Harrassment policy fails to protect victims

Thursday, March 12, 1998

Harrassment policy fails to protect victims

Students should take initiative to rework policy that requires
lengthy investigation

By Darnell Grisby

UCLA’s campus sexual harassment policy should be changed, as it
is overzealous in its attempts to protect members of the Academic
Senate from false sexual harassment accusations.

We all understand the importance of wanting to protect members
of the university community from unfair attacks, but many of us
feel that the university has jeopardized the rights of the victim
in the process.

Sexual harassment cases are rarely solved within a year and can
actually still be in litigation once the victim has graduated.
Three separate committees must do their own investigation of
complaints involving professors who are members of the Academic
Senate – adding an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the
process.

To add insult to injury, victims are not informed of the outcome
of their cases ; the resolutions to the problems are not reported.
Students have no idea whether the accused is simply being patted on
the wrist or shipped to Siberia.

Even worse, leaks in the process often turn to haunt those that
accuse popular professors of harassment.

In the past, supporters of accused professors have given
students a hard time sometimes making a change of department or
major necessary. This is further dramatized when students find
themselves not getting fellowships or adequate support for their
thesis.

Furthermore, if you would like to file your complaint with an
off-campus government authority, you will have to do so before your
UCLA case is solved, because chances are the statute of limitations
would have passed by the time UCLA finally comes up with a
decision.

Students are not the only ones who have suffered under the
current policy. Just a few days ago the Daily Bruin reported on a
case in which a staff person was allegedly harassed by students.
However the university failed to adequately address the
situation.

However, if you make administrators aware of the problems
inherent in their policies they will act as though they knew
nothing about the problems. Evidently they are not listening to or
are not aware of the problems that students and the staff face.

One does not need a Ph.D. to recognize the problems in the
policy, but it does take the political will. They need to
streamline the process by eliminating the number of investigations
to help reduce the time that both sides are kept in limbo. Make the
alleged victim aware of the outcome and punishments that will be
levied against the accused. We can protect the privacy of the
accused without creating a secret society that shuts out the
victim.

The university should also move away from allowing the fox to
guard the chicken coop. Why are professors deciding the fate of
their colleagues? Does this not contribute to the leaks that are so
damaging for both sides, particularly the student victim? Why not
have the whole entire process handled by a committee without
professors or the politics that they will inadvertently bring?

These few changes may be difficult to make because the politics
of the university make any substantial change very difficult. By
changing the policy, administrators will be open to the ire of
faculty members who want to take advantage of the privileges that
the current system provides.

For those faculty members who think change is good, they may
find their colleagues are far less receptive and are willing to
fight to maintain the current system. This is where the importance
of student input comes into play.

It should be absolutely abhorrent that someone in a position of
authority would be able to use students for his or her own
purposes. Far too often the system that we pay for fails to
adequately represent our viewpoints and serve to create the futures
that we want.

Demanding self-determination at the university allows us to take
the resources from the university and bring them back for our
uplift. In third world countries, people are fighting for access to
resources so that they may be used for a better standard of living.
In the same way, we are fighting for the opportunity to have
resources that are useful to us and to our communities.

Many feel that the university is directly opposed to such
self-determination. They feel that the university simply prepares
us for what society has in store. In that case, perhaps the current
sexual harassment policy works toward that goal of preparing us for
workplace harassment just as the curriculum prepares us for the
benefits of corporate America, instead of benefitting poor,
inner-city communities.

It is therefore an uphill battle; how do we as a student
community use the current system as our springboard, when it is the
very thing that is oppressing us?

In order for real change to occur in our communities, we must
change the educational system. This change is the most important
tool in making education work for the community, not just the
individual.

There is, in fact, historical evidence for such an assertion.
There is a history of students questioning the functioning of their
university and their place in it, and this questioning helps to
change our society.

It is now time that we continue to question our educational
system and the way that it handles conflicts such as sexual
harassment. This is important because the way a system deals with
conflict reveals much about the truths that govern it.

The way our beloved university deals with sexual harassment
uncovers the historical roots of its existence. The notion that
professors will be able to make unbiased decisions about their
friends and colleagues is clearly a medieval conception. The notion
that the victim should not be notified of the outcome of the case
is a conservative anti-victim stance that seeks to save face at all
costs.

The passing of the buck and the denials that the university is
likely to make when confronted about the issue show their fear of
change and accountability.

So how do we as students deal with such a sticky existence? If
we are victims of sexual harassment we must come forward and be
willing to weather the possibilities in order to make a better
future for those that follow. We must no longer accept the notion
that boundaries and models of appropriateness are "P.C."; they are
simply a human right.

We must also advocate a new committee that will make changes to
the current policy. This committee should have a high percentage of
student and staff input, and the representatives should be approved
by GSA and USAC. The committee should seek to implement a new,
friendlier policy as soon as possible.

Those that are concerned about sexual harassment should make
Chancellor Albert Carnesale and Vice Chancellor Winston Doby’s
offices aware of their concerns and ask that they take action
immediately.

If they are interested in serving student needs and interests
they will neither pass the buck nor deny the clear problems, but
will instead seek to change these problems.

Those who can change the policy are right here on the campus,
the political will simply must be there.