661 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/14/94 9:00am)
Responding to a string of harassment and discrimination accusations made against a national law firm, the Law School has asked recruiters from the firm to postpone a recruiting visit scheduled for this week. Officials from the University's Career Planning and Placement Office are scheduled to meet today with Law students to set up a formal procedure to further investigate whether Baker & McKenzie, the world's largest law firm, is in compliance with the University's non-discrimination policy. The University's non-discrimination policy states that firms recruiting on campus may not discriminate against prospective employees or current employees because of race, sexual orientation or gender. Two lawsuits, filed by former employees of Baker & McKenzie against the firm have caused members of the University's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Law Students' Association to ask the Law School to ban the firm from recruiting on campus. In 1993, the New York State Division of Human Rights ruled that the firm dismissed attorney Geoffrey Bowers in 1986 after learning he had AIDS. Bowers died in 1987 and his estate was awarded $500,000 by the Human Rights Division. The case is currently under appeal in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. Also this month, a San Francisco jury awarded Baker & McKenzie secretary Rena Weeks $7.1 million after finding that the firm failed to stop a partner from harassing her. Law students and LGBLSA representatives Anthony Falzon and Rose Weber met with a sub-committee comprised of faculty and students in July to discuss the Bowers case. Falzon and Weber then filed a formal complaint that was mailed to Baker & McKenzie, according to Falzon. The firm replied in August, giving its position on the Bowers case. "We received a letter in which the firm maintained that it had not discriminated against Bowers," Law School Dean Colin Diver said. "The firm claimed that it would be vindicated on appeal." Upon receiving the letter, which also contained a description of the firm's own non-discrimination policy instituted in 1990, the sub-committee reconvened to resolve the issue. On September 1, the subcommittee members decided not to take action against Baker & McKenzie. Instead, they asked for more information concerning how the firm's non-discrimination policy is carried out and regular updates concerning the appeal, said Associate Law Professor Alan Lerner, who is also the sub-committee chairperson. The information provided by Baker & McKenzie and a description of the Bowers case were also made available to Law students interested in the firm. Several issues regarding the Bowers case affected the sub-committee's decision, according to Lerner. He said the firm was not barred because, among other things, the subcommittee did not have information to show that the firm currently discriminates. "We also learned of other instances when the the firm was aware that certain employees had AIDS and was very supportive," Lerner said. Sub-committee members also said they feel reluctant to penalize Baker & McKenzie while the Bowers case is still under appeal. "Because the case was still on appeal it was possible that the decision would be reversed," Lerner said. Enraged by the outcome of the meeting with the faculty, Falzon and Weber wrote another letter appealing the decision. "In our letter, we said that if action was not taken we would go to the national media [and] picket at the recruiting site," Falzon said. The case has now been handed over to the Career Planning and Placement Committee. After emergency meetings that arose following the Weeks verdict, the committee decided to defer Baker & McKenzie's scheduled on-campus recruiting visit, making it the first university in the country to take action against the firm in this case. "The finding of the jury in the Weeks trial was that there had been an ongoing pattern of discrimination which is contrary to our policy," Lerner said. "There was evidence that other women besides Weeks had been harassed and that the partners were aware of this." For now, Baker & McKenzie is awaiting the Law School's decision. "Whether the accusations are founded or unfounded is beside the point," said firm Recruiting Director Ann Ogburn. "We are just going to wait for the Law School's decision and then we will decide what to do."
(09/02/94 9:00am)
The new Code of Student Conduct, recommended by former interim Provost Marvin Lazerson, was approved by former interim President Claire Fagin and became effective July 1. The code replaces the Code of General Conduct and the Racial Harassment Policy, Part II of which is commonly called the "speech code." "I think that I would call it a minimalist code in a sense, in that I think it says what has to be said without going into the kinds of detail that are not only excessive but are also misleading and can eventually be misconstrued," Fagin said this summer. The final edition of the code -- two previous editions were published in issues of the Almanac for comment -- outlines the "Rights of Student Citizenship" and the "Responsibilities of Student Citizenship." Among each student's "rights" are "the right to freedom of thought and expression" and "the right to be free from discrimination." But the most striking change from the old Racial Harassment Policy appears in section (d) of the students' "Responsibilities" section. "The University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs," the code reads. "However, the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action." But it goes on to state that "student speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable laws or University regulations or policies." The old Racial Harassment Policy stated that "no member of the University community may engage in racial harassment, regardless of time or place." Fagin said she received many complaints about a sentence in an earlier version of the code which added that "patterns of student speech or expression may constitute conduct, and as such, they may be subject to discipline." That passage was finally deleted from the code. The new Code is based on recommendations from the faculty and student Judicial Revision Oversight Committee, comments from members of the University community and General Counsel, and changes made by Lazerson. "I felt very, very strongly about the students who participated in this and presented it," Fagin said. "I think that?to go beyond the students' opinions would not have been keeping with what we have been trying to do this year." The new code received mixed reaction from students and faculty on campus over the summer. College senior and Undergraduate Assembly member Dan Schorr – who last year founded an organization known as the First Amendment Task Force to abolish the so-called "speech code" – said he is pleased with the new policy. "I think it's a good solution to the debate that's been raging over the past few years at Penn," he said. "For the most part it will protect freedom of speech on campus, while still addressing the concerns of civility." Committee on Strengthening the Community Chairperson Gloria Chisum agreed. "It's a very good statement [that is] consistent with what the Commission?recommended," she said. History Professor Alan Kors also praised the University for "an honest attempt to abolish the speech code," but he said the new code could still use changes. "It desperately needs an equal protection clause," he said. "No one [should] be prosecuted for any offense that would be tolerated from another member of the community." Kors said the inclusion of such a clause would "ensure the abolition of the single most frightening aspect, morally, of the prior code -- which was its double standard." In addition, Kors said part III (d) of the code is unnecessarily vague, giving it a "potential for abuse." Bob Schoenberg, coordinator for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Community at Penn program, said reaction in the gay community is varied. "The lesbian, gay, bisexual community is not of one mind politically," he said. "There are people who have the strong conviction that speech per se can be hurtful and should be punishable, and others who believe that despite the fact that there are names they are called which are hurtful to them, that others have the right to speak freely." College junior Eden Jacobowitz -- who was charged under the old Racial Harassment Policy for yelling "water buffalo" at five black women in 1993 -- said the University could have solved the speech code debate in one sentence. "Basically the school should just say, 'students at the University of Pennsylvania have the same rights as people everywhere else in the United States," he said.
(06/30/94 9:00am)
Cherry Hill High School East '93 Cherry Hill, N.J. Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield, who was accused of sexual harassment by former student Lisa Topol, resigned from the University on April 26 amidst hearings investigating the matter. According to prepared statements released by both Woodfield and the University, Woodfield admitted to having sexual relations with Topol. The releases did not mention any misconduct concerning sexual harassment. "Professor Woodfield has admitted that he engaged in sexual relations with a student in his class and that this was was unethical under the University's policies. Professor Woodfield regrets his behavior and, by resigning, takes full responsibility for it, " the University's statement said. Woodfield said recently that he always admitted to having sexual relations with Lisa Topol, relations which, according to him, were initiated by her and occurred on only one occasion. Aside from the University procedures, Topol filed suit against the University last March after she alleged that administrators mishandled her sexual harassment complaint against Woodfield. And, Topol is also suing Bates College, the institution where Woodfield was previously employed, for withholding information of previous sexual harassment complaints from the University when Woodfield applied for a teaching position here. Woodfield also criticized University procedure in his case. Woodfield was upset that his courseload was removed last fall before an official hearing occurred. According to Topol's suit, the professor had sexual relations with Topol for the first three months of 1993. Woodfield's former lawyer confirmed the allegations. Topol also alleged that Woodfield singled her out in class and made insulting comments to her during the year. University policy states that "because the relationship between teacher and student is central to the academic mission of the University?any sexual relations between any teacher and a student of that teacher are inappropriate." Topol said in the suit that administrators "failed to investigate her complaints, or otherwise take any action to determine whether or not there existed grounds to suspend or terminate Woodfield." While her complaint involving the comments and treatment in the classroom was submitted to the University Ombudsman in March of 1993, the hearings were not scheduled until eight months later. Topol's suit alleges that School of Arts and Sciences Dean Rosemary Stevens held onto the complaint for five months, until August, 1993, even though University policy requires that the complaint reach the committee on academic responsibility within 20 days of being filed. "The [Faculty] Handbook says that [the dean] has 20 days to come up with charges," said English Professor Paul Korshin, Woodfield's faculty liaison in the proceedings. "In fact, it took six months to know what the charges were and eight months to get them formally written down," he said. The University Ombudsman had assured Topol that the complaint would be forwarded and that it would be resolved before last summer, according to the suit. But the committee did not conclude that there was sufficient reason to charge Woodfield until November. Meanwhile, a second complaint surfaced from Woodfield, whose courseload had been removed for the fall semester of 1993. Since officials say that not assigning a professor a courseload is in effect an act of suspension, Woodfield filed a complaint with faculty grievance officer Sol Goodgal, a Microbiology Professor. After Goodgal refused to act on the complaint, Woodfield approached the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility. And according to Woodfield, the Committee concluded that Stevens had violated policy by removing Woodfield's courseload. Alice Ballard, Topol's attorney, said her client has gone through a great deal of stress waiting for the University to take action against her former professor. "This case isn't about Woodfield, it's about an institutional failure to respond and deal with a problem that's right under their noses," she said.
