661 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/17/92 10:00am)
From Jennifer Kornreich's "The Devil Made Me Do It," Spring '92 A critic of my column has recently brought my "archaic views toward gender" to my attention. After all, there was the time I decided two high-profile men who had insulted women could escape the electric chair. Moreover, I sinfully used the generic "he" in reference to politicians, instead of the more fashionable "he/she." And I've mentioned that I've had cosmetic surgery. From all this, it has been astutely -- not! -- surmised that I have accepted the secondary status of women. Ohhhh, thank you for showing me the light. If I hadn't broken free, I might've dropped out of school, gotten married next year and wound up objectifying myself by posing in Hustler and then spending the money on shopping sprees between cranking out fourteen little brats. This criticism of my alleged backwardness is the perfect prototype of the current bullshit I call pseudo-feminism -- because real feminism it ain't. It's a parody of the true principles of the women's movement. It ranks right up there with Stalin's distortion of the philosophy behind communism. Nothing disgusts me more than self-righteous, self-proclaimed "feminists" who cast blanket pronouncements of sexism on everything in the goddamn world not directly in sync with their agenda. These are people who interpret every aspect of life in terms of the battle of the sexes, thereby trivializing their own cause. You know the type. These are people who can't read a 16th century text without imposing modern standards of gender relations upon their evaluation of it. Who insist that the spelling of "women" be changed to "womyn." Who wax ballistic if you say "salesman"instead of "salesperson." Who point to their unshaved armpits and mascara-free eyelashes proudly, as proof of their "liberation" from "male-dominated standards of beauty." (Unfortunately, these aren't idle caricatures. I actually know people like this.) These are people who claim that, anatomy aside, there are absolutely no differences between men and women. Who are obviously in need of a reality check. Well, let me edify you, boys and gyrls. This type of "feminism" is a travesty. It's not liberal at all. It's just as conservative and intolerant as the male chauvinism you're trying to escape. This pseudo-feminism concerns itself with superficial form rather than delving into real content. Its proponents sit in my classes and try to redefine literature from previous ages without any regard to context. Or they think that they need to quell any traditional appearances of femininity in order to prove themselves as equal to men. At the extreme, they attempt to reconstruct themselves as one-half of the population wholly independent of, and superior to, the other half. In short, they render feminism meaningless -- a joke. After all, if everyone starts saying "humankind" instead of "mankind," will it reduce sexual inequality at all? I mean, come on -- are such issues really the crux of the problem? Or are gender-coded beauty and language standards and other outward forms only the symptoms that just don't matter much when the underlying disease is what needs to be tackled? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Established habits of etiquette, speech patterns and appearance aren't worthy of condemnation when the key issue -- what is really at stake -- is the question of female merit and autonomy, which are qualities that can transcend either a miniskirt and lipstick, or a crew cut and jeans. And this is why I do consider myself a feminist. By feminist, I mean I advocate the inherent worth of women as full-fledged citizens with intellectual capacities, intrinsic dignity and legal rights equal to that of men. By feminist, I mean that I believe women deserve the same privileges and responsibilites as men in the workplace and everywhere else. By feminist, I mean that I believe men and women can have different needs, strengths and weakness, and behavioral tendencies -- and still be equal. I mean I believe women need men, just as men need women -- and not just sexually, either. By feminism, I mean a realistic practice of treating both sexes with respect -- of accomodating gender differences to signify not a power struggle, but a complementary system of equality. Sorry, womyn -- I don't mean an unrealistic vision of Amazons exulting over their defeated male counterparts. My kind of feminism is pro-person -- much more liberal, I think, than the current "pro-woman" philosophy that condemns as a failure a woman who is a housewife by her own choice. Yes, I shave my legs. I wear a bra. I may only hyphenate my last name instead of using it without my husband's entirely when I marry. I don't think that all men are the anti-Christ -- although I've met quite a few who are. Sometimes I even let them hold a door open for me. I listen to Howard Stern, and I -- gasp! -- enjoy it because I take his idiotic sexist remarks for the absurdities that they are. And guess what? I think that when some jerk tries to humiliate me by yelling "Nice tits," it's actually more effective to open my mouth and stand up for myself as a woman, rather than go crying "sexual harassment" so that other people have to take care of something that I'm perfectly capable of handling on my own. Finally -- can you believe it? -- I feel that gaining both men and women's respect through rational behavior is a greater achievement for women than just cowing men into a seemingly respectful but actually alienated and resentful P.C. silence. And I'm pretty damn certain that none of these behaviors of mine constitute, in themselves, any secondary status that I may experience as a woman in this society. So, to my critic, I thank you for your concern regarding my oppression by men. But do me a favor and don't even try to imply that you're more of a feminist that I am. I guarantee you I am proud to be a woman. I am comfortable with femininity as something to celebrate rather than reform or eradicate. And I am certain of my ability to function in this world without any degradation to myself. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to meet my professor. I'm sleeping with him for an "A." Jennifer Kornreich is a junior English major from Roslyn, New York. "The Devil Made Me Do It" appears alternate Tuesdays.
(03/05/92 10:00am)
To some, Anita Hill is a martyr for the fight against sexual harassment. To others, she is a political pawn who was used in an attempt to upset the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Regardless of Hill's motives, she will speak at Irvine Auditorium on April 4 at 5 p.m., Connaissance and the Women's Studies Program announced yesterday. "Whether or not she was telling the truth, she is an important speaker," former Connaissance Chairperson Richard Smith said last night. "And with the recent [William] Kennedy Smith and Mike Tyson trials, it is important for someone to talk about the issue of sexual harassment." Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on live television in October after she alleged privately that Justice Thomas sexually harassed her 10 years ago when she worked for him at the Equal Employment Oportunities Commission. Hill is a contract law professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law and a graduate of Yale Law School. According to Demie Kurz, co-director of the Women's Studies Program, Hill will receive $11,000 for her appearance. Kurz said the bill will be split between Connaissance and the Women's Studies Program's Judy Berkowitz Endowed Lectureship. U.S. Senators on the Judiciary Committee who cross-examined Hill, including Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), questioned her motives when she gave her testimony, and alleged that she was coming forward so that she could jump on the lecture circuit later. According to Smith, who booked Hill, she has agreed to speak at just three schools -- one of which is Yale University, Hill's alma mater. He added that if making money from speaking engagements were her motive she could charge a lot more and make five to six stops every week. "She is not doing the 'typical' college circuit," Smith said. "She is not charging the amount of money she could get given her name. Given the value of her time, it is only fair she be compensated." Smith said he thinks the price is appropriate considering the large number of University students he thinks will attend the speech. Irvine seats between 1,600 and 1,800 people. Connaissance has paid as much as $14,000 for speakers in the past, but Smith added that some speakers will appear for free. Kurz said Program Director Carroll Smith-Rosenberg spoke with Hill in early December about the possibility of her coming to the University. Both Women's Studies and Connaissance pursued her, and several private individuals wrote letters to Hill expressing interest, Kurz said. According to Kurz, the specific title of the speech has not been determined, but Hill is expected to address a variety of issues dealing with sexual harassment and civil rights. "I just think from our point of view she is a woman who spoke out very bravely about an issue that is difficult for women to speak out about, but is very prevalent in our society," Kurz said. "She has thought a lot about the issues of sexual harassment and civil rights in general." The speech will be followed by a question and answer session. Free tickets to attend the event will first be made available to University students, faculty and staff on Locust Walk from March 30 to April 2. Any remaining tickets will be made available to the general public on April 3 and at the door.
