661 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/02/91 10:00am)
So this guy -- let's call him Ralph Righteous -- decided to exercise his constitutional right to free speech by getting creative with a Xerox machine. He took an out-of-focus, candid photo of me from the DP, and blew it up several times. He appended a derogatory slogan to his artwork and posted it in the hallway outside his office. It just so happens that I use that hallway to go to work each day. And so do my students, supervisors and co-workers. The poster stayed up for several months, until Ralph removed it for reasons known only to himself. I had investigated several mechanisms for resolving what I saw as a workplace harrassment issue, but I had not brought or sought to bring any official charges against Ralph. The University's sexual and racial harrassment codes (which apply to all students) did not address Ralph Righteous's posting of my picture with a generically insulting caption, and the University's workplace harrassment codes (which would have prohibited Ralph's behavior in the place where I work) do not apply to graduate students, even those who work for the University. So neither of those channels were open to me as a means of resolving this increasingly public problem. Several University administrators and friends urged me to pursue resolution of the matter through other official channels. See the ombudsman, someone suggested. I had a very nice talk with the associate ombudsman, whom I found friendly and supportive. But she held out little hope for a resolution through her office. She didn't feel that negotiation would be useful with someone who seemed so disrespectful of my feelings in the first place. The kind of person who would put up an insulting poster in the first place, she said, is not likely to feel remorse about having maligned a colleague. She had a point, I felt, and furthermore, I was disinclined to use my dignity as a bargaining chip with someone whose intentions seemed unfriendly, to say the least. I still had one official avenue for resolving this problem: Ralph's department chair. Like all department chairs, the head of Ralph's department was charged with the responsibility of maintaining reasonable workplace standards of respect and dignity. In fact, the reason that graduate students do not fall under the staff guidelines for workplace comportment is that department chairs are supposed to manage problems in this area. Unfortunately, Ralph's department chair (who could scarcely hide his smile while listening to "my side" of what he clearly regarded as a sandbox dispute) declined to take any action apart from questioning Ralph about "his side" of the matter. (It turns out that he and Ralph spoke frequently since he is Ralph's dissertation director, a fact that the chair neglected to mention to me during our talk, until I asked him about it.) I did not ask the chair to "make" Ralph take down the poster. Instead, I asked him to protect my right to a civilized, respectful workplace. I told the chair that I felt Ralph's poster was interfering with my work performance by creating a hostile and offensive atmosphere. The chair responded by saying that he felt reluctant to "police the walls" of his department. I asked the chair if he thought Ralph was behaving in a manner suited to a professional workplace. He declined to answer, and soon after left for the summer with the situation still unresolved. With the department chair's dismissal of my complaint, I had pretty much exhausted the official channels of conflict resolution at the University. The poster had been up more than two months by this time, and had been amended to include a statement by Ralph asserting that his action was protected by his right to free speech. And I heard from a number of sources that people were discussing the picture, and speculating on its meaning. Strangers asked me what I had done to warrant Ralph's behavior. My students asked me about it. So did my supervisor. A professor took a graduate student acquaintance of mine by the poster to discuss it and my "inappropriate" response to it: attempting to curb Ralph's right to free speech. In fact, the question on many people's lips was not whether Ralph was violating my rights by attempting to degrade me personally in the public building where I work, but whether I was violating Ralph's rights by seeking official channels of conflict resolution. The question of whether it is appropriate for adults to respond to other adults by putting up insulting posters in their workplaces took a backseat to investigations into how I might have offended Ralph and earned this ignominy. Consensus about Ralph's poster and my response to it, especially (dare I say it?) among men, was that I was in the wrong. I probably deserved Ralph's deliberate efforts to discredit and embarrass me where I work, and I certainly had no right to any official recourse which might impinge on Ralph's right to free speech. I draw two conclusions from my experience with Ralph, a fellow I met only once, nearly two years ago. First, I don't believe we can count on peer pressure and proper socialization to prevent harassment. Ralph's department chair was directly responsible for Ralph's socialization as a professional scholar, and he refused to advise Ralph that professionals do not resolve political differences with their colleagues by posting public insults. And if your advisor and department chair won't tell you what professional behavior is, who will? Second, I discovered that one's right to a civilized, respectful workplace is very selectively applied to University community members. Staff members have more efficient mechanisms in place for protecting workplace rights than do graduate students, who once again fall into bureaucratic abyss: we are students, not staff, but many of us also work for, and in, the University. Instead of being protected by an official code, we are subject to inconsistencies and idiosyncracies created by having to depend on individual department chairs -- who clearly take this responsibility with varying degrees of seriousness, and may have conflicting interests -- to protect our workplace rights. Elizabeth Hunt is a doctoral candidate in History and Sociology of Science from Bloomington, Indiana. One Man's Meat has appeared alternate Wednesdays.