(06/30/94 9:00am)
The new Code of Student Conduct -- which was approved by Interim President Claire Fagin last week and will become effective tomorrow -- has received a mixed reaction from students, faculty and administrators on campus. Part III (d) of the code states that while "the University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs?the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action." But it goes on to state that "student speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable laws or University regulations or policies." Some praised the code for allowing genuine freedom of expression at the University. Others said the code was too vague and could not be enforced. College senior and Undergraduate Assembly member Dan Schorr said he was pleased with the new code. "I think it's a good solution to the debate that's been raging over the past few years at Penn and I hope other campuses use it as a model," he said. "For the most part it will protect freedom of speech on campus while still addressing the concerns of civility." Committee on Strengthening the Community Chairperson Gloria Chisum agreed. "It's a very good statement [that is] consistent with what the Commission on Strengthening the Community recommended," she said. "It emphasizes that students have both rights and responsibilities." History Professor Alan Kors also praised the University for what he called "an honest attempt to abolish the speech code," but he said that one essential clause is missing and several paragraphs should be rephrased. "It desperately needs an equal protection clause," he said. "No one [should] be prosecuted for any offense that would be tolerated from another member of the community." Kors added that the inclusion of such a clause would "ensure the abolition of the single most frightening aspect, morally, of the prior code -- which was its double standard." In addition, Kors said part III (d) of the code is unnecessarily vague, giving it a "potential for abuse." "There's no way of knowing what it means," he said, referring to the sentence that speech "may be subject to discipline." College junior Eden Jacobowitz -- who was charged under the old Racial Harassment Policy for yelling "water buffalo" at five black women -- agreed that part III (d) is still ambiguous and said it is not much different from the last code. "This new speech code still allows the school to punish on the basis of speech," he said. "I understand how other people can read into it more optimistically, but it takes experience to realize what kind of crap the school is up to again." But Schorr said the code had to be somewhat ambiguous for it to work. "To a limited extent it is ambiguous, but you can't formulate a speech regulation without being ambiguous," he said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's notion of "clear and present danger," which Schorr says "has a lot of leeway for interpretation." Bob Schoenberg, coordinator for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Community at Penn program, said reaction in the gay community is similar to reaction in any community -- varied. "The lesbian, gay, bisexual community is not of one mind politically," he said. "There are people who have the strong conviction that speech per se can be hurtful and should be punishable, and others who believe that despite the fact that there are names they are called which are hurtful to them, that others have the right to speak freely. "It is difficult to define what is hurtful to the extent that it should be punishable," he added. Jacobowitz, who said he thinks "water buffalo" would not be punishable under the new policy even though it should not have been considered under the old policy either, added that the University could have solved the speech code debate in one sentence. "Basically the school should just say, 'students at the University of Pennsylvania have the same rights as people everywhere else in the United States," he said.
(06/23/94 9:00am)
The new Code of Student Conduct, recommended by Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson, has been approved by Interim President Claire Fagin and will become effective officially on July 1. The code will replace the current Code of General Conduct and the Racial Harassment Policy, Part II of which is commonly called the "speech code." "I think that I would call it a minimalist code in a sense, in that I think it says what has to be said without going into the kinds of detail that are not only excessive but are also misleading and can eventually be misconstrued," Fagin said yesterday. The final edition of the code -- two previous editions were published in issues of the Almanac for comment -- outlines both the "Rights of Student Citizenship" and the "Responsibilities of Student Citizenship." Among each student's "rights" are "the right to freedom of thought and expression" and "the right to be free from discrimination." But the most striking change from the old Racial Harassment Policy appears in section (d) of the students' "Responsibilities" section. "The University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs," the code reads. "However, the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action." The old Racial Harassment Policy stated simply that "no member of the University community may engage in racial harassment, regardless of time or place." Section (d) did not pass without its share of controversy, though. Fagin said she received many complaints from all around the Unviersity about a sentence in an earlier version of the code which added that "patterns of student speech or expression may constitute conduct, and as such, they may be subject to discipline." That passage was finally deleted from the code, because, as Fagin said, there could have been "a thousand interpretations as to what 'patterns' meant." The new Code is based on recommendations from the faculty and student Judicial Revision Oversight Committee, comments from members of the University community and General Counsel, and changes made by Lazerson. Acting Vice Provost for University Life Valarie Swain-Cade McCoullum said yesterday she is in favor of the new code because it protects everyone's right to freedom of expression. "I believe very, very strongly in the freedom of speech," she said. "For me, a policy that supports the freedom of individuals to speak forcefully is very important for all communities, but particularly important to an educational community." But, she added, "there is a community responsibility to rebut speech that is hurtful." Fagin said that students were involved throughout the process of developing the new code, and that the role of the students was an important one. "I felt very, very strongly about the students who participated in this and presented it," she said. "I think that?to go beyond the students' opinions would not have been keeping with what we have been trying to do this year." Fagin added that the clarity of the new code should avoid any confusion of the University's rules in the future.
(06/02/94 9:00am)
Cases like former Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield's sexual harassment charges may not be as rare as many at the University would like to think. Professors and students nationwide who believe they should be allowed to have intimate relationships are coming together in a new group -- CASE, or Consenting Academics for Sexual Equity. Barry Dank, a sociology professor at California State University at Long Beach, founded the group --which is "committed to the principle of consent regarding intimate relationships" -- on the Internet. "We regard it as an inappropriate intrusion for universities to ban consenting intimate relationships between students and professors," Dank said in an Internet post. He added in an interview that many problems arise because of the false perception that asymmetrical relationships -- where one partner is in an inherently higher power position than the other -- cannot be consensual because the subordinate person loses the ability to give consent. "What we're concerned about is people who say the professor who is dating a student?has abused the student," Dank said, adding that this type of thinking also labels the professor as a "predatory lecher" and the adult student as the "innocent victim." While CASE does not believe that universities should prohibit any type of asymmetrical relationships, many members believe professors should not date students who are in their classes. "It's just really difficult to be in that situation because of the conflict of interest, because of any kind of favoritism that might be present," said Leslie Cole, a graduate student at the University of Southern California who dated a professor when she was an undergraduate student. "I would have a lot of problems with that." Phillip Gay, a sociology professor at San Diego State University, said he thinks the power advantage in an asymmetrical relationship actually shifts if professors date their own students. "It seems to me that once a professor becomes involved in a relationship with the student, the power shifts to the student because the student is in the position to make all kinds of accusations," he said. "You don't have power over a student once they're not in your class -- then you're just talking about another individual." Cole said universities should simply acknowledge that intimate relationships will occur between consenting adults. "In any environment in which you spend a great deal of time, intimate relationships do occur," she said. "CASE is about consensual relationships and the freedom to decide. "If you are over 18 you are an adult in this country," she added. "You should be able to make the decision as to whom you are going to have a relationship with." CASE also rejects the concept that consenting adult sexual relationships can be called "sexual harassment" by others, according to Dank's Internet post. Sexual harassment cannot occur unless the activity is unwanted, he added. At the University, Woodfield recently resigned amidst allegations of sexual harassment when he engaged in sexual activities with former student Lisa Topol. Dank, who has never spoken with Woodfield, said he was opposed to the way the University handled the case. "The University of Pennsylvania really didn't want to explore the ethical ramifications of the Woodfield case," he said. "This is typical of many academics -- they simply state it is unethical and then go on to another subject." Professors or students who are interested in joining CASE should call (310)985-4236, or e-mail CASE at CASE@beach1.csulb.edu on the Internet.