(03/03/92 10:00am)
(Interview conducted by Emily Culbertson)(Interview conducted by Emily Culbertson)(continued) Paglia: Plenty of women who have felt disenfranchised by this phase of the movement, who are very supportive of what I'm trying to do. No, there's no positive thing from within the women's movement becuase they know I am attacking, I am exposing them. These women, it's a scam. Because I have been around for so long, my critique is from the inside. DP: Explain your theories on what makes men and women different biologically and socially? Paglia: When I was young, I thought men were tyrants. And I hated the way women served them. What I saw then is what feminism sees now. And I think that's an adolescent view, that is to see nothing in history but male oppression and female victimage. I think that's an adolescent view of reality. The more I studied, the more I began to see that women are controlling men. And that this is a universal fact of human life. And this is the one reason men escape and create this other realm through male bonding. Civilization, all the arts -- men have fled to them. That's why the achievements of men are so enormous . . . They fled to art, to construction, to building bridges, to bulding roads -- anything to get away from this sense of suffocation, claustrophobia in the female matrix. Becuase both sexes are born from a woman's body. I looked at the rituals of world culture, and I saw that every society has these markers for the moment where the boy becomes a man. Men sometimes raid the women's quarters and steal, sometimes kidnap the boy . . . To become a man, the boy must leave his mother. That is a pattern of men's experiences. Many things that erupt in rape or violence, battery and so on, are happening when a woman is pushing that button of fear and dependency. . . . I'm saying that sex is a surging, power thing between the sexes. It's a sex war. You cannot solve it by legislation. We can regulate the work environment. We must have equal opportunity and reasonable sexual harassment guidelines, but you cannot legislate relationships. This is why I think the date-rape thing has become propaganda and hysteria. We cannot legislate what happens on a date. It's up to women to realize it's dangerous. Sex is dangerous -- its a dangerous sport. How do you get this? By reading D.H. Lawrence, by reading all the great male writers about sex. By reading the whole history of art, you begin to see that sex is an uncontrollable force. It's like an elemental fire. There is no talk about this at all. Feminism believes that somehow its manageable -- We can control men if we'll just get them in line. It's not just coming from men. It has to do with this magnetic thing going on in the sex thing. It's huge. My position is that women have to watch out. Women can not now or any time in the future, can ever have 11 tequilas at a fraternity party, go up to a man's room and say "Oooh, gee, but I'm not . . . what, I don't understand this." You're giving a signal. I'm saying "Have the sex. Go for it, girl. Have it." But stop whining and thinking you can dress like Madonna and do whatever you want -- but "I didn't say yes. I said no." But . . . if you go like this, your body is speaking. Freud tells us our conscious mind can be saying one thing and our unconscious mind can say something else. DP: What should men and women entering college be told about date rape and gang rape? Should men be told to curb their actions? Paglia: I think it's great to have date rape awareness when they arrive -- both men and women. I think men should be warned that if a law is broken, they will be punished severely, but that they will have to go to the outside world. If a real rape occurs, I don't think any campus grievance committee should be meeting over a rape. They are not fit for legal inquiry. Women should also be warned. Once they're warned, the college has to get out of it. I don't believe the college has any business interfering in sex lives. The students should be allowed to make their own rules. Now, this gang rape thing did not happen out of nowhere. It's a phenomenon in world history . . . It's everywhere in Hollywood movies. How stupid can you be? These girls have become date rape heroines . . . There's violence against men, too. Men should have the right to walk on the street at all hours with gold chains around themselves and sleep on a park bench in the middle of the night. But if someone assaults you and robs you, when you -- a man -- behaves like that, the police should punish the person. At the same time, we have a right to say "You know, you're really being stupid." This is very unrealistic to think -- the world is not like that. And a world that is like that . . . is a very totalitarian world. The police are everywhere. We don't want such a world. As a sixties liberal, I am saying we do not want to overpolice lifestyle. And this demand that feminism has that date-rape be policed by campus grievance committees, it's totalitarian. It's deeply Soviet. And they don't realize the degree to which it is de-sexing and de-individualizing of women. What I'm saying is that even in my era, we knew not to go to fraternity parties. We knew fraternity parties were about scoring! That's what they're about. Peggy Sanday wants to redefine fraternity parties? I say no. I say let's leave fraternity parties to be about scoring. That's what I want. Leave it. I am pro-sex. I am radically pro-sex. I think women should have a choice: go to the party or don't go to the party. I don't think that when you're there, you should be assaulted. On the other hand, if you drink a certain number of drinks and behave in a certain way -- I believe the moment you go to a man's room, alone . . . I believe it's time to take the sixties attitude towards that, that is you are consenting to sex.