(11/18/91 10:00am)
The student who filed sexual harassment charges against a Theta Xi fraternity member with the JIO said last night she has also made a similar complaint against the whole fraternity. College senior Katy Henrikson said she blames the entire fraternity for the incident in which a Theta Xi pledge repeatedly tried to kiss her despite her protests at a party in February 1990. "It was not an individual thing that he did," Henrikson said. "He was not acting as an individual because he was doing it as part of a fraternity event." Henrikson said that when she filed the charges November 7 she asked the Judicial Inquiry Office to investigate her claims against both individual and the fraternity as a whole. Theta Xi President Rich McCloskey said yesterday he is still not sure what -- if anything -- happened at the Valentine's Day party two years ago. McCloskey said he was not at the party and is currently "talking to brothers who were at the party . . . to get some first-hand information about what happened." "Nobody really knows for sure what happened," McCloskey said. "There weren't a whole lot of brothers around at the time." McCloskey added that he does not think Henrikson should blame the whole house for the incident "because most of the brothers at the time have graduated." But Henrikson said she believes current Theta Xi members are still responsible for the act because "they joined it knowing Theta Xi's history." "The [pledge] was acting under the roof of, by the example of, by the rules of, and by the protection and support of Theta Xi," she said. Henrikson and McCloskey both said they do not know the name of the pledge Henrikson says harassed her. According to Henrikson, the fraternity member tried to kiss her immediately after a pledge event in which each pledge, dressed as Cupid with a towel wrapped around his body like a diaper, ran into the room, kissed a woman and then ran over to a couch to sing a song. Henrikson said the pledge came up to her after she ducked from him during the event. Interim JIO Jane Combrinck-Graham said last night collective responsibility cases are referred to the JIO through the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, which ultimately determines sanctions that should be taken against a fraternity. Combrinck-Graham said she is not currently investigating a collective responsibility case, but added that someone else in her office might be handling Hendrikson's complaint. Hendrikson said she has discussed her charges with Assistant JIO Robin Read, who could not be reached for comment yesterday.
(11/15/91 10:00am)
A female student filed University judicial charges against a Theta Xi fraternity member last week for sexually harassing her at a fraternity party two years ago. College senior Katy Henrikson said yesterday she has filed a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Officer against the Theta Xi member, whom she said repeatedly tried to kiss her despite her protests when he was a pledge at a party in February 1990. Henrikson does not know the name of the pledge, and Theta Xi President Rich McCloskey said last night he has not heard of the charges. Henrikson said the student harassed her after a pledge event in which each pledge, dressed as Cupid with a towel wrapped around his body like a diaper, ran into the room, kissed a woman and then ran to the couch to sing a song. Henrikson said she ducked away from a pledge during the event, but that he came up to her later and tried to kiss her. Henrikson said she pushed the student away with her arm while he continued to push back for "about 30 seconds to a minute." She then threw a drink in his face. She said the pledge then began to shout "Get her the fuck out of here," and then told her to "Get the fuck out." She filed the charges last Thursday. McCloskey said last night he does not know if the event occurred or not. "If it happened so long ago, I don't see why she's taken so long to do anything about it," McCloskey said. Interim JIO Jane Combrinck-Graham could not comment on the case last night and said she can not say if the charges had been filed or not. Henrikson said she did not file charges earlier for three reasons. First, she said she was scared to go through the process with the JIO. Second, she thought of the event as a normal occurrence. Henrikson also said she was concerned that the Theta Xi brother who invited her to the party would be made to feel uncomfortable by other people in the house. But Henrikson said she is now ready to come forward. She said University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill's recent accusations of sexual harassment against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as well as the quickly reported acquaintance rape on campus last month, prompted her to file charges. "I had a realization following that that it's not just me who's affected by this event," Henrikson said. Henrikson said that last spring she wrote a paper on the event for a class that she sent to Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson, Theta Xi and the JIO. She said she does not know how her case will turn out, adding that she is not really sure what she wants out of it. "I don't think what happened to me was in any way a traumatic event," Henrikson said. "But I did begin to realize how truly deeply I was affected by it." "I'm not talking on the personal traumatic level, but on the institutional level," Henrikson added, saying she believes fraternities "are a form of institutionalized harassment." Henrikson said she thinks fraternities fulfill a need for many people on campus, but that "all the good things about them could be accomplished in a much healthier way." Henrikson announced her charge at a forum on sexual harassment organized by Women United for Change yesterday. Other speakers at the forum included Carol Tracey, director of the Women's Law Project in Philadelphia and a former head of the Penn Women's Center, and Joann Mitchell, the University's director of affirmative action. Tracey said the legal definition of sexual harassment is "conduct that is sexual in nature and is unwanted." And Mitchell explained the University's policy that defines sexual harassment as behavior that "involves a stated or implicit threat" to a victim's work or school status, interferes with the victim's school or work performance or "creates an intimidating or offensive academic, living, or work environment." About 50 people turned out for the forum. Of the approximately 20 men at the event, several were Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity pledges, according to College sophomore and PiKA pledge Scott Gallin.