(05/13/94 9:00am)
Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield, who was accused of sexual harassment by former student Lisa Topol, resigned from the University on April 26 amidst hearings investigating the matter. Woodfield's resignation, part of a settlement between him and the University, allows many questions to remain unanswered, even to those involved in the hearings. According to prepared statements released by both Woodfield and the University, Woodfield admitted to having sexual relations with Topol. The releases did not mention any misconduct concerning sexual harassment. According to the University's statement, "Professor Woodfield has admitted that he engaged in sexual relations with a student in his class and that this was was unethical under the University's policies. Professor Woodfield regrets his behavior and, by resigning, takes full responsibility for it." Woodfield said this week that he always admitted to having sexual relations with Lisa Topol, relations which, according to him, were initiated by her and occurred on only one occasion. "What I admitted to was meeting Lisa in an apartment once, which she borrowed from a friend for this specific occasion," Woodfield said this week. "Only by some strange Alice in Wonderland P.C. interpretation could you call this sexual harassment." While Woodfield said his version of the story became apparent during the hearings with Topol's own testimony verifying his, Topol's attorney Alice Ballard disagrees. Ballard said Woodfield's case "totally fell apart," adding that because the hearing committee became "sympathetic" to Topol's story, she was going to win "hands down." No one could comment for sure on why the University settled with Woodfield. According to Ballard, Woodfield approached the University with his resignation when he realized his case was going to fall apart. "[Woodfield] approached [the University] when there was no way he could avoid testifying," Ballard said this week. "What they have allowed him to do is completely evade responsibility -- they allowed him to tell the world and the press that he won this case." But Woodfield disagreed, saying the University approached him the weekend after his defense had begun. He said he is not sure why the University wanted to settle, but thinks the apparent strength of his case, after only a couple of his witnesses had spoken, and the weakness of Topol's case led the University to settle. "It was clear to them that the [University] had not established any sexual harassment case," Woodfield said. "We didn't even need to put on a counter case." University General Counsel Shelly Green was unwilling to comment on the settlement agreement, saying only that Woodfield resigned and the University accepted his resignation. Both Topol and Ballard are upset with the University for allowing him to resign without properly concluding the hearings. "Although I am quite relieved that this emotionally and physically draining process is over, I am appalled that the University would give Professor Woodfield anything in exchange for his resignation," Topol said in a prepared statement. "Professor Woodfield managed to duck and run at the last minute." Topol currently has lawsuits pending against the University and Bates College, Ballard said this week. Both institutions are presently answering the first round of discovery under oath -- necessary preliminary procedures before the trial goes to court. Ballard was unwilling to comment on a formal complaint filed against Woodfield, only willing to say that "something is going on."
(04/22/94 9:00am)
"Women unite! Take back the night!" Their message rang clear -- date rape, sexual violence and discrimination will not be tolerated on the University's campus. But the more than 200 students, faculty, parents and community members who added their voices to the vocal chorus, were not just women. People of all genders, races and sexual orientations, under the direction of the Penn Women's Center and the National Organization for Women, gathered on College Green yesterday evening to 'Take Back the Night.' The event began with a speech by Elena DiLapi, director of the Women's Center. It was followed by a candlelight march which wound around the entire campus and returned to College Green, where sexual assault survivors and others spoke out against rape and sexual violence. "We are assembled here as our right to free speech, of our right to protest harassment, as our right to speak out on our behalf, and to reclaim our voices," DiLapi said. "'Take Back the Night' is about breaking silence?. We want no sympathy. All we want is the violence in our lives stopped," she added. According to College sophomore Negin Noorchashm, one in four women are victims of rape or attempted rape. "The fact is, rape and sexual assault happen, and because they do, women do not feel safe," she said. The 'Take Back the Night' rally was last held at the University in 1989 when it was interrupted by hecklers. This year, organizers anticipated this reaction and publicized the event, receiving the support of many women's groups, including the Panhellenic Council and Students Against Acquaintance Rape. College sophomore Mary Jane Lee, president of the University's NOW chapter, said the organizers attempted to make the event University-wide. "Everyone was so clear that this was a positive event," she said. "We talked to the IFC president and he was behind us?As long as everyone understands what it means, I don't see how you could possibly underrate it." And most of the people in attendance seemed to agree. "I think it's really important that the women on this campus feel empowered to walk around safely," said College senior Heidi Goldstein. "Survivors of acquaintance rape deserve the support of all the other women on this campus." Several parents also attended the event in order to voice their own anger. "We are concerned about our children," said the father of one University sophomore. Still others attended "just to see what it's all about." "It's interesting," said College freshman Peter McGill. "I guess you could call it curiosity." "You pass by, you see it, but you don't really know anything about it -- especially when you're a guy," said College senior Paul Duncan. But not everyone in attendance was in complete agreement with the aims and ideals of the organizers. "[Acquaintance rape] is a he-said, she-said thing," said Wharton freshman Ari Gendason. "I'm not saying that rape doesn't exist, but when you start accusing people, you better be damn sure that it occurred because a person's reputation is on the line." Several students said the rally was not conducive to men's participation. "I don't think that most men would feel comfortable here," one student commented. "I think it has a very women-oriented spirit." But many were quick to point out that women are not the only victims of sexual assault. "I'm not safe here at this school," said Brian Linson, a former University student who filed a sexual harassment complaint with the U.S. Department of Education against the University."I was sexually harassed here?. This happens to women, but it also happens to men." DiLapi did say the rally's emphasis was limited. "We chose to focus on women, not to exclude our brothers, but rather to underscore the pattern of violence," she said. Throughout the week, women have worn purple ribbons to signify their dedication to the "Take Back the Night" theme and tied white ribbons to a female symbol on Locust Walk to represent individual acts of assault, according to Lee. Event organizers also faced University-wide concerns about the "politically correct radical basis" of the Women's Center. "We are here together to stop the backlash on this campus," DiLapi said. "We are here to stop the lies that the Penn Women's Center serves only a few crazed radicals." The general theme of the evening was empowerment. "We can make a difference," said Barbara DiTuillio, president of the Pennsylvania chapter of NOW. "And we can make it a safer place for all of us to live as long as each of us speaks out and takes back the night."
(03/30/94 10:00am)
Former student initiates legal proceedings A former University student who is alleging that Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield sexually harassed her last year initiated legal action against Woodfield last week in Commonwealth Court. Alice Ballard, attorney to the student, Lisa Topol, filed a document on March 21 in Commonwealth Court, which "basically initiates the action," she said. The document, called a praecipe in legal terms, allows Topol to investigate and collect evidence relevant to the case, Ballard added. "It's a first step," she said. "We thought it was important to address all of the affected parties in the litigation." Two weeks ago, Topol filed suit against the University, alleging that administrators violated her rights by failing to resolve her complaint over an extended period of time. Topol also filed suit against Bates College, where Woodfield taught for two years before arriving at the University, for allegedly withholding information of other sexual harassment accusations against Woodfield. However, Ballard added, the primary purpose of the legal action against Woodfield is to determine whether his financial assets warrant a lawsuit. "If [Woodfield] doesn't have any money, then it might not be prudent to invest a lot of time and money in pursuing the case," she said. Alan Lerner, Woodfield's attorney and a Law School professor at the University, questioned the motives of Topol's most recent legal action. "It's all strategic planning," said Lerner. "Do you know any rich English professors?" Lerner added that he thinks Topol is only trying to put pressure on the University, and that she has no right to demand that the University speed up its handling of her complaint. "I think the proceedings against the University and against him are all part of a strategy to put pressure on the school into getting rid of him," Lerner said. "By threatening to sue maybe they think they'll make him cave in." Topol claims in her lawsuit against the University that administrators "failed to investigate her complaints, or otherwise take any action to determine whether or not there existed grounds to suspend or terminate Woodfield." In addition, Topol's lawsuit states that the University discouraged her from seeking outside counsel and promised her that the matter would be resolved last summer. Topol alleges that she and Woodfield were involved in sexual relations during the first three months of 1992, while she was a student in his class.