(02/25/92 10:00am)
From Jennifer Kornreich's "The Devil Made Me Do It," Spring '92 The presidency is a job. As with any other job, assessing individuals for the duties of the position based on their private vices is both unfair and foolish. Just because someone does something ethically dubious in his personal life does not indicate that he will extend his lack of propriety to the public sphere, where he knows the stakes are higher and he'll much more likely be caught. All too often, we fail to distinguish between behavior that is merely "not nice" and behavior that is tantamount to crime. And that is exactly what we are doing if we reject Clinton or anyone else on such a basis as his marital woes or sex life. Okay, fine, adultery is technically illegal. But so are blow jobs in certain states, and we all know how much that's enforced. Let's confine judgment to illegalities that are detrimental to the public. Unfortunately, this blurring of the distinction between privately (un)acceptable behavior and publicly (un)acceptable actions is one of the most dangerous consequences originating from the current "political correctness" movement. Where healthy awareness and debate of various attitudes and actions should be fostered, P.C.ers have instead made "correctness" the focus. They use a candidate's personal ethics rather than his adherence to public standards as a measure of his ability to govern. All that is really important in evaluating a candidate are those behaviors and values that do affect the public -- that is, his stance on the various issues of the campaign and his ability to serve as a political leader. Not as a moral paradigm; I have Mother Teresa for that. (Actually, I don't even attempt to emulate her, but you get my drift.) So what if Clarence Thomas did tell Anita Hill that he thought there was a pubic hair on his Coke? So what if he did muse upon Long Dong Silver's endowments in front of her? How far do we take this? Should I condemn an employer who says "fuck" in my presence as guilty of harassment? These are words - offensive words, perhaps, but words nevertheless. Not actions. If we waited for a politician who's never had extramarital sex, who's never smoked a joint, who's never imbibed alcohol underage, who's never joked about a Long Dong Silver porno flick, etc., we would indeed be like the Greek philosopher Diogenes, who searched in vain for a completely honest man. And aside from the infinitesimal likelihood of finding such candidates, there is no reason why we should feel the need to do so. We may find one or more of the above behaviors morally abhorrent by our own personal standards of conduct -- and by all means, we should not have to condone these transgressions in our own minds. However, for all intents and purposes, they do not have any influence on the candidate's capacity to serve the country and fulfill his prescribed responsibilities. Nor do these personal failings signify any affront to the public welfare. If, instead of adultery, drug and alcohol use and lewd comments, we were talking about rape, driving under the influence and demanding sexual favors from a subordinate -- well, obviously, that's a different story. Then the candidate has committed offenses that have an impact not only on his own life but on those of others. But for Clinton and Thomas, this is not the case. Political candidates aren't the only victims of the P.C. inclination to raise all things immoral to criminal status. Let's take an especially inflammatory issue like rape. Many P.C.ers like to verbally vomit up the insidious notion that if a man at all pressures a woman to have sex, he's a rapist. Now, granted - a man who tries to take advantage of a reluctant partner's emotions and lack of confidence to assert herself is, at the very least, unscrupulous. But is he a rapist? Unless he actually uses coercion, he's not. A man has, and should have, every right to pressure a woman to have sex with him -- just as every woman has the right to refuse his advances. This is no different than an advertising company trying to persuade us to buy a product. It is no different than the person who offers you a drink when you don't really want it and exerts peer pressure. It is our problem if we are not adult enough to withstand the pressure. The P.C. movement, however, would have us believe that just because women -- the often oppressed and subordinated gender -- are concerned, suddenly we should treat a man's personal repugnance toward a woman as a crime against her. Same with sexual harassment. Sure, Thomas is a pig -- but as long as he did not threaten Hill's job if she complained, this is not sexual harassment. It's freedom of speech. And as long as he does nothing criminal, Thomas has the fundamental right to be a pig and still serve on the Supreme Court! Obviously, I'm being facetious. But I'm dead serious about the main point of this whole diatribe. This is not a totalitarian state . . . and once we relegate the matter of someone's personally slimy conduct to the realm of the courtroom or other public damnation, we are in peril of suppressing basic individual rights. For this reason, I don't care to know if Thomas did in fact make repulsive sexual comments to Hill, while she -- out of her own unfounded fears of punishment -- unnecessarily kept her mouth shut for years. That's a problem in his personality. I, for one, would rather know for certain his views on abortion - which will affect us, and had much more bearing on whether he should have been confirmed. Everything else is irrelevant. Jennifer Kornreich is a junior English major from Roslyn, New York. "The Devil Made Me Do It" appears alternate Tuesdays.
(02/04/92 10:00am)
The article on the streak through the Quad (DP 2/4/92) reminded me of a similar tradition we had while I was an undergrad at the University of California. That tradition was abruptly stopped one year in a roadblock ambush that resulted in a forty body pileup against two police cars. The reasons for terminating this tradition: hazing and sexual harassment. Apparently, we were hazing ourselves and we were not enlightened enough to realize it. As for sexual harassment, somebody felt that they were being oppressed and abused at the sight of a bunch of people taking a late night streak through campus. It's interesting that an institution with a reputed liberal tradition would take such a puritanical stance towards such an event, while over here in the conservative and stuffy Ivy League, a similar episode is seen as something not only worth front page news, but also the subject of a comic portraying the event as a positive step for women. Evidently, the enlightened and progressive people of Berzerk-eley take greater steps to protect their students from themselves. Just after this parade of blasphemy and immorality was cancelled, brewing beer was added to the list. Reason: potentially explosive and flammable substance. ALEXEI VRANICH Graduate Student School of Arts and Sciences
(02/03/92 10:00am)
A national teleconference and a University panel discussion on issues related to sexual orientation will be held this Thursday in the Annenberg School. The conference, titled "Understanding and Meeting the Needs of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Students," will focus on the concerns of these groups, as well as the development of non-discrimination and anti-harassment campus policies. The panelists of the teleconference will include Kevin Berrill of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force of Washington, D.C. and Kathy Obear of The Human Advantage of Amherst, Mass.. In addition, professors from the University of Maryland, the Teachers College of Columbia University, and the University of Vermont will be serving as panelists. The teleconference will start with issues of sexual awareness, such as coming to terms with sexual identity, special issues for ethnic minority gay youth, developmental issues of teenagers and the implications of these issues for gay, lesbian and bisexual students. The teleconference will then deal with the current climate for gay, lesbian and bisexual students on college campuses. Topics include the absence of sexual minority role models, homophobia and discrimination. The teleconference will close with the discussion of the direction to be taken in improving gay, lesbian and bisexual life on campus. Following the teleconference will be a reception and panel discussion led by University faculty, staff and students. Assistant Director for Student Life Robert Schoenberg will moderate the discussion. Demie Kurz, the Co-Director of the Women's Studies Program, and David Boyd, Assistant Professor of English, will serve as faculty participants in the discussion. Zoila Airall, Assistant Director of Residential Living, and Tomas Leal, Director of South Campus Residences, will serve as staff panel members. In addition, three University undergraduates and one University graduate student will act as panelists. The panel discussion will consider case studies of discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual students. The program at the University is sponsored by Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson, the Program for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Students, the Penn Women's Center and the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs. The program, which will be held in the Annenberg School room 111, is open to the public.