(11/08/91 10:00am)
ain Concern We were waiting for Sarah Weddington, the winning attorney in the famed Roe vs. Wade case. She was late and people from the audience were invited to speak on the issue of abortion. After a couple of pro-choice speakers I was asked to share my views. I did not have an eloquent speech on the virtues of the pro-life movement. I just had a little story to tell about my grandmother. It was in 1937. She was pregnant again and awfully sick. She had troubles with her previous pregnancies, coming to the edge of death in her last one. On top of this, of all her pregnancies, only one child managed to live. So this time she and my grandfather decided together to visit a doctor in the big town to see if she should just not try this time. When they consulted with the doctor they got a different response than they expected. He advised them that there is a purpose in everything God does. And that she should not give up on a life God has created despite the possible dire consequences. I never met my grandparents so I don't know how religious they were, but apparently they believed that they had created a life and had an obligation to give it a chance. The result was my father. The reaction to my story surprised me. Certain feminists in the room apparently did not appreciate it and began to badger me about how insensitive I was to women's rights. I was surprised not only at the intensity with which they attacked me, but the range of personal charges they leveled at me as a supporter of the pro-life movement. This was my abrupt introduction to radical feminism. Since then I have not stopped hearing the ludicrous claims of feminists throughout the years. In all this time I have not heard strong criticism of their views because people see feminists as representative of all women. You are told that if you are against the feminist platform, then you are against the rights of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would be an insult to all women to assume that they are represented by a few extreme feminists. A recent example of this type of feminism-gone-overboard is the blind support given to Anita Hill in the recent Congressional hearings. Throughout the hearings feminists appeared on talk shows claiming that what happened to Anita Hill was a classic example of sexual harrasment and this case represented the plight of all women in the work force. In the end when Judge Thomas was confirmed, they claimed that the men in power positions were not taking sexual harassment seriously enough. Then after the proceedings, a sign went up on our very own Locust Walk that claimed that, "Women were categorically denied on October 15th." Did I miss the day when Anita Hill was elected as the representative of all women? Did I miss the day when we removed the innocent until proven guilty idea from American jurisprudence? It is completely ignorant to assume that the claims of one woman represent the claims of all women in sexual harassment cases. The point of those hearings was not to judge the validity of sexual harassment charges in general, it was to judge whether Anita Hill's particular charges against Clarence Thomas were valid or not. There is no question that sexual harassment should be taken seriously, but that does not mean that every person accused of this offense is guilty. There are many crimes we take seriously, and in every one of those cases we still have a trial to determine if the accused is guilty or not. If the feminists were not busy making Anita Hill their patron saint and instead had time to listen to the hearings they would have heard one witness testify that she acted euphoric when she talked about Judge Thomas' nomination, while another witness said she acted sick to her stomach. That does not sound like a woman who knows what she is talking about. They would have heard that she changed jobs to stay with him even though it was very clear that she could keep her old job. They would have heard that she invited him to speak at her college, that she called him more than eleven times on business and personal matters, that she had breakfast with him, that she gave him a ride to the airport, and that by all accounts she had an on-going friendship with him after she stopped working for him. That does not sound like a woman who has suffered sexual harassment and a great amount of grief at the hands of this man. They would have heard every other woman who worked with him at the time testify that he never came even remotely close to actions that would constitute sexual harassment, that, in fact, he made speeches in their work place condemning such actions, fired an individual for sexually harrasing a woman, and was a model of professionalism in his dealings with women in the work place. That does not sound like a man who would joke about the size of his penis to a woman he worked with. And nowhere in the proceedings would they have found irrefutable evidence that showed that Judge Clarence Thomas was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges of sexual harrasment. But feminists were not looking for the truth of the matter. They