To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was pleased to see that The Crimson took a stand on the issue of the Thomas hearings. I was also pleased to see that the dissenting editors John A. Cloud and Allan S. Galper pointed out that perhaps the staff overestimated its ability to form a conclusion about what happened between Judge Clarence Thomas and Professor Anita F. Hill, and I agree with their reasoning behind why Thomas should not have been confirmed.

But what disgusted me was the dissent offered by editors Liam T. A. Ford, Matthew J. McDonald and Mark J. Sneider. While I agree with their point that the Crimson staff is not omniscient and cannot know exactly what happened between Thomas and Hill, they have oversimplified sexual harassment.

Anita Hill took a risk in coming forward with her accusations. She risked her privacy and her standing within her university. She also risked not being believed. And if people believe she fabricated this story of harassment, she could inadvertently convince women not to come forward about being harassed.

The opinions expressed by these editors in discussing the credibility of Hill's testimony force me to repeat the phrase that I've heard exasperated women say to men again and again this weekend: You just don't get it.

Ford, McDonald and Sneider claim that they don't understand why Anita Hill would follow Thomas to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if he was harassing her as she describes. They are telling women that if they don't like the way they are being treated, they should simply run away. If you can't be one of the boys or deal with their treating you like like a woman, then get out.

The consequence of this attitude is that women are "driven" away from certain careers because they are made to feel uncomfortable or inferior. For example, aggressive male participation in the classroom has often discouraged women from concentrating in fields like economics or physics. Women have also left jobs in order to avoid sexual harassment or have been forced to decline promotions offered in return for sexual favors. Finally, women are told that if they go to fraternities or final clubs, they should expect to be physically harassed. Let's not make excuses for harassment simply because men are men.

Furthermore, imagine a hypothetical situation. A man is working for a superior, another man, who continually makes comments in private about the size of his penis, the pleasure he has brought to others through oral sex, pornographic movies which depict scenes of bondage, etc. Though the first man may feel uncomfortable with such open talk about sexual matters, he would not mention it to anyone. Because it does not represent an overt sexual threat, it would be excused as unusually vulgar male banter.

But if we change the situation to one in which the superior is a homosexual man who has made unsuccessful advances to his assistant, then the nature of the discussion becomes quite different. In this situation, the conversation cannot be seen as normal office conversation. A barrier has been crossed. The superior can rightly be accused of sexual harassment.

Yet the question remains: Would the assistant speak out about the kinds of things that his superior was saying to him? Would he be willing to have people strip search him with their eyes to see if he was too good looking, or too flirtatious, as if to suggest that perhaps he wanted this kind of attention? Would this man be willing to admit to others that someone had objectified him and was putting his sexuality and attractiveness before his abilities at work?

I suggest that this man would not speak out. In conversations this weekend with many men, all agreed they would be very uncomfortable speaking out. Furthermore, if the superior in that situation were to receive an important promotion, and asked the other man to accompany him, I think the assistant might go with him because it represented a promotion for him, too.

He might even remain in contact with that man later when they were no longer working together; say, give him a call every year or so. After all, as any adviser at the Office of Career Services will tell you, one never knows where the next job offer will come from, or who might suggest you to someone else.

Yes, Anita Hill was ambitious. She was called "arrogant," a "relentless debater" and the "kind of woman who always made you feel like she was not going to take anything from anyone." While this characterization may be true, it is also true that these attributes and this behavior would be tolerated and perhaps even admired in a man. "Anthony" Hill would be praised for his "self-assurance," his "determination" and his "ability to not be railroaded or diverted from his true goals."

Similarly, his ability to play tough and quietly suffer humiliation from his superior would have, in the end, won him a promotion. No one would have ever known about the things he endured, not even his secretary. And maybe only 10 years later, when his previous supervisor was to be placed in a position of unusual power over the freedoms of others, would he break his silence.

My point is that no one should have to endure that kind of behavior, men or women, from a superior or an equal, and be afraid of speaking out. This situation demonstrates that rules for professional interaction must be redrawn. Women and men will learn to co-exist and work together peacefully only if people reconsider the distinction between sexual conversation and sexual aggression. Only through serious consideration of claims of harassment and a careful analysis of the kinds of verbal and non-verbal messages that are being sent can we make sure that the workplace is free of sexual intimidation. This is a question of the fundamental respect and consideration for those we work and associate with.

Regardless of whether or not one chooses to believe Anita Hill's accusation, I feel that one should make the decision for the right reasons, not because of misunderstandings about the nature of sexual aggression.

Now do you get it? Allison B. Clark '92   Administrative Director   Women's Leadership Project