(03/23/94 10:00am)
Claims sexual harassment A former University graduate student has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights alleging the University failed to follow federal guidelines for the resolution and central reporting of sexual harassment. His complaint centers around a case he was involved in during 1992 and 1993. A spokesperson for the Department of Education in Washington confirmed last week that the department received the complaint of Brian Linson, the former linguistics graduate student, in late November 1993. The department is currently evaluating the claim. Linson's complaint alleges that he was sexually and physically harassed by co-worker and fellow linguistics graduate student Ken Matsuda while employed in the Department of Computer and Information Science. Matsuda could not be reached for comment. After reporting the harassment to Linguistics Graduate Chairperson Donald Ringe, the complaint alleges that Ringe and Department Chairperson Ellen Prince intimidated Linson in an attempt to prevent him from pursuing his grievance within the University. It also alleges that Prince and Ringe blocked Linson from having his grievance resolved within the University and retaliated against him when he did pursue resolution with the Judicial Inquiry Office. Linson said earlier this week that Assistant Judicial Inquiry Officer Robin Read met with him and found his complaint to be valid. She wrote a letter to Ringe requesting that he set up a meeting with Linson and Matsuda to resolve the complaint, but Ringe told Linson to "mind his own business," Linson said. A copy of Read's letter, which was obtained by The Daily Pennsylvanian and is marked confidential, states "Professor Ringe has also agreed to meet with Ken Matsuda to inform him that he must not touch any person for any reason unless he has their permission." Read is on extended leave from the University and could not be reached for comment. In his complaint, Linson states that retaliatory acts against him included "immediate termination of Student [sic] status with no academic or disciplinary or justifiable technical grounds." He also alleges that he was terminated from his employment with a member of the faculty because of the pressure surrounding the case. Linson's complaint states all these retaliatory acts were "conducted in full knowledge of the University." Prince and Ringe both denied Linson's allegations. "That's absolutely not true," Ringe said of Linson's allegations last week, but he refused to comment further on the case. Prince said she had not previously heard of Linson's complaint with the Department of Education and denied any wrongdoing in the case. She also said the only case of sexual harassment she knew of in the recent history of the Linguistics Department was a complaint against Linson by Matsuda which went to the University Ombudsman's Office. Linson said he had never been accused of sexual harassment by anyone at the University, adding that Prince's statement confused him. Current Ombudsman David DeLaura, who was only recently appointed to the post, could not be reached for comment this week. Linson's complaint also alleges problems inherent in the University's grievance procedure, which he claims "effectively encourages discrimination on the basis of sex." He also states in the complaint that "there were many implied refusals to act on my complaints." In a supplemental complaint to the Department of Education also filed in late November, 1993, Linson alleges that he met with Interim President Claire Fagin and Assistant to the President Stephen Steinberg on November 1. In the meeting, Linson said he "outlined a major problem with student resources for grievance resolution in the University." The supplement alleges that he was promised a follow-up meeting within a week, but that the meeting never took place. "As of this date there has not been a full hearing of my complaint nor a resolution," Linson states in his complaint. Fagin said she met with Linson and tried to help him to the best of her ability, but that she did not remember promising him any follow-up meetings. She added that she thinks Linson has exhausted all avenues for resolving his grievance within the University. "I literally reached out to him," Fagin said. "Certainly I think he accessed everything at the University." Steinberg could not be reached for comment, despite several calls placed to his office. Linson said earlier this week that an Office of Civil Rights investigator has been in contact with the University General Counsel's Office in regard to his complaint. Assistant General Counsel Brenda Fraser said yesterday she is aware of Linson's complaint and was contacted by Marjorie Barnett, the investigator in Linson's case. She added, though, that she could not speak in detail about Linson's allegations. "We will cooperate with OCR and I think we have been doing that," Fraser said. The spokesperson for Education Department said that if Linson's complaint is found to fall under the Department's jurisdiction, it will be investigated with the goal of reaching an informal and "early resolution" with the University.
(03/22/94 10:00am)
Brown University Visiting Professor of Chemistry Kayode Adesogan was dismissed last week on charges of sexual harassment and sexual assault, The Brown Daily Herald reported last week. A pre-med sophomore in Adesogan's chemistry class, who asked the Herald that her name be withheld, said that when she asked Adesogan about a test grade, he "put his arm around me...and he started to rub me on my tit and I just felt so scared." The student alleged that Adesogan said he could "suggest a way for me to get higher grades and asked me if I would suck him." The student responded to his request, she told the Herald, by running out of his office and contacting her dean. She said at a "Speak-out" held this week as part of Brown's "Women's Herstory Month" that when she told the dean about her experience with Adesogan, he said, "Let's look back at this situation and see what you could have done differently." Another student, who asked the Herald that her name not be used, said that upon visiting Adesogan in his office, he allegedly told her that she "could get an A if I would help him feel good." Standing in front of the door to his office so that she could not exit and grabbing her by the wrist, Adesogan supposedly forced her to masturbate him. The student said her parents are "consulting an attorney" about the matter. Adesogan would not comment on the allegations when contacted at his home Saturday afternoon by the Brown paper. --The Brown Daily Herald Harvard senior Mark McKay announced his candidacy for Iowa State Representative in the 61st District this month. McKay, a Democrat, began his campaign by sending fliers to 1,500 voters. He also made several trips to his district in Ames, Iowa to give campaign speeches. McKay's first challenge will be the June 7 primary, in which he faces opponent Cele Burnett. The winner of the contest will then oppose Republican John Parks, an Ames city councillor, in November. The district's seat is currently vacant. McKay's political experience includes working for local Iowa Democratic campaigns, serving as a delegate to the state Democratic Convention and serving on the Undergraduate Council at Harvard. "I worked in the state capitol a few years ago," McKay said. "I saw the politicians working there and said to myself, 'I can do as well as they can.'" McKay conceded that his age may be a negative factor, but his campaign staff said his youth could work to his advantage because Ames, home of Iowa State University, is a "college town." --The Harvard Crimson Princeton University's plans for the construction of a power plant that will allow it to produce almost all of its own electricity moved a step closer to to completion last week. The Princeton Regional Planning Board approved the university's proposal for the facility last Thursday, Princeton Facilities Vice President Eugene McPartland said this week. McPartland estimated yesterday that the entire project, including design costs, would exceed $30 million. He said he expects Princeton to break ground for the project in early 1995. The construction of the electric power plant should be completed sometime in the summer or fall of 1996, McPartland said. Princeton began investigating the project two years ago, he added. The new facility will increase Princeton's steam producing capacity by 50 percent, and enable the university to produce up to 90 percent of its own electricity, "cheaper than we can buy it," McPartland said. Presently, Princeton purchases all its electricity from Public Service Electric and Gas, a local utility. --The Daily Princetonian Cornell University responded to allegations of a rape involving members of the Chi Psi fraternity, officials said. Cornell Assistant Dean of Students for Greek Life Randy Stevens said he heard about the incident last month when students approached him about a female student who may have been the victim of sexual abuse at the fraternity on Feb. 20. Stevens said that because the alleged victim did not file charges with the university, Cornell "was in no position to take any action." A preliminary investigation, though, is underway to respond to student concerns. -- The Cornell Daily Sun
(03/16/94 10:00am)