were looking for the heroic woman who would stop the confirmation of the judge that would cast the deciding conservative vote against Roe vs. Wade. The thinking is that Roe vs. Wade has to be preserved at all costs because it is the one decision that protects the rights of women to control their own bodies. After all, it's not like the anti-choice men really care about the life of the fetus, they just use that as a guise for taking away women's rights. Wrong again. People who argue to stop abortions do not really have a secret agenda to take away the rights of women. They truly believe that the life process starts at conception rather than a vague and continually changing definition of viability outside the womb that the court has arbitrarily set. They truly believe the fetus is alive, and that removing it would be the equivalent of killing a living person. That is a heart-felt view on what they see as a life-and-death situation. It is not something to be derided as an attempt to subjugate women. Many women participate in the pro-life campaign, but they are constantly being protrayed by the feminist movement as traitors or ignorant women who have let themselves be manipulated by men. These type of characterizations are ludicrous and should not be tolerated, especially by women. Feminists do not have the right to speak for all women on any issue, especially not the critical issues of abortion and the Anita Hill controversy. Nor do they have the right to intimidate women who disagree with them as they try to do when it comes to the issue of abortion. These women do not have a hold on the absolute truth when it comes to women's rights, and they should be challenged. Cenk Uygur is a senior Management major from New Brunswick, New Jersey. How You Like Me Now, Baby? appears alternate Fridays.
(11/07/91 10:00am)
The individuals seemed immediately moved by the dance number, for they emitted loud grunts of appreciation. Orgasmic groans escaped their lips, rising and falling with the beat of the music. "Work it, baby! Work it!" one of the gentlemen cried out to the female dancers. My neighbors proceeded to clap, stomp and sing along. The sounds of the auditorium expanded to include the unique contributions of these two men. And when the number ended, the two abruptly exited the theater. Then it was intermission. I was in the lobby when I overheard a male member of Arts House Dance say, "Yeah, some people thought we were really rude -- they didn't know that we're all friends." It turns out that those oh-so-subtle gentlemen seated beside me actually belonged to Arts House. Since they were not in that particular routine, they had retired to the back of the auditorium to cheer the women on. So what's the moral of the story? What can be concluded from the behavior of these students? One could say that their actions were barbaric, horribly offensive, a blatant objectification of the female members of the troupe. I, myself, felt that the guttural moans greatly detracted from the efforts of the dancers and from the art of the performance. After all, the routine was set to a song from Cats, not to I Touch Myself. On the other hand, one could say that the actions were simply funny. Why make such a big deal out of it? Why drag in the feminist rhetoric? These men are members of the group. I seriously doubt that they possessed any ill-intentions. To them, it was probably a way to rouse -- or arouse -- the audience. The women on stage may have really enjoyed their exuberance. And certainly, I suspect that they all might find this analysis of their actions a bit odd. Issues of sexual harassment have leapt into the forefront of campus and national attention in recent months. Unfortunately, the discussion has often been reduced to the black and white components of right and wrong. The Senate hearings did little to remedy this approach. I am not suggesting that all standards should be abandoned. Ultimately, actions can still be judged as right or wrong. However, in passing such judgments, it is crucial to understand the intentions of the participants, the range of behaviors that the individuals find acceptable. The behavior during the Arts House Dance production revealed many of the difficulties and miscommunications possible in male-female interactions. Here, the actual intentions of the men may have greatly differed from the way women perceived their intentions. But what if a woman in the group was offended? Would she be allowed to express her discomfort without being labelled "uptight?" Do potentially offensive actions become okay if the people involved are all friends? These are issues of importance for students on campus as well as for people in the work world. When college students think of the workplace, they often see it in very professional terms. But, in fact, we will be interacting with individuals our own age, people we will call friends. Friendships in the workplace can greatly complicate issues of sexual harassment. Think about how you relate to members of the opposite sex at Penn. Many friendships are chock-full of sexual banter. Often times, both people involved