A defined by the questionnaire, harassment en-compassed behavior ranging from unwanted sexually suggestive looks or gestures to attempted rape.

Female junior faculty were the category of respondents reporting the most incidents of harassment. Forty-nine percent said they had experienced harassment; 17 percent cited explicit verbal or physical advances.

A report released with the survey results provided detailed accounts of several students' experiences. Those accounts included the story of a graduate student who slept with her academic adviser when he threatened her to "go to bed [with him] or else."

One of the study's more dramatic finding was the fact that almost none of the self-reported victors sought recourse through the University.

The overall survey results combined with the revelation about the Dominguez case, catalyzed a broad based movement calling for official scrutiny of the sexual harassment issue.

In the wake of the Dominguez case, professors in the Government Department unanimously endorsed a resolution condemning sexual harassment and pledging to combat it.

The faculty of the department also established its own committee on sexual harassment in September 1983. The four-member panel in December 1983 recommended the appointment of in house counselors to advise students and staff facing sexual pressures within the department.

Following the lead of the Government faculty, the Undergraduate October 1983 unanimously voted to establish an ad hoc committee on sexual harassment. The council later joined forces with the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS), calling for the appointment of a student faculty committee to examine the issue.

As pressure for administrative action mounted Assistant Dean of the Faculty Phyllis Keller then Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education Sidney Verba '53 prepared a Faculty Policy statements and new procedural guidelines for acting on charges of harassment.

Verbs and Keller presented their proposals in early February 1984, drawing mixed reviews in an emotionally charged open forum Debate centered on their recommendation that the Faculty establish a central office with the sole function of supervising the grievance process.

Opponents of the plan argued that the creation of a special harassment office would blow the problem cut of proportion Advocates of the proposal said that only an official administrative arm could give weight and credibility to the new procedures.

With the issue nearing resolution in the spring of 1984, more than 1000 students signed an RUS petition backing the proposed central office.

Despite that show of support, the Faculty ultimately scrapped plans to add a new branch to the University bureacracy. The policy adopted by the Faculty in May 1984 incorporated few major changes to the 1978 guidelines. While the new system placed added emphasis on informal channels for seeking advice and resolving conflicts, it mainly elaborated on existing procedures employing a network of counselors and investigators to pursue harassment complaints.

Under the revised procedures, students and faculty may call matters involving sexual harassment to the attention of designated University officials. For undergraduates, these officers include senior tutors, senior advisors, masters, and Assistant Dean of the College Marlyn M. Lewis '70.

These officials advise victims of their options and may help them pursue informal solutions.