(01/27/92 10:00am)
Women's Choice, a new support group for graduate women, met for the first time last week to give graduate women a special forum to air their personal concerns. University Counseling Service Psychologist Ruth Hall, citing the "special needs that graduate women have," co-founded the group with Psychologist Jacqueline Falkenheim. The group will discuss how to work in a predominantly male environment, gender role concerns, and dual-income family issues. Hall said that many issues which take women's concentration away from their school work do not necessarily affect men. Another issue which primarily affects graduate women is sexual harassment. According to last April's Ombudsman report, 12 out of 16 reported cases of sexual harassment were filed by graduate students. The report said "graduate students represented members of our community most vulnerable to sexual harassment." Hall said the weekly support group is for graduate women of all ages. "There's a difference between graduate students who entered grad school straight from an undergraduate college, and those women who go to school after years in the workplace," she said. Hall said she felt that women enjoy support groups and they enjoy receiving support from other women. Hall said that doctoral students working on their dissertations often feel particulary isolated. "This group lets students know that there are other people out there just like you," she said. Many graduate women last week had positive reactions to the support group, which met last Monday. "I think it's a great idea," GAPSA Vice Chair for Policy Susan Garfinkel said. "I knew [the Counseling Center] had other support groups and were interested in doing something like this." GSAC President Anne Cubilie called the group "fantastic." "They should do more of it," she said. "Hopefully, they'll do a lot of outreach to grad women." Cubilie added that many graduate women are not aware of the counseling services available to them on campus. Hall said that UCS attempted to reach the students through school channels. They sent information to graduate departments in order to reach as many students as possible. The group's first meeting had four people. Hall described the format of the meeting as "open" and "spontaneous." "Whatever people want to talk about, we'll discuss," she said. Hall said most of the discussion revolved around how to balance a personal relationship with school work. She added that the new group is still forming so members are hesitant to be completely open. She said she hopes the group will eventually grow to about six or eight attendees. Hall said she wants to keep the group small, but will start another group if more people want to join. The support group meets every Monday for one hour and one-half.
(01/17/92 10:00am)
By STEPHANIE DESMON The Judicial Inquiry Officer placed acquaintance rape in its own category of delinquent behavior for the first time, according to last year's statistical report of JIO cases released earlier this week. The statistics reported two acquaintance rapes were brought to the attention of the JIO between September 1990 and August 1991. According to the report, the sanctions for the two rape cases included expulsion and a "notation" on the transcript. Interim JIO Jane Combrinck-Graham would not say whether the punishments were in two separate incidents or if both punishments were used in the same case. However, the statistics show only one student was expelled for violating the University's Code of Conduct last school year. The judicial office, which formerly included acquaintance rape with another category, said the new category was created in response to the University's new Acquaintance Rape and Sexual Violence Policy. The policy defines acquaintance rape, describes the University's resources for prevention and investigation and states the sanctions that will be taken against an individual who commits a sexual assault. "There is no behavior in this state called acquaintance rape," Combrinck-Graham said yesterday. "But we have defined that behavior and given it a name as part of the University policy." "We looked at two cases and said those cases were consistent with cases outlined in the acquaintance rape policy," Combrinck-Graham added. The JIO investigated only one fewer case during the 1990-91 academic year than during the previous year. The number of complaints of violations of the Code of Academic Integrity, which includes use of another person's work, plagiarism and miscellaneous cheating, dropped from 51 complaints to 30 last year. Sexual harassment complaints doubled last year, from eight to 16. Combrinck-Graham said that since "so many factors" are involved in the entire process, she could not point to any single reason for either the stability or change of the statistics. Combrinck-Graham also said she wishes she could divulge more information about the cases that come before her to create a deterrence for future misbehavior. "I'd like to say lots more that might have more meaning," she said. "The major constraint is our confidentiality policy." A yearly report by the JIO is required by the University's Judicial Charter. Combrinck-Graham said she is looking into the possibility of being able to report more frequently and in a bit more detail. She also said she may change some of the sanction categories in order to update them. "[Greater] information can serve as a deterrent but it is more likely to serve as an educator," Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson said yesterday. This semester, Morrisson's office will establish a JIO advisory board with some student members which she said will increase student involvement in all aspects of the judicial process. And while Morrisson said she does not know what to conclude from the statistics, she hopes to see a positive change in the future. "I think things will change when students themselves care enough about each other and the community they live in to take steps to insure these incidents don't occur," Morrisson said. The report was published in this week's Almanac. Former JIO Constance Goodman, who held the post during much of the time covered by the report, declined to comment this week.
(01/14/92 10:00am)
· The message the Acacia settlement sends seems all too clear. Commit sexual harassment and the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs can let you off easy. The violations of the University Code of Conduct that Acacia committed are unacceptable anywhere, and most of all at a university that spends so much time ironing out the fine points of harassment policies. But the message the settlement sends is that OFSA is willing to "let boys be boys." In the TEP case, OFSA took somewhat stronger action. Unfortunately, there is no basis on which to evaluate the legitimacy of the punishment because -- in accordance with OFSA policy -- the violations were never made public. Concealing the violations is counterproductive to the determination of community standards. How can University organizations appreciate the deterrent of punishment without first knowing the violations that brought it about? · The cases against TEP and Acacia should prompt all students and administrators to examine the system which punishes fraternities, and see if decisions made behind closed doors are acceptable. In these situations, the system seems to work for the benefit of a few rather than the good of all. The chapters themselves -- touted as havens for developing leadership skills -- are often tossed aside in decision-making processes where these skills truly count. The current closed-door bureaucracy leaves chapters vulnerable to the wishes of their national organizations, and the potential victims of unfair punishment. Campus leaders, Greek and non-Greek alike, must demand the public release of all relevant facts surrounding cases and strict punishment of the guilty parties. Concealing crimes and avoiding punishments can only lead to further violations.
(01/14/92 10:00am)
A former Veterinary School professor filed suit against the University in Philadelphia federal court late last month, following an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that her sexual discrimination charges against the University had merit. The plaintiff in the case, Veterinary School oncologist Ann Jeglum, originally revealed in November that the EEOC had recently made findings in the discrimination case, originally filed in 1990. Under the EEOC's determination, Jeglum was required to file suit against the University within 90 days or else waive the right to bring suit. In the suit, Jeglum -- once chief of oncology in the Vet School -- claims the University discriminated against her both by denying her tenure in 1987 and 1989 and by paying "less qualified or equally qualified male employees" higher wages. The General Counsel's office said yesterday that private talks between the University and Jeglum are continuing as they have since before the case was filed. "We understand that the suit was filed to perserve Dr. Jeglum's rights under the law," Assistant General Counsel Elizabeth O'Brien said yesterday. "Meanwhile, the University's negotiations with Dr. Jeglum are continuing." The suit states that at the time of Jeglum's tenure denial, the Department of Veterinary Medicine contained eighteen tenured members, all of whom were men. According to the suit, 20 percent of the 35 current non-tenured faculty members in the department are women. In addition to the tenure and wage discrimination charges, the suit also alleges that Jeglum was a victim of sexual harassment throughout her employment at the University, claiming she was subjected to "offensive remarks, and unfounded allegations that she [refused] to be 'cooperative' with other members of the faculty." Jeglum left her office in the Clinical Studies division of the Veterinary Hospital in February and now works in a West Chester veterinary clinic and lab. The suit also names as defendants the Vet School and three current and past Vet School administrators. Vet School Dean Edwin Andrews, former Veterinary Medicine chairperson Kenneth Bovee and recently-resigned Veterinary Medicine chairperson Darrell Biery are named individually as well as in their positions at the Vet School. Andrews is currently attending a conference in Florida and could not be reached for comment. Jeglum, who is also at a Florida conference, and her lawyer, on vacation, could not be reached for comment either. Jeglum was denied tenure by the University in 1987 and 1989, filing an internal grievance against the University shortly after her second tenure denial. The grievance process continued for over a year, until a faculty panel returned its confidential recommendations to the provost this summer. Jeglum seeks lost wages, benefits and expenses due to both her tenure denial and wage discrimination while at the University. She also seeks tenure retroactive from her tenure denial in 1989. Jeglum left her office in the Clinical Studies division of the Veterinary Hospital in February and now works in a West Chester veterinary clinic and lab. While at the University, Jeglum worked in the Vet School's Small Animal Hospital and spent more than five years researching treatments for certain forms of cancer in dogs, under funding from the American Kennel Club.
(01/13/92 10:00am)
Student members of University Council scored a minor victory last month in their ongoing battle to maintain a student voice on several Council committees. Council members overwhelmingly rejected a revision of the by-laws at their December meeting that would have increased the number of faculty on the Bookstore Committee from six to eight members, giving faculty twice as many votes as students. Graduate and undergraduate students said the revision would further dilute their voices on committees, a process which they said began in November when Council voted to add two faculty members to the Safety and Security Committee. Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Mitchell Winston, who called the recent changes "dangerous," urged Council to make no further changes decreasing the proportion of student committee members. "We don't see any reason why students don't deserve equal representation," Winston said. But City Planning Professor Anthony Tomazinis said faculty members are more vital to committees because they have "institutional memory" beyond the four years of students. He downplayed the danger of diluting student voices, saying faculty and students often vote together in committees rather than splitting into separate factions. Molecular Biology Professor Emeritus Robert Davies, who is a former Council member, said Council guidelines specify that the number of faculty on Council committees should be equal to the number of administrators and students on the committee plus one. For example, if there are a total of seven administrators and students on the committee, there should be eight faculty members. Currently, the Bookstore Committee has four students, three administrators and six faculty members and does not meet Council regulations. In other business, Council members debated a new comprehensive harassment policy which would protect "all legally protected categories of persons." Most Council members questioned the need for the new code since the University already has both racial and sexual harassment policies. The proposed policy would cover harassment on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and status as a disabled or Vietnam-era veteran. Some Council members called the administration hypocritical for trying to stem harassment against homosexuals while maintaining the campus' Reserve Officer Training Corps, which prevents homosexuals from participtaing in its activities. "We can't even follow our own [anti-discrimination policy]," said Graduate and Professional Students Assembly member James Colgate. "Why have these policies if no one is going to enforce them?" Many Council members also said the two existing codes are sufficient, saying the University should pay more attention to educating people rather than creating new policies. "All these rules and regulations tend to trivialize the issues," said Chemistry Professor Madeleine Joullie. "I am for educating people." But Tomazinis, who in the past has spoken out against instituting harassment policies, said he was confused by Council's "contradiction." "We either support protection for all groups who are harrassed or we do not support any groups," he said. "[Those opposed to the policy are saying] it is OK to protect two groups, us, but not five groups, them." Council members also discussed a proposal to abolish the Council's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid. The proposal will be voted on at next week's meeting. Students said they were also concerned about the loss of their voice on this committee, which Provost Michael Aiken said overlaps with his committee and a Faculty Senate committee that both deal with undergraduate admissions. Faculty Senate Past-Chairperson Almarin Phillips said that the committees that exist overlap "substantially" and waste faculty and administrators' time. But students criticized the lack of input they would have if the Council committee were eliminated. Currently, both undergraduate and graduate students sit on the committee, while the only student representative on the Provost Committee is one undergraduate. There are no students on the Faculty Senate committee.
(12/09/91 10:00am)
The University has placed the Acacia fraternity under two years probation and alcohol prohibition after finding it collectively responsible for sexual harassment, the complaintant in the case said yesterday. College junior Judy Schlossberg filed a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Office in April charging fraternity members with stealing and distributing a nude photograph of herself that had been stored in her boyfriend's room. In November, Acacia was found to be collectively responsible for sexual harassment. Schlossberg said yesterday the fraternity had agreed to accept the sanctions. Acacia will be prohibited from having alcohol at any of its parties for the next two years and will have to undergo a membership review by an alumni advisory board, she added. The fraternity's members will also participate in "educational programming." Acacia President Brian Baxt did not return phone calls placed at his home last night. Tricia Phaup, director of Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, did not return phone messages placed this week at her office. But Schlossberg said she was "upset" that the charges were not more stringent. "Most of the [educational programming] they take part in whether or not they have been sanctioned," Schlossberg said. "They have taken part in them in the past -- a lot of good they seeem to have done." She said the programming would probably include sensitivity workshops and Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape programs. Last week Schlossberg said four individuals were also charged, including then-President Baxt and its former rush officer. Schlossberg identified Baxt, former Rush Officer Maamoun Rajeh and brothers Mark Olivero and Chris Wilkes as the four individuals who have accepted the JIO's findings that they sexually harassed Schlossberg. Baxt, Rajeh and Olivero also accepted JIO findings of theft, trespassing, and acts of retaliation, Schlossberg said. Schlossberg said Baxt, Rajeh, and Olivero will be fined, will have to undergo psychiatric evaluation, attend an "educational program," and be put under suspended suspension -- under which they will be immediately suspended if they fail to comply with their settlement.
(12/09/91 10:00am)
First, the University stabilized its relationship with the federal government when it wrote Uncle Sam a check for nearly $1 million after government auditors concluded the University received $930,000 more than it should have to cover research overhead costs between 1988 and 1992. The University's relationship with Philadelphia high schoolers remained under great scrutiny in the wake of a lawsuit accusing the University of offering city high school students only one-fourth the number of scholarships per year critics say are called for in a old agreement with the city. The University continued to maintain it is not violating the agreement -- or damaging its relationship with the youths -- by offering just 125 scholarships per year, rather than the 500 which its opponents have continued to argue are required by the agreement. The mayoral election ensured a continuing relationship between the University and City Hall as University alumnus and Democratic candidate Edward Rendell received an overwhelming 68 percent of the vote to rout Joseph Egan, the Republican candidate. Rendell replaces Wilson Goode, the outgoing mayor and another University alumnus. And speaking of relationships, it was learned that at least six students were living this year in coed suites, which University guidelines prohibit. A University official announced the arrangement would not be allowed to stand, but no decision has been announced yet. Near the end of the month, administrators learned Gov. Robert Casey had frozen $200,000 in state funding earmarked for classroom equipment such as computers, overhead projectors and new blackboards. The $200,000 could be cut outright if the state's tax revenues fall below target. While it is far too early to tell, the move could be an ominous indication that at least part of the University's $37.6 million relationship with the state may be in jeopardy by next year, especially given the poor economy and the state's mounting fiscal woes. In other news, the Judicial Inquiry Officer found the Acacia fraternity collectively responsible for a sexual harassment case, while Tau Epsilon Phi was found collectively responsible for three hazing incidents. November also witnessed a fair share of crime in the area, including the alleged abduction and rape of a Bryn Mawr College student who was accosted while waiting for a friend in her car at 39th and Walnut streets. Other incidents of violent crime included the shooting death of a male employee of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania at 45th Street and Baltimore Avenue. Two suspects were arrested this month. -- Scott Calvert
(12/09/91 10:00am)
The Mask and Wig Club copied the same nude photograph that launched a sexual harassment investigation against the Acacia fraternity in the program for its annual parody afternoon last March. The photograph was displayed as a classified personal advertisement, according to Engineering senior Craig Martin, who said he saw the program after the parody afternoon from a friend. "It said something like a single, Jewish female in search of mate -- short, dumpy, Jewish, male -- interest in porn films is a must," Martin said this weekend. Martin said he was the roommate of the complainant's boyfriend and added that he never kept a copy of the program and only saw someone else's. Mask and Wig Chairperson Alfred Bingham and Acacia President Brian Baxt did not return several telephone messages left at their houses yesterday. College junior Judy Schlossberg, who filed the complaint and has publicly discussed the Acacia case, said last night that she did not publicize Mask and Wig's involvement since they were not investigated, charged or sanctioned by the Judicial Inquiry Office. "The Judicial Inquiry Office was made fully aware on April 26 of everyone's involvement," Schlossberg said. "I told her of Acacia and Mask and Wig to the fullest extent that I knew." Schlossberg added that a major factor in the JIO's decision on collective responsibility hinged on the group's behavior following the incident. "While Acacia was voting to ban me, Mask and Wig had everybody calling me," Schlossberg also said. "[Mask and Wig] did not want to keep me from the JIO. Supporting me was their first concern. The second concern was the club's well being." Schlossberg said she and her boyfriend first found out that the photograph had been stolen when the program was distributed and that prior to that she had just heard rumors. "I did not think [Mask and Wig's actions] were in anyway appropriate. They were most certainly damaging. The only mitigating thing was their actions folowing the incident," Schlossberg said. Acacia has been found collectively responsible for a complex incident regarding the photograph, which was highlighted in a pledge skit. Four Acacia brothers, including the then-president and rush officer, were individually charged in connection with the incident.
(12/09/91 10:00am)
Acacia agreed to accept two years probation, including a ban on alcohol for all parties, after it was found collectively responsible for sexual harassment and hazing violations. Four individuals, including the then-president and rush officer, received individual sanctions in connection with the incident, which included stealing and distributing a nude photograph of a brother's girlfriend. In another unrelated incident, a third-year Fine Arts student said she filed harassment charges after being harassed on an Escort van by another student while she was riding downtown. Amy Iwata said she filed charges against Richard Clark, an exchange student from Scotland, but Clark said he did not grab her and bother her as Iwata alleged. In other December news, after a strong effort on the part of students, faculty and administrators, the School of Arts and Sciences approved a Latin American Studies minor. A bill also passed through the Senate which may bring research funds to the University to build a supercomputer.
(12/06/91 10:00am)
The Faculty Senate Executive Committee failed to reach a consensus Wednesday about the University's racial and sexual harrassment policies during a discussion with President Sheldon Hackney. SEC members discussed the policies with Hackney at their last meeting of the year, but according to Senate Chairperson and Social Work Professor Louise Shoemaker, they still were unable to present a unified view to the administration. "There is real disagreement among the members of SEC because some of us believe really strongly in First Amendment issues," Shoemaker said. "But both sides were represented." She said that some members are afraid that strict codes will inhibit the educational process. "The fear is that the more we codify things, the more we move away from the educational side," Shoemaker said. "The question was raised that even if we do codify some things, whether there should be a statement saying certain actions and words are unacceptable, and whether those actions and words are punishable are two different things." But despite the disagreement, Shoemaker said that the discussion with the administrators was a positive step. "There was a lot of honest give and take," she said. "It was one of the best discussion sessions we've had with the president and the provost." Although Shoemaker said SEC members will try to "influence" Hackney's decision regarding the harrassment codes once they have reached a consensus, "the place it will be brought up is [University Council]." SEC also discussed the conception of the University as a global institution after Provost Michael Aiken gave a speech summarizing the issue, Shoemaker said. "The Provost gave a compelling description of what's happening," Shoemaker said. "There is a definite need to give more encouragement to grass roots programs. A lot of our students study abroad, but many of them go on programs from different schools."
(12/05/91 10:00am)
The student who filed a sexual harassment complaint against Acacia fraternity with the JIO said yesterday that four Acacia members, including the house's former president and rush chairperson, have accepted the sexual harassment findings leveled against them. Baxt, Rajeh and Olivero also accepted Judicial Inquiry Office findings of theft, trespassing and acts of retaliation, Schlossberg said last night. Interim JIO Jane Combrinck-Graham said yesterday that she could not confirm or deny if the Acacia members had accepted the charges. Baxt did not return several phone messages last night, Rajeh and Wilkes declined to comment, and the phone number listed for Olivero has been disconnected. Schlossberg said Baxt, Rajeh and Olivero will all be fined, will have to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, attend an "educational program," and will be put under suspended suspension -- under which they will be immediately suspended if they fail to comply with their settlement. The three are not required to abide by the psychiatrist's recommendations, she added. Schlossberg said last night that she felt the University did not impose strict enough punishments for the alleged incident. "Initially the JIO told me that she was going to put an unconditional notation on both Baxt's and Rajeh's transcript," Schlossberg said. "I later learned that Baxt did not receive a notation and I am unclear if Rajeh has a notation." Schlossberg said College senior Baxt originally found a nude photograph of her two summers ago in her boyfriend's room. Her boyfriend was a brother of the fraternity and has since been granted early alumni status. Baxt showed the nude photograph that summer to one other person and discussed it with that person frequently, she added. In December 1990, Baxt re-entered the room, took the photograph, and showed it to seven other brothers who were also in the apartment, Schlossberg said. The photograph was subsequently returned to its place in the boyfriend's room. Wharton senior Olivero saw the photograph at this time and within 24 hours he and Wharton senior Rajeh went to the apartment, took the photo, made an unknown number of copies of it and then returned it to the room, Schlossberg added. "They later admitted to me that they had xeroxed the photo with the initial intent to post it in the house," Schlossberg said. "They also were thinking of using the photo to award to my boyfriend 'Bad Brother of the Week'." Schlossberg said Acacia gave this designation as a prize at each of its weekly chapter meetings to recognize a sexual action. "Each week at meeting they would give a small gift to a brother who had done something 'naughty' with a women," she said. "Either sex or something elicitly exciting with a member of the opposite sex." Her boyfriend, who asked that his name not be released, confirmed that these awards occurred. Rajeh and Olivero, according to the complainant, decided against using the photo for the award or posting it, but kept the photocopies. Second semester last year, Rajeh showed the photocopy to then-plege Wilkes and later instructed the spring semester pledge class how to act out the position that Schlossberg assumed in the photo, she said. The position was then mimicked at pledge skit night where a spring pledge class member assumed the position and said, "Look familiar?" to her boyfriend. The pledge who performed the position was not charged. Schlossberg also said that Wilkes was "further involved in spreading the incident outside of the fraternity," but would not elaborate. During the skit night the pledges were partially naked, but Schlossberg added that they said they were not unclothed to mimick her, but rather because brothers had thrown eggs and beer at them. "The pledge skit was sexual harassment as well violation of the anti-hazing code," Schlossberg said. "Hazing makes it collective." Last month the JIO and Office for Fraternity and Sorority Affairs said that Acacia was found collectively responsible for the incident. Collective responsibility, according to Combrinck-Graham, can carry sanctions ranging from probation to revocation of charter. Schlossberg said last night that both removal and suspension of the fraternity were not being considered as punishments. Through a complicated process last spring, Olviero and Rajeh were expelled by the fraternity, but this fall the fraternity voted to offer the two reinstatement, she added. Schlossberg said that Baxt and Rajeh had been charged and sanctioned for displaying "disrespectful behavior" towards women in the past. "The fact that this has now happened twice with these individuals shows a clear pattern of harassment," Schlossberg said. "This should have been taken into account during the sanctioning process, but it clearly wasn't for they were neither expelled nor suspended."
(12/05/91 10:00am)
Jean told me of numerous reports that Elvis had been spotted frequenting a famous Penn hang out. She wanted to see what I knew. She also needed some help compiling her 1992 predictions for the National Inquirer. She called because she devined that I had pre-registered for the General Honors Astrology course, Astrology 006, Extraterrestrial Life. You don't believe that such a course exists! Look at the GH course description in the constantly mobile GH/BFS headquarters. I, having already fulfilled my Math requirement with Numerology 123, was able to help Jean peer into the future. I believe 1992 will be a year chuck-filled with action. Using my numerological skills last year, I was able to predict that in 1991, the U.S. would win the Gulf War, a major professional athlete would be caught with drugs (Otis Nixon), and that Donald would propose to Marla. Here my Top Ten list of numerological premonitions for 1992: 10. If you add up all the numbers in 1992 you get . . . 21! This means that anyone who is born this year will be automatically eligible to drink whenever they want. (I also understand numerology was used to determine the drinking age in Pennsylvania.) 9. The University of Pennsylvania will be 252 years old. If you multiply that by 1992 you get . . . 501,984. This is exactly 1/10th of the amount that Sheldon Hackney will accept from St. Lucifer -- sometime in March -- for the creation of a "Satanic Studies Department" to be located on the present sight of Irvine Auditorium. (Warning Sheldon, Jean says in 1993 a big ruckus will be caused by campus demons who feel that label is discriminatory. Look for it to change to the "Infernal Studies Department" sometime in late '93.) 8. If you take the 9 in '92 -- the square of 3, which is the perfect number in Pythagorean numerology -- and separate it from the 2 -- which is of course the only prime, even number -- you get the "Prime Square" combination. Next September look for this to culminate in a group of nerdy Physics majors protesting to take over the prime housing assignment on campus: the Castle. 7. Now take the number 33, which happens to be Patrick Ewing's jersey number. It is also two 3's and 3 times 11 (see the article by Victoria Kirkham, of our own Italian Department, 11 is for Evil for further explanation). When you multiply 33 by an Olympic 1992 it give 65736. Look for this to show in late August when the U.S. basketball team beats Bolivia 657 to 36 in the Gold Medal Game. 6. If you take 1000 Points of Light away from 1992, you get 992, which is exactly the amount of votes George Bush will receive in November, because of revelations about the "October Surprise" and Manny Noreiga's ties to the C.I.A. becoming public knowledge. 5. Divide 1992 by the perfect number 3, and you get 664, to which when you add Dan Quayle's I.Q., 2, you get 666. This (as everyone knows) is the number of total evil. It indicates that William Kennedy Smith (who looks just like Damien from the Omen) will set a pack of viscous wild Dobermans loose on his Palm Beach estate on the night of the victory party in early January. Ted will be safely away at the Betty Ford Clinic, wearing nothing but a choke collar. 4. The four prime factorials of 92 are 2, 2 and 23. This gives us 2223, which will be the number of condoms distributed on Locust Walk throughout 1992. 3. Subtract the 19 from the 92, and you get . . . 73, which is the actual number of times people will need condoms on Penn's campus next year! 2. If you subtract the 2 from the 9, you get 7. Besides being the "lucky number," on July 7th (7/7/92), Snow White will file sexual harassment charges against Sleepy and Doc for trying to kiss her back in 1977 at a reunion of cartoon Disney characters. (Look for the Little Mermaid to advise her.) 1. Next year is the 500th anniversary of Columbus disc . . . Whoops, I mean, encountering the New World. 500 times 1992 is -- 996,000. This is the exact number of seconds that Wilt Chamberlin will spend orgasming. Happy New Year!!! Brian Kennedy is a sophomore English major Newark, New Jersey. Never Mind the Bollocks has appeared alternate Thursdays.
(12/03/91 10:00am)
Thanks to Anita Hill, millions of Americans have heard of it. But knowing it exists and understanding what sexual harassment is are two vastly different things. At the University, as around the nation, men and women are still unclear about what actions constitute sexual harassment and even about how prevalent incidents of harassment are. In the wake of two recent sexual harassment allegations on campus, students indicated this week that there is no common ground for determining what is "unwanted sexual attention," the University's definition of sexual harassment, or how often it occurs. But according to a 1985 survey, which administrators said represents today's numbers as well, 35 percent of undergraduate women experience sexual harassment while they are students here, mainly from other students. The survey also showed that 19 percent of female graduate students and 11 percent of women faculty experience harassment on campus. These numbers, which a faculty committee uncovered through an extensive questionnaire, refer to incidents of unwanted sexual attention, such as teasing, pressure for sex or for dates, suggestive gestures, deliberate touching and sexual assault. Some students recently said they were surprised at the figures, saying they were either too low or too high, with many adding that there is no definition of harassment that can be applied across the board to precisely measure its frequency. "I'm amazed that [the percentage is] that low," College junior Deborah Brown said. "From my own experience and that of my friends, I'd say it could easily be 60 percent." Brown said the accepted definition of sexual harassment, in which "someone's being pinned against the wall and attacked," needs to change to include several other forms of unwanted attention. "The point is there are probably innumerable episodes like the [alleged] one at Theta Xi," Brown said. "That's what really needs to change and that takes a lot of education." Wharton senior Devansh Patel agreed, defining sexual harassment as "anything that would be overly aggressive or offensive." He cited experience as an indication of harassment's prevalence on campus. "Whenever you go to a party, you can tell when someone's hitting on a girl and she feels uncomfortable," he said. But College junior Dan Nestoe said that while he also thinks sexual harassment occurs on campus, he finds it hard to distinguish what incidents are sexually offensive and which are examples of women "jumping on the sexual harassment bandwagon." Nestoe said he thinks some women may use sexual harassment "to vent their frustration at male-dominated institutions they think are outdated." He added that people may say they have been harassed but do not have a clear idea of what harassment is. And College junior Daphna Shapiro said she thinks the issue of sexual harassment on campus is overblown, noting that as one of few women Physics majors, she would be especially vulnerable to harassment. "I've never experienced any [harassment] and in my eyes it's not a problem," Shapiro said. In the last two months, two University students have publicly come forward with sexual harassment charges against other students. In one incident, Fine Arts graduate student Amy Iwata filed charges with the Judicial Inquiry Office against Richard Clark, an exchange student from Edinburgh, claiming he grabbed her and refused to let go on an escort van in October. And in the other incident, College senior Katy Henrikson charged a Theta Xi fraternity member with repeatedly trying to kiss her despite her protests at a party two years ago. Besides those two events, Interim JIO Jane Combrinck-Graham said yesterday she has received several other sexual harassment complaints so far this year, some of which have been settled and some of which are still under investigation. Combrinck-Graham said that some of the women came forward this fall due to the increased attention paid to sexual harassment following University of Oklahoma Law Professor Hill's Senate testimony. And Office of Affirmative Action Director Joann Mitchell said last week that the nationally-publicized hearings have raised awareness on campus. But she said Hill's charges have become a "good news, bad news situation" because while more people are aware of sexual harassment now, many women may be disillusioned that a woman with a "high-degree of credibility" was not believed. "This may prove to be somewhat of a barrier," she said.
(12/03/91 10:00am)
The Judicial Inquiry Office has leveled a host of sanctions against a male student after the JIO ruled he sexually harassed a female graduate student, according to the student who filed the charges in October. Amy Iwata, a third-year Fine Arts student, said she filed charges against Richard Clark, an exchange student from Scotland, complaining that he harassed her on a University Green Route Safety Shuttle van on the Saturday night of fall break. Iwata said Clark grabbed her and refused to leave her alone during the course of the ride to Center City. She said last week that the JIO ruled against Clark and that sanctions against him include a permanent notation on his transcript, a fine, a private letter of apology, a public letter of apology and enrollment in a sexual harassment education class. But Clark said last night that he "on no occasion touched" Iwata and that he had not heard of any sanctions leveled against him. Clark said he believes the case is still under investigation and he will learn of the outcome in a meeting with the JIO tomorrow. "I am shocked and horrified by this claim," he said. Interim JIO Jane Combrinck-Graham said yesterday that charges were filed by Iwata against Clark, but she said she could not discuss the details or the status of the case, including whether sanctions had been handed down. "I'm not willing to discuss any individual cases," she said. Iwata said that Clark, who she alleges was intoxicated, and a group of other "big, rowdy guys" boarded the van and asked to be taken to a Center City bar. She added that she told the driver that the men were drunk and should not be allowed to board the van. The van driver, Iwata said, "wasn't doing anything." "[Clark] sort of lunged back [from the front of the van] and grabbed me . . . around the neck with both arms," Iwata said. "[Then] he sat right next to me . . . and was brushing up against me." Iwata said that she repeatedly told Clark to move away. "I had to raise my voice and shout to him to get away," she said. Iwata said that Clark also used "coarse, vulgar language" and "simulated masturbation and a few other gestures." Clark denied the allegations, saying "I did not say anything or make any physical gesture which had a sexual connotation." But Iwata said he was continuously mocking and mimicking her and trying to get her attention. "I think [the driver] should have called the University Police or the dispatcher," she said. "He handled it really badly." Clark said that the driver did nothing because there was no need for him to act. "I, in no way, committed sexual harassment," he said. "I am bewildered how this girl can deduce this term sexual harassment." Clark said that he told Iwata to "mind her own business" when she attempted to convince the driver not to let them on the van. He added that she asked him to move away and he complied. That was the end of communication between the two of them, he said. Iwata said she was very intimidated by Clark's actions and her discomfort was one of the reasons she chose to file charges. And she added that an escort van was a place that she used to rely on as a "safety zone" and that she no longer takes advantage of the service. "I feel safer in . . . any clubs downtown than I felt in that van," Iwata said. But she added that she does not feel escort is primarily to blame. "I blame [Clark] and I don't really blame escort," she said. "You don't go out of your way to hurt somebody." Iwata said she reported the incident to University Police and filed charges with the JIO the week after the incident happened. While she described the JIO procedure as "a major hassle," she added that she is sorry she waited so long before going public with her complaint. "I wish now that I had done it right away," she said.