consider the comments harmless, playful. And then you move into the workplace, and you begin to hang out with your co-workers. The lines of acceptable behavior become blurred, confused. Is it so easy to turn this banter off? Are certain verbal suggestions really meant only in jest, a sign of friendship? Is the banter acceptable from someone you feel closer to, but not from the guy who hovers around the copy machine? How is he supposed to know that? Where do you draw the lines? When behavior makes an individual uncomfortable, when it threatens or belittles -- this behavior is not okay. But we should all be learning to recognize the many ways in which our actions and reactions are perceived. We should acknowledge the different assumptions that can go into male-female relations. Whether in the office or on campus, it is dangerous to decide that acts committed in the name of "friendship" cannot cause discomfort. It is dangerous to assume that this type of behavior is merely a joke. But it is important to understand that individuals may be acting under these assumptions. This understanding can influence the approach one takes to discussing the problem. With heightened awareness, we can all begin to vocalize our concerns in ways that will help improve relations instead of fostering increased antagonism. We should develop these skills now, not postpone the matter until we reach the workplace. Ideally, threatening behavior patterns should be remedied when they occur -- they should not go unaddressed until one of the participants becomes appointed to the Supreme Court. Elinor Nathanson is a senior Communications major from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Just In The Nick Of Time appears alternate Fridays.
(11/07/91 10:00am)
f P.C. Sex The lustrous moon shined brightly through the large bay window. Leslie stood admiring its beauty, an island of tranquility in the sea of chaos surrounding her. Suddenly, a deep, suave baritone broke her concentration. Leslie turned to see who had spoken to her. Brad stood nearby, with a beer in his hand and a smile that revealed his chiseled jaw and ivory teeth. "Sure is a beautiful night, isn't it?" Brad said. "Yes, I was just admiring the moon shining through the trees," Leslie replied breathlessly. Brad took a step towards her. "Look, I don't want to seem aggressive, but I just wanted you to know how beautiful you are." Brad paused. "I'm sorry, that was sexual harassment, wasn't it?" A cloud passed over the moon and a chilly breeze gusted through the leaves. "I don't mean to treat you like a sex object, I only wanted to introduce myself." The moon once again cast its light upon her smile as she said, "Oh, God no, that doesn't even approach my definition of harassment. Just remember to stress the second syllable in "beautiful" not the first though." Leslie felt her heart throbbing in her chest as she looked into Brad's dark eyes. "I do appreciate your sensitivity though. What's your name?" "I'm Brad. Oh, and, just do me a favor and don't confuse my sensitivity with frailty. I try very hard to balance the two elements. Do you care to dance?" Leslie was swept around effortlessly in his arms as they danced to Summer Winds while the party wound down. She felt secure and relaxed as her Ferrari-red fingernails traced his shapely biceps, rippling under his tightly fitted sweatshirt. After the music stopped, Brad helped her put on her jacket. "I have a great bottle of champagne I've been saving ever since I first saw you last March. I swore I'd never open it until I was with you," Brad said gallantly as an amber leaf fell onto his shoulder. "Would you like to join me for a drink?" "I'd love to," she said, trembling with desire, for she had never met someone as mysterious and charming as Brad. Leslie put her long fragile fingers into his masculine hand as they strolled down Locust Walk, past the ivied mansions to his apartment. As he pulled out his keys, he turned, pulling Leslie so close that she could feel the fire of his heart, and kissed her with flaming lips. A moment later -- it could have been an eon -- Leslie and Brad were at his kitchen table sipping a bottle of vintage Moet. Brad went to the stereo and put on Wagner's Die Walkure. The driving rhythms made him feel like he was Siegmund, carrying his beloved Sieglinde. Brad and Leslie's desires blossomed like Sieglinde's flowery arias. Leslie sauntered across the room, her long legs accenting her womanhood with every step. They embraced, hugging and kissing with unbridled passion like two stars colliding to form a stronger, brighter light. Leslie ran her fingers through his blond wavy hair. Brad kissed her milky smooth neck as Leslie moaned in delight. He ran his tongue firmly up behind her ear, then he nibbled lightly on her earlobe as she pulled out her silver earrings. He whispered softly, "Look, I hate to do this, but, well . . . " Suddenly, the compact disc jarringly skipped a track. "You know how sensitive these things are today and all. And, well, I have to protect myself you know. I have this little form here I'd like you to look over and sign before we go any further." He pulled out the handsome sheet of resume quality paper, and held it up to the flickering light of the candle. "Item number one just states that, even though you might have had a few drinks, well . . . you're sober enough to know what you're doing. The second item just states that anything that happens here tonight is with your full consent. "I trust you so much it pains me to have to do this, my sweet little lamb." He kissed her forehead as she bent to catch the dim light. "Oh Brad, God -- don't feel guilty, I understand fully. I know what it's like. I just have a problem with this line about 'gives up the rights to any civil suits or other legal claims.' It's just too vague prima facie, and might limit my future ability to seek restitution for any tortuous act not expressly provided for herein. "Who knows? We might do business in the future and you might be able to use this unjustly as leverage. If you just cross out that line I'm sure I can sign it for you now, and we'll have my lawyer look it over in case we ever hook-up again, my dear." Brad moved the pen swiftly, erasing the contested statement. As the opera slipped into a gentle interlude, Leslie signed, grabbed Brad and pulled him tight. Their lips sealed into an impenetrable bond, leaving their tongues free to wrestle inside. But Leslie broke away violently, staring into his serene eyes as a sudden draft blew out the candle. "I'm glad we got that out of the way. It makes bringing this up all the much easier. I trust you totally and all, but, well, caveat emptor," Leslie explained. "You know, written protection is better than verbal. Here's a little thing I'd like you to look over before we go any further." She took his hand and sucked lightly on one of his fingers while she relit the candle to allow him to peruse the document. "Item one ensures through threat of a class action suit that -- even though I know you'd never . . . you won't go back and blab to all your friends about what went on here tonight. It's just that men sometimes abuse us by slandering us and spreading tales about what occurs in moments of passion. "The second item -- the so-called 'Respect me in the morning' clause -- guarantees that you will talk to me after tomorrow, not that it seeks full relationship, just that you don't ignore me after we have sex like most guys do." "Honey, I'd never do that," Brad whispered lovingly in her ear as he caressed her back. "Thirdly, even though I use the Pill, a sponge, foam and an IUD, and you, of course, will wear a condom with spermicidal lubricant, in case of accidental pregnancy you will bare half of the monetary burden. "The last clause is what I like to call the 'Mutual Satiation Guarantee,' which basically says that you must not roll over like a jerk and go to sleep as soon as you climax." She rubbed his thigh vigorously as he read it over. "Look, sweetie, all this is fine except for the 'no blab' clause. It's not that I don't agree with the principle, it's just that I feel it restricts my First Amendment right to free speech." "O.K., cross that line out. I'll initial it. We'll have my lawyer work out a wording that is more comfortable to both parties." The candle glowed with the fire of their passion as they fell together in a tempestuous, grinding kiss. The moon lit up the hall as they groped for his room. They fell in a fury onto his shimmering silk sheets. Rolling and twisting together like battling snakes, Leslie and Brad kissed and moaned. As his strong hand unhooked her restrictive brazier, Leslie whispered, "Brad, oh Brad, I'm sorry but I broke one of my nails today and I have a small cut underneath. Would you mind terribly if I wore rubber gloves? You know how it is with open wounds and all. It is the '90s." "My darling, do as you like." He passionately undid the buttons of her translucent blouse and began gently kissing Leslie's excited breasts. "Darling, I want you, God do I want you. Look, though, I scraped my stomach playing rugby yesterday, and I have a slight abrasion. Do you mind a little . . . Saran Wrap?" "Of course not! I understand your position. Oh, rugby, you're such a man. Come here, closer hurry, I want you now!" Brad and Leslie made love as if they were dancing Swan Lake. Every thrust was met with the perfect reply, every kiss answered with a kiss. Leslie felt her womanhood swelling up inside of her as she lightly bit his neck. They moved with the music, a symphony of squeaking gloves on crinkling plastic wrap, reaching every note with their passion, crescendoing together. They fell exhausted, as two warriors who have finished in a draw. Brad's chest rose and fell as he held Leslie in his arms, her head on his shoulder, protecting her from the cold. She could hear him snore softly. She reflected back on the evening's wonderful events as she peeled off the gloves and threw them towards the wastebasket. As she saw a glimmer of the moonlight reflecting off the Saran Wrap, Leslie thought that for the first time she felt true love. Brian Kennedy is a sophomore English major from Newark, New Jersey. Never Mind the Bollocks appears alternate Thursdays.