Former student alleges negligence in two suits and Andrew Rafalaf Former University student Lisa Topol, who has accused Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield of sexual harassment, filed suit against the University in federal district court yesterday. The suit alleges that the University has continually postponed the hearing process involving Woodfield, and asks for monetary compensation on the basis of psychological and emotional injury among other items. Topol also filed suit against Bates College, where Woodfield taught for two years before arriving at the University, for withholding information of other sexual harassment accusations against Woodfield. In the lawsuit against the University, Topol charges that administrators "failed to investigate her complaints, or otherwise take any action to determine whether or not there existed grounds to suspend or terminate Woodfield." After Topol initially complained about Woodfield to the Ombudsman's office in March of last year, the suit states that the University "actively discouraged" her from obtaining outside counsel. The suit also states that the University said they would represent her. According to the suit, Woodfield admitted to Topol's complete account of the relationship except for one detail in a meeting with former Ombudsman Daniel Perlmutter and Assistant Ombudsman Gulbun O'Connor. The suit continues to say that the University urged Topol to file her complaint with the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility and promised that the matter would be resolved by last summer. "Dean Stevens failed to forward a complaint concerning Woodfield to the [Committee] until August, 1993, a full five months after Ms. Topol reported Woodfield's conduct to the Assistant Ombudsman," the suit states. Stevens refused to comment on the case last night. Topol charges that after the Committee received the complaint, it did not respond within 20 days, which is required by Section 10.4(c) of the University Policies and Procedures. Not until November of last year did the Committee decide that just cause existed to formally charge Woodfield of sexual harassment, the suit states. In addition, the suit alleges that Woodfield failed to respond to the Committee's formal complaint and did so again after being given a second chance. Woodfield did not return several phone calls placed to his home last night. The suit states that by failing to respond to the Committee's complaint, Woodfield forfeited his right to be involved in the hearings against him and the University proceeded to set a hearing date in early February. But, the University decided to cancel the hearing because it wanted Woodfield to attend, Topol alleges. "[The University] finally set hearing dates in April, 1994, more than a year after Ms. Topol lodged her complaint with the Ombudsman," the suit charges. Topol's lawyer, Alice Ballard, said her client is frustrated with the University's handling of her complaint. "She's hoping that the suit will prompt [the University] to do something in the case," said Ballard. "[The University] has acted as though [the Woodfield case] were nothing but a pain in the neck." The suit against the University asks that Topol be compensated for "wages and fringe benefits" that she has lost due to her relationship with Woodfield and for wages that she is "likely to lose." The suit also asks that the University pay Topol for "anguish and humiliation, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of life's pleasures." Along with outlining the University's alleged mishandling of the Woodfield case, the suit also describes the relationship between Woodfield and Topol and concurs with a draft of a letter Stevens wrote to the Committee last August. As a student in Woodfield's class, "The British Novel: 1660-present," in the fall of 1992, Topol was repeatedly complimented and flattered by Woodfield in front of the class and in private, the suit contends. Near the end of the semester, Woodfield allowed Topol to take an oral examination that was not available to the rest of the class, both the suit and Stevens' letter state. At that exam, which took only 10 minutes, Woodfield allegedly made "sexually suggestive remarks" and asked her help in developing a course load by having her read a book, according to the complaint. Woodfield and Topol met again on December 21, 1992 when Woodfield kissed Topol, the suit states. It continues to say that later the same evening, Woodfield called her and told her that he wanted to "enter into a sexual relationship." The suit also states that the two met for lunch, at which point Topol expressed her concern over taking a course from Woodfield in the spring. Woodfield "persuaded" Topol to stay in the class, which she was already registered for, and also mentioned that she received an "A" in his fall course, the suit states. Upon returning from winter break in January 1993, Woodfield and Topol became sexually involved, the letter and suit details. "Professor Woodfield and Ms. Topol engaged in sexual intercourse in his office and, on two occasions, in her dormitory room," the suit states. The suit continues that the two engaged in role playing where Woodfield played the teacher and assigned Topol, his student, sexual "homework." Woodfield also "spanked" Topol with a crop or whip, the suit adds. The suit alleges that Woodfield was verbally abusive to Topol, "subjecting [Topol] to profanity and denigrating language." Speaking about the lawsuit against the University, Ballard said, "The case isn't about Woodfield, it's about an institutional failure to respond and deal with a problem that's right under their noses." Ballard added that she believes Bates College, the institution where Woodfield taught from 1989 to 1991, is partly responsible for the present situation. The suit against Bates College states that the college withheld information pertaining to student accusations of sexual harassment against Woodfield. "In the fall of 1990, when Woodfield was on the faculty at Bates College and when Bates sent positive references for Woodfield to the University of Pennsylvania, Bates College was aware of student complaints of sexual harassment by Woodfield," the suit against Bates states. In the spring of 1991, Bates began formal administrative proceedings against Woodfield on the basis of the student complaints, the suit continues. Steven Hochstadt, a member of the Community Relations Counsel at Bates College, did not want to comment on Bates' dealings with Woodfield. Hochstadt did agree, though, that "there was something going on" involving Woodfield. When Bates found out that Woodfield was offered a job at the University, the suit continues, they terminated the proceedings and only "verbally reprimanded" him. Bates College failed to inform the University of the complaints and the subsequent proceedings and also failed to update the positive references it had previously offered, the suit charges. "What Bates did was absolutely reprehensible," Ballard said. "I think it's completely foreseeable that what happened at Bates would happen at Penn." While the University was investigating the current accusations of sexual harassment, the suit states, Bates College still failed to inform the University of "Woodfield's prior sexual conduct in relation to female students." Bates College Associate Dean of Faculty John Pribram said he did not know anything about the charges against Woodfield. "I was not aware of any proceedings [against Woodfield] and I have not heard anything about this," he said. Pribram has only been working at Bates for a year and a half, and began only after Woodfield left. Martha Crunkelton, dean of faculty at Bates College, could not be reached for comment last night.
(03/02/94 10:00am)
Hearing date not yet set in matter Both sides in the sexual harassment case against Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield disagree over when charges were served to Woodfield. Woodfield is accused of coercing a female student in his class to have sexual relations with him in the fall of 1992. He has denied the charges. According to a source close to the woman who is accusing Woodfield of sexual harassment, the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility initially served Woodfield with a formal notice of the charge against him on Nov. 16 of this year. "The chair of the Committee [Madeline Joullie] gave Woodfield the complaint on Nov. 16," the source, who wished to remain anonymous, said. "They gave [the formal notice] to Woodfield by sliding it under his door, which is not the smartest thing to do." The source said a formal document exists which states that Alan Lerner, Woodfield's attorney in the matter, had seen the notice on Nov. 20, 1993. Lerner said last night that Woodfield did not receive official notice of the accusations against him from the Committee until Nov. 30. He also denied that he had seen the notice on Nov. 20, adding that he was not retained as counsel for Woodfield until "sometime in December." After the Committee accepted Woodfield's assertion that he did not receive the formal notice until November 30, the source said it allowed him 20 working days to respond to the accusations -- January 14 -- in accordance with University Policies and Procedures. On Jan. 11, one working day before the deadline, the source said Joullie approached Woodfield to remind him of the impending deadline. She also said that if he did not respond, the Committee would have to proceed without him, the source added. According to the source close to the woman accusing Woodfield of sexual harassment, Woodfield did not respond and told Joullie that he had not obtained an attorney. Joullie refused to comment on the matter last night. "Jan. 14 came and went, and there was no response from [Woodfield]," the source said. "Woodfield essentially forfeited his right [to be involved in University hearings]." Lerner said he personally mailed Woodfield's response to the Committee's charge on January 11. He added that he received a phone call from Woodfield toward the end of January. Lerner said Woodfield was upset over the fact that the Committee had not received a letter of response. Lerner said he contacted Joullie that week and voiced Woodfield's concern that the Committee would proceed with the matter without his response. He added that Joullie told him the Committee had the response in their possession and would be meeting to discuss the matter later that week. After the meeting, Lerner said the Committee scheduled Woodfield's hearings for Feb. 4 and told him they would be conducted as if no response from Woodfield had been received. After speaking with Joullie again, Lerner said the Committee decided to postpone the hearings and allow Woodfield to present his case due to a "misunderstanding" and in "fairness" to Woodfield. According to the source close to the woman, Lerner's depiction of the events is incorrect. The source said Joullie did not receive a letter of response from Woodfield until Jan. 26. The letter, dated January 11, had not been mailed, but rather placed in Joullie's mailbox. Since Joullie checks her mailbox every day, the source said, there was no way she could have overlooked it for 12 days. The source said the letter from Woodfield asked the Committee to postpone the hearings until September of this year. "I probably had some communication with [Joullie] and suggested the possibility of postponing the hearings until September," Lerner said last night. Since the administration had close to six months to prepare its case, Lerner said Woodfield should be given an ample amount of time to prepare for the hearings. "[The Committee] told us that [a September postponement] was out of the question," Lerner added. Lerner said he has no knowledge of a new hearing date for Woodfield. Joullie would not comment on when or if a hearing would be held.
(02/28/94 10:00am)
and ANDREW RAFALAF School of Arts and Sciences Dean Rosemary Stevens began proceedings to suspend or terminate Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield for sexual harassment last August, according to a draft of an SAS document obtained by The Daily Pennsylvanian. The letter, sent by Stevens, bases its recommendation on the claim that Woodfield had sexual relations with a female senior for a period of three months during the spring of 1993. The student is accusing Woodfield of sexual harassment. Stevens, reached by telephone last night, refused to comment on the document. She also declined to comment on the case in general. Last week, Woodfield's lawyer Alan Lerner denied all allegations against his client and said he would defend the accusations. The SAS document outlines the sequence of events between the woman and Woodfield, and is addressed to the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, which will decide what action, if any, to take on the allegations. The document states that Woodfield often had sex with the student in his office. "The sexual activity was often placed in the context of a teacher/student role play with the professor playing the teacher and assigning sexual activity as 'homework,'" the document further states. The relationship between Woodfield and the woman began while the student was enrolled in one of Woodfield's classes during the fall of 1992, the letter states. According to the letter, Woodfield continually flattered the student's appearance and dress while in class. At the end of the semester, Woodfield "allowed" the student to take an oral exam, the document states. No other students, in what the document describes as "a large class," were granted this privilege. According to the document, the oral examination lasted only 10 minutes, during which time Woodfield "made a number of sexually suggestive comments." The letter also says Woodfield asked the woman to help him prepare a syllabus for a course he was creating, by reading a book and meeting with him in a week to discuss it. "At this next meeting, the professor kissed the student," the letter states. Woodfield called the woman that evening to profess his attraction to her and asked her if she would continue to see him, according to the letter. Later that week, the document states that the two had lunch together where the student expressed doubt over taking a course taught by him during the spring term. Woodfield allegedly convinced the student to take his course and also mentioned at that time that she had received an "A" in his fall course. "Upon her return for the spring semester, she met him at his office in the late afternoon and they had sexual relations," the letter states. The document says that the sexual encounters continued until March, often with a frequency of several times a week. "[Woodfield] also made comments about his desire to have sex with other students," the document states. Becoming increasingly distraught with the situation because she felt "used and manipulated," the student went to the Penn Women's Center and then to the University Ombudsman's office on March 29, 1993, the letter states. According to the document, on March 31, Woodfield met with the ombudsman and his associate to discuss the matter. Woodfield concurred with the student's accounts of the events "with only one minor discrepancy not involving the sexual relations." But, on April 15, when Stevens met with Woodfield and English Department Chairperson John Richetti, the document alleges that Woodfield changed his story. He now only confirmed meeting with the student once for sex, it read. He also said the one meeting took place off-campus during March. Woodfield claimed the student pursued him and "that 'my judgement left me' on the one occasion," the letter states. In response to the complaint, the ombudsman asked Woodfield not to communicate with the woman, the document alleges. But, it says that Woodfield called her the very same evening after receiving the ombudsman's warning. He was asked again not to speak with her, but he approached her in a campus building and on the street to try to talk with her, the letter states. The woman's work for Woodfield's spring class was transferred to another professor as an independent study project, the document states. The letter further asserts that the woman was unable to complete any of the four courses she took that semester and was unable to graduate. Last week, a source close to the woman confirmed the document's depiction of the series of events leading up to the charges of sexual harassment against Woodfield.
(02/28/94 10:00am)
and ANDREW RAFALAF A summer burglary in Bennett Hall may be linked to the sexual harassment charges against Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield, sources said last week. Woodfield claims that in August someone with a duplicate key to his office on the fourth floor of Bennett Hall entered the office, tampered with files on his computer hard disk and rummaged through his desk. Duplicate keys to faculty offices are held in the English Department Office, Woodfield said. Woodfield said last week that the files printed out from his computer and taken from his desk included correspondence with his former attorney in the sexual harassment charges, Edward Rubenstone. He added that he did not at first notice that the documents had been tampered with, but he later observed that "paper was in my printer that wasn't there before and my floppy disks were out." Woodfield said he reported the break-in to English Department Chairperson John Richetti, Rubenstone and English Professor Paul Korshin, his faculty liaison in the matter. Woodfield and Richetti had a meeting with "two top campus policemen," Woodfield said. While Woodfield claims that University Police found no criminal intent and chose not to investigate, claiming it was "politically motivated," Richetti said the police investigated and were unable to come up with substantial evidence. "At the time of the newspaper theft and all that shit, you could just tell that the police weren't going to [investigate] it," Woodfield said. During the fall semester, the duplicate key was taped to the inside of an envelope and placed inside Richetti's mailbox. According to Woodfield, in the same envelope were copies of the stolen documents. But Richetti said no documents were in the envelope, adding that he does not believe that anything was taken from Woodfield's office. Sources close to the woman alleging sexual harassment said last week that Woodfield fabricated the burglary, adding that they think he tried to blame the theft on graduate students in the English Department. University Police were unable to find a record of the break-in, but the University Almanac reports a theft in Bennett Hall on August 24.
(02/28/94 10:00am)
and ANDREW RAFALAF Reached after class on Friday, Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield said that his former attorney in the sexual harassment case, Edward Rubenstone, is not authorized to speak for him. Last week, Rubenstone said that Woodfield had sexual relations with an undergraduate female student who was taking his class last year. "I am not responsible for anything that Ed Rubenstone might say," Woodfield said. "He is no longer my attorney, he doesn't speak on my behalf, although you are welcome to talk to him." Woodfield said the reason Rubenstone no longer works for him is that he was unable to continue paying for an attorney. Because Rubenstone could not work for free, Woodfield was forced to search for another attorney who would work pro bono -- without monetary compensation. Woodfield said he found his current attorney, University Law School Associate Professor Alan Lerner, only after an "extensive" search in the Philadelphia area. Woodfield and his supporters claim that the University used its legal power in the city to prevent him from finding adequate counsel and to delay the internal hearing process. Because the University uses many large Philadelphia law firms as outside counsel, it would be a conflict of interest for them to represent Woodfield in his case with the University, he said. Woodfield added that the University refused to sign a waiver which would have allowed them to represent him, and threatened to stop giving these firms business if they accepted him as a client. The allegations that the University used its legal muscle to block Woodfield's defense is just one of several claims of administrative wrongdoings in the Woodfield matter. In general, supporters of both the student and Woodfield are upset with the administration's handling of the case and the continuous delays that have caused the matter to drag on for almost a year. Although School of Arts and Sciences Dean Rosemary Stevens found out about the sexual harassment charges in April, she did not send Woodfield formal notification of charges against him until November 30, 1993, according to several sources involved with the charges. Woodfield received notice of the charges months after Stevens drafted a formal document detailing the charges for the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, which is responsible for hearings on the charges. "In any case, between faculty and students there are procedures set down by the University and sometimes these are cumbersome and time consuming," Stevens said last night. Graduate students in the English department, who support the woman alleging sexual harassment, claim the University has "bent over backwards" to accommodate Woodfield. Thirty-four of them sent a petition to Provost Lazerson in December urging him to suspend Woodfield for this semester while the hearings were pending. Woodfield had previously been suspended by Stevens for the fall term, but the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility ruled that Stevens had not followed proper procedure and that Woodfield should be allowed to continue teaching. During this period of time, the Faculty Senate Committee recommended to the full Faculty Senate that the rules concerning faculty suspensions be changed to prevent similar situations from arising. Sources close to the woman alleging sexual harassment blame both the University and Woodfield's lawyers for the numerous delays. They claim that a number of hearings on the case have been previously scheduled and postponed. But, Rubenstone said there has been only one postponement which occurred last month. Hearings on the case have been rescheduled for late March. While both sides blame one another for the delays, they agree that there has been an administrative cover up. Rubenstone said he blames the delays on the fact that the University was unprepared to deal with a case of this nature last spring. Lerner said last night that the University has been withholding pertinent documents, such as those that list the witnesses the University intends to call at the hearings where Stevens will act as the complainant. "I have to play by the rules," Woodfield said last week. "But the University can throw the rule book out the fucking window." Sources close to the woman alleging sexual harassment say they believe the University provided the woman with inadequate support and that it was too slow in taking decisive action on the matter. The woman has hired attorney Alice Ballard to represent her interests in the ongoing matter. Dean Stevens' office has also hired an attorney --University Associate Law Professor Alan Berkowitz --to help it prepare its case against Woodfield. And the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility has hired a judge to advise it on due process.
(02/26/94 10:00am)
In an academic environment where many students say grades, profits and competition prevail, Legal Studies 210 has a different message -- be nice. Not only is the message different, but the class is different. There are few all-nighters for the "ethics course" because discussion is a large portion of the grade. Legal Studies 210 is part of Wharton's "Societal Environment" section, two of three classes which are required for graduation. The course has been taught since the mid 1970s, but only recently became part of the bracket requirement. "It's a very popular course," Wharton freshman Adam Illfelder said. But some students say the ethics course does not "fit in" with the money-making mentality some feel is taught in other Wharton classes. "My management class was more about profit maximization," Wharton freshman Robert Leuchs said. "A lot of times, ethics go against profit maximization." Illfelder echoed Leuchs' sentiments. "The common joke is that it's an oxymoron, that you can't have corporate ethics," Illfelder said. "I think it's a step that the administration takes to improve the reputation of business." But, Diana Robertson, a legal studies professor who teaches a section of the course, insists the course is not a response to any type of negative reputation. "We didn't implement the course as a direct response to insider trading scandals, or any other business scandal," she said. She added that the goal of the course is to raise awareness of ethical issues in business decision-making, provide a framework for analyzing the issues and create a forum for students to discuss them. Topics include consumer product safety, affirmative action, sexual harassment, whistle blowing and conflicts of interest. Ultimately, the hope is that Wharton students will be more ethical coming out of the course. "In an indirect way we are trying to get students to make better ethical decisions," she said. Although the class seems to be removed from Wharton's alleged competitive atmosphere, students still insist the business school is high pressure. "[The course] is really laid back, but the [Wharton classes] are kind of competitive," Wharton freshman Max Berry said. The course is geared toward business issues, but Barry said it applies to students as well. "In order to gain an advantage over other students, people will cut corners and forget about ethics," he said. Robertson, however, said business people can be both ethical and competitive. Robertson is currently involved in a program to incorporate ethics into other parts of the business curriculum. So far, she has had moderate success. "There are some professors that are very receptive to introducing ethics, other professors less so," she said. Whether the class's concepts are applied or undermined in other Wharton classes, Robertson said that ethics is an issue that is here to stay. "Wharton has one of the longest standing ethics courses and we're very proud of that," she said.
(02/25/94 10:00am)
U. procedural problems alleged and ANDREW RAFALAF Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield did have sexual relations with a female undergraduate student in his class last year, Woodfield's former attorney in this matter Edward Rubenstone said last night. Intra-University charges are currently pending against Woodfield for allegedly sexually harassing the woman, Woodfield's current attorney and University Law School Associate Professor Alan Lerner said yesterday. Woodfield said yesterday he could not comment on any specific allegations made against him. But he said he wants a fair University hearing to "see justice done." The woman first told University administrators 10 months ago that Woodfield sexually harassed her, English Professor Paul Korshin said in a telephone interview from London yesterday. But Korshin, Woodfield's faculty liaison in proceedings currently pending within the School of Arts and Sciences, added that formal accusations were not made until November 30. According to a source close to the woman, Woodfield allegedly singled the woman out in his classroom and flattered her to excess. Korshin denied this allegation and said "the reverse of that actually happened." And Lerner categorically denied the sexual harassment charge against Woodfield. "We are frankly and flatly defending any charges," said Lerner, who recently replaced Rubenstone as Woodfield's counsel. "The mere fact that there is a sexual relationship doesn't mean there is sexual harassment." The student who is accusing Woodfield declined to comment last night. "The University has an obligation to protect its undergraduate students from predatory faculty," English Professor Peter Conn said last night. "I believe all of us would agree that sexual relations between a faculty member and an undergraduate student currently enrolled in his or her course are utterly unacceptable." Word of the student's accusations was widely known throughout the English Department and reached the highest levels of the University administration, including Interim President Claire Fagin, Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson and SAS Dean Rosemary Stevens. "I have heard of the case before," Fagin said yesterday. "This case is being handled in the normal way." Fagin added that the President's Office does not get directly involved in an individual school's disciplinary proceedings. Lazerson said the Provost's Office is also not directly involved, but added that he first heard of the allegations against Woodfield last semester. "My role is simply to observe [the process]," he said. "It is really a question the faculty within the school has to address, and it is critically important that the faculty does address the issues." According to Korshin, University regulations mandate that the dean of the school where a student makes a sexual harassment complaint against a faculty member acts as the complainant in formal hearings. Stevens is representing the woman in this matter, he added. Stevens did not return several phone calls placed to her home yesterday. In the past, according to Korshin, when complaints of sexual harassment were lodged against a faculty member, the professor in question was expected to resign. But, because Woodfield refused to resign, the administration was not prepared to handle the matter, Korshin said. According to both sides of the case, the disciplinary process has repeatedly stalled for the last 10 months. There has yet to be a hearing before the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, the body which handles such complaints. Korshin said during the past year, the University administration has caused numerous postponements in the disciplinary procedure. "The [Faculty] Handbook says that [the dean] has 20 days to come up with charges," Korshin said. "In fact, it took six months to know what the charges were and eight months to get them formally written down." Both parties say they have been harmed by the delays. "Three different senior University administrators have told me that the delays affecting this process have been 'unconscionable' and 'intolerable,'" Conn said. "I know that the student has done all she can to move the process forward. I therefore have no idea why she has been met by such 'unconscionable' and 'intolerable' delays. "I do know that the young woman has been emotionally punished by this extraordinarily drawn-out process," Conn added. Woodfield alleges that before accusations were even formalized, English Department Graduate Chairperson Rebecca Bushnell suspended him from teaching any graduate courses this past fall. He alleged that Bushnell was under pressure from a group of graduate students within the department who were opposed to his teaching. "[The graduate students are] a very P.C. vigilante bunch who started the process of my being suspended," Woodfield said. Although Woodfield was originally slated not to teach last semester, Bushnell said last night he was reassigned to English 800 after consultation with English Department Chairperson John Richetti. Before the school year began, Stevens decided not to assign Woodfield a course load, said sources close to the woman involved in the charge. Earlier this week, Richetti said not assigning Woodfield a course load was in essence a "de facto" suspension. Woodfield filed a complaint about his "suspension" with Microbiology Professor Sol Goodgal, who acts as a faculty grievance officer. Woodfield said Goodgal refused to deal with the matter. But, Goodgal said last night that he listened "quite carefully" to Woodfield and decided the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility should hear the case. Woodfield said Goodgal's refusal to hear his grievance forced him to seek other means of resolution. He added that the idea of going to the Faculty Senate Committee was his own. The Faculty Senate Committee decided that Stevens did not follow proper procedures in eliminating the professor's course load, Woodfield said. Committee Chairperson Frank Goodman wrote a 10-page decision in Woodfield's favor, he added. Goodman would not comment on Woodfield's statement. But the Committee has since recommended that the procedures concerning the suspension of a faculty member be changed. University General Counsel Shelley Green refused to comment on the University's legal situation in the Woodfield hearing.
(02/24/94 10:00am)
Attorney denies the charge against his client and ANDREW RAFALAF Inter-University charges of sexual harassment are currently pending against English Professor Malcolm Woodfield, sources said yesterday. Woodfield allegedly was involved in a sexual relationship with a female student in one of his classes last year, sources said. Philadelphia attorney Alan Lerner, who Woodfield recently retained to represent him, confirmed yesterday that charges are pending against Woodfield, but denied the charges against his client. "The only thing I am at liberty to tell you is that Professor Woodfield strongly denies all the material allegations of the charge and plans to defend the charge," Lerner said. The 1992-1994 edition of University Policies and Procedures states that "Because the relationship between teacher and student is central to the academic mission of the University?any sexual relations between any teacher and a student of that teacher are inappropriate." The charge against Woodfield reached the desk of the University Ombudsman last year and word of the charge has spread to the highest levels of the University's administration, sources said last night. According to sources, School of Arts and Sciences Dean Rosemary Stevens is acting as the complainant in the Woodfield matter, which will soon come before the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility again. Stevens would not confirm nor deny that she is serving as complainant, and further refused to comment last night, citing the need to preserve the privacy of those who speak before the Committee. While the charge was pending last semester, Woodfield was not assigned a course load to teach, in essence a "de facto suspension," English Department Chairperson John Richetti said last night. Lerner said Woodfield filed a grievance within the University, and it is his understanding that the grievance was upheld. "At the direction of Dean Stevens, he was not assigned any classes, although he should have been," Lerner said. "I believe the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility said that [his not being assigned a course load] was a suspension and no proper procedures were followed." Woodfield is teaching this semester. According to recent changes made by the Faculty Senate, a dean -- Stevens in Woodfield's matter -- must clear a faculty member's prolonged suspension with the Faculty Senate's Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, Faculty Senate Chairperson Gerald Porter said. However, short suspensions are left up to the discretion of the dean, he added. University Policies and Procedures defines sexual harassment as anything that: -- involves a stated or implicit threat to the victim's academic or employment status; -- has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's academic or work performance; -- and/or creates an intimidating or offensive academic living or work environment. It later continues, "With respect to sexual relations in particular, what might appear to be consensus, even to the parties involved, may in fact not be so." Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson, Deputy Provost Walter Wales, and Ombudsman David DeLaura also refused to comment. But, DeLaura said he had heard about charges against Woodfield while serving as an English professor, before becoming the University's ombudsman. He added that he has not dealt with the charges as ombudsman, as he is newly appointed. The College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility's hearings on the issue have been postponed a number of times, Richetti said last night. "These academic legal hearings have dragged on," Richetti said. "I don't know why it's taken so long." Sources say the University has attempted to cover up the existence of charges. "There's a cover-up and I think that's shameful," said a source close to the woman, who asked to remain anonymous. "Some mechanism in the English Department is keeping everybody quiet -- that sets a dangerous precedent." The matter, which has been gossiped about for months within the English Department and the administration, began to surface this week when Judith Elaine Bush Newton, a physics graduate student, referred to the charge in an electronic mail message sent to a newsgroup for University student leaders. She said in her posting that she is serving as "the electronic liaison" for those involved on behalf of the student. Newton said yesterday she is not directly involved, but added that it is important for University leaders to discuss procedures for faculty suspension regarding alleged sexual harassment of students. Woodfield did not return several phone calls made to his home yesterday evening.
(02/23/94 10:00am)
From Stephen Houghton's "Ecce Queer," Spring '94 From Stephen Houghton's "Ecce Queer," Spring '94Austermann, KurtFrom Stephen Houghton's "Ecce Queer," Spring '94Austermann, KurtPol: 23520From Stephen Houghton's "Ecce Queer," Spring '94Austermann, KurtPol: 23520KL AUSCHWITZ From Stephen Houghton's "Ecce Queer," Spring '94Austermann, KurtPol: 23520KL AUSCHWITZA photograph of a man, barely younger than me, was taken on November 27, 1941 with the above documentation. Name replaced by a number. No longer a seventeen year-old painter's apprentice, no longer a human being. He was charged by the Nazis with "a homosexual act." What happened after that photo is not certain. Welcome to BGLAD week, a week to acknowledge the differences in sexuality. It is a time to educate, celebrate, and participate. I salute everything that BGLAD stands for and all the hard work of those who organized it. I am, as the acronym commands, very proud of my sexuality. I am also very angry. "Ssshhhhhh, all you queers, keep it down! "Wait for people to deliver gift-wrapped human rights. Don't get upset when you lose your job. It doesn't matter if you get bashed. Allow religions to spread lies and hate. People have a right to harass you, take away your children, deny you scholarships. People deserve to be murdered." You can't keep me quiet for long. Some people complain that queers are asking for special rights, more than we deserve. A lesbian can get fired from her job in a city other than Philadephia, and have no legal or other recourse. In other words, in most places, queers have no rights. Personal choices need to be made as to how one contributes to creating a more equal and just society. Some, like many on the University campus, are apathetic. Some work within the system. Some write letters. Some make phone calls. Some lobby. Some scream. Some do components of each. A better future will be achieved as a result of a combination of these. Anger is a fine emotion, one that motivates and is constructive. Asking politely will only get you so much. I refuse to sit back, raise my hand, and meekly plead for equal rights. I demand them. Too many people have suffered and died at the hand of bigotry and oppression. Injustice is prevalent across the boards in society. The elimination of racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism are too important to me to calmly wait for change. I yell. I march in the streets. I will not stop. I never let issues be swept under the carpet of invisibility. I may not be able to single-handedly save ignorant America, but I will create change. "I don't care what y'all do behind closed doors, so long as you. . ." Ours is a sexual culture. Sexuality pervades all aspects of society. Keeping queer sexuality locked away from heterosexual eyes contributes to invisibility, denying queer people's existence. Heterosexism and homophobia are not matters of privacy. Privacy is just another word for the closet. The meaning of being queer is more than a sexual act. It is an identity that extends beyond the bedroom. To be vocal about your rights makes you a radical. Selfish. Greedy. You are flaunting it. You are doing more harm than good. You are offending people -- yet others have the right to offend and harm you. To borrow from Hampshire College professor Margaret Cerullo, the "politics of respectability" is what America prefers. Many lesbian, gay and bisexual people have bought into this homophobic thought pattern. "Respectability" means to tailor (read: disenfranchise) parts of their own community in order to cater to what they think America finds palatable. These lesbian, gay and bisexual people have a problem with radical queer approaches. Time is wasted infighting, being divisive, and not attacking the true enemy. Combating one another only lends fuel to the homophobes' fire. This is the same fire upon which they would love to burn us at the stake. NEWSFLASH! America will hate you no matter how white, male, conservative, nicely dressed, rich, and "normal" you are. In their eyes, there is no such thing as nice, gay people, we are all queers. The "others" that you are suppressing are just as much a part of the queer community as are the corporate lobbyists in Washington. The "politics of respectability" boils down to a politics of heterosexuality -- the straightening up of Queer America. The assimilationist "we're-just-like-heterosexuals-except-in-bed" argument does not allow discussion of sexuality, of how queers live and love, of how queers are different, of who we are. This strategy imprisons us in the closet. The strength of the queer community lies within its diversity. Drag queens and leather folk are just as essential to the acquisition of equal rights as are people of color, women and transgendered individuals. This strategy of respectability/heterosexuality avoids public confrontation, according to Cerullo. Yet, the battlefields are in the public realm. One cannot effectively fight a battle in backrooms behind closed doors while mortar shells are being dropped outside. The anti-queer enemy controls the battle lines this way. Unless their discourse is publicly challenged, nothing will be accomplished. What Cerullo advoates is a "politics of disruption and a politics of disturbance." While society does not enjoy being disturbed, it is high time we admit "the disturbance is out there, the culture is disturbed." It is time to wake America up. Whispering in the government's ear has not worked. Real change will come about once radical action has been taken. Something is wrong with America if it sanctions discrimination against any class of people. At our University we have protective legislation, titled the Non-Discrimination Policy, theoretically proclaiming the University inclusive, but we still have the exlusionary ROTC program on campus. But, wait, that's another column altogether. Go ahead, BGLAD, but do more. Be out there. Be strong. Be active. Stephen Houghton is junior Fine Arts and French major from Rockledge, Pennsylvania. Ecce Queer appears alternate Wednesdays.
