvard-Radcliffe community. The lack of a strong university stance only makes it more likely that such cases will continue to occur. In fact, we must ask ourselves if a stronger University position might not have deterred this particular case.

At present, Harvard's policy statement is too weak to serve as an effective deterrent. The language and tone of a policy statement are critical in conveying to potential harassers that such behavior will be taken seriously, and to potential victims that the University will respond sensitively to reports of sexual harassment. Harvard's statement achieves neither of these goals effectively.

Other university policy statements place prohibitions against sexual harassment in the context of strong anti-discrimination statements (MIT, Wisconsin); discuss the "devastating effects" of sexual harassment on individuals and the academic community (Yale, Minnesota); encourage victims to use the university grievance procedure (MIT, Stanford); and emphasize that such behavior is grounds for strong action by the university (Stanford).

An ideal policy statement would include all of these provisions'. Harvard's policy (as it appears on p. 75 of the Student Handbook) contains none of them. It states only that sexual harassment is "unacceptable" because it is "unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic enterprise." The latter part of this statement is good, but it is still an understatement of the effects of sexual harassment. Furthermore, sexual harassment is far more than merely "unprofessional behavior." It is sex discrimination and it is illegal under federal law.

The policies and procedures of other universities give the impression that these institutions take the issue seriously and are sincerely concerned about the effects of sexual harassment. Harvard's policy and procedure seem, in contrast, to be passive and designed to meet minimum standards (if that).

Harvard's grievance procedure reflects a similar lack of understanding of the nature and extent of sexual harassment. RUS shares the University's concern with due process, and with protecting the rights of all parties in a formal complaint. However, we believe that the present procedure is heavily biased in favor of the harasser.

The flaws which create this bias are largely sins of omission. Harvard could (and in fact may be legally required to) do much more than it presently does to encourage victims to come forward. Some of these flaws include:

1)Illegality. The policy does not contain any statement that sexual harassment is illegal. Realizing that it is a right, not a privilege, to be able to work or study in an environment free of sexual harassment can make a critical difference in the willingness of victims to come forward.

2)Fear of Reprisal. It is illegal to seek retribution against someone for filing a complaint of sexual harassment, and the University is required to protect victims from reprisal to the best of its ability. Because Harvard makes no mention of this fact in its policy or procedure, fear of reprisal probably prevents many victims from reporting incidents of sexual harassment.

3)Due Process. Harvard's approach to formal complaints violates ordinary conceptions of due process. In the legal system plaintiff and defendant are equally situated--each has an advocate and the case is decided by an impartial body which is not closely aligned with the interests of either party. Not only does Harvard not provide for victim advocacy, but several aspects of its approach give the harasser a privileged position vis-a-vis the victim.

For instance, once a formal complaint is filed, the University will ask the accused harasser for a written response. The harasser is therefore allowed to see the victim's complaint, but the victim is not necessarily allowed to see the harasser's response. Harvard thereby omits a critical component of due process; the right of each side to respond to the evidence gathered by the other.

In the criminal justice system there are also stringent rules surrounding the gathering and admissibility of evidence. The fairness of the investigation of a case is an important issue in the fairness of the overall proceedings. Harvard has no set procedures for investigating a case. Harvard presents the victim with its conclusions, but ordinarily allows no input from her or him during the investigation, and no response after the investigation. The victim has no means of verifying any of Harvard's findings in a case. This situation essentially places the burden of proof entirely on the victim--yet another violation of due process.