(11/05/91 10:00am)
Freshmen and sophomores who had spent the last six weeks rushing Tau Epsilon Phi and Acacia fraternities said last night they did not intend to change their plans to sign bids for the fraternities, despite findings of collective responsibility for hazing and sexual harassment. "I thought about it and decided to continue with the bid process," College sophomore and Acacia rush Geoff Ott said last night. "I'm here and I might as well stay here." But many rushes from both fraternities said last night that neither fraternity informed them of the ongoing investigations, which began last year. They also said they were not aware of the potential sanctions the fraternities could receive. Many signed with fraternities last night at Bid Night -- the annual event when rushes officially designate which fraternity they will pledge. Tricia Phaup, director of the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, and Interim Judicial Inquiry Officer Jane Combrinck-Graham said yesterday that according to University procedures, each fraternity could face a wide range of penalties from probation to revocation of their charters. Several TEP rushes said last night that they were unaware of the investigation or had heard of it only informally. One said he overheard brothers discussing it and another said he had heard it from individuals outside the fraternity. "We were not told, but they probably will tell us after we get our bids," said another TEP rush, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I think they should tell us, but I would stay because I really enjoy TEP a lot." TEP president Jeremy Sokolic declined to comment and Acacia president Brian Baxt did not return phone messages placed at his home yesterday. One Acacia rush, College and Engineering sophomore Matt Bixler, said he has known of the event since last semester, but was "honored" to pledge Acacia. "I know what the problem is, I've known about it," Bixler said. "It's something that got out of control." "After I read it, I was feeling a little 'uh-oh,' " the College freshman said. "But I talked to some brothers about it and they said they wouldn't be caught with a major offense." Combrinck-Graham said yesterday that she did not know whether the fraternities had informed their rushes and added that it is not in her jurisdiction. "In general, I certainly think that one of the reasons why organizations can get themselves as a body in trouble is because they don't promptly keep their members informed of developments that have an impact on the body," Combrinck-Graham said. "But there is no requirement in the policies and procedures that they do it."
(11/05/91 10:00am)
The Judicial Inquiry Office has found the Acacia and Tau Epsilon Phi fraternities collectively responsible for a sexual harassment case and three hazing incidents, respectively, University officials said yesterday. A finding of collective responsibility means that the house as a whole can be held liable for a University policy violation and can be punished as a whole. The last reported finding of collective responsibility of a fraternity by the JIO was Psi Upsilon. Psi U was ultimately kicked off campus. Interim JIO Jane Combrinck-Graham said yesterday that she had turned her findings in both cases over to the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, but has not yet submitted a recommendation for sanctions against either fraternity. She added that the penalties for both fraternities could range from probation to revocation of the fraternity's charter, as mandated by University policy. "I have received it from the JIO and there is no recommendation, just findings," OFSA Director Tricia Phaup said yesterday. "If I am unable to reach a settlement it will go to the Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Board." Acacia fraternity brothers have been charged with sexual harassment for stealing and circulating a nude photograph of a brother's girlfriend to other members of the house. The complainant, a female University student, said that during a pledging event one or several members of the spring pledge class were instructed to perform a skit in front of her boyfriend and other brothers. The pledge was to assume the position that the complainant had taken in the photo, she added. "In my opinion they are definitely responsible collectively," the complainant said last night. "This has been a long and painful process for all parties involved and I hope it will be fully resolved soon." Acacia National Executive Director Darold Larson declined to comment on the issue, and Acacia chapter president Brian Baxt did not return several telephone messages left at his home. Former JIO Constance Goodman said this summer she had found TEP collectively responsible for two incidents of hazing, but the third hazing incident was announced yesterday. TEP president Jeremy Sokolic said he had not been notified of the findings. "I don't have any official action from any University office as of yet," the Wharton senior said. Combrinck-Graham added yesterday that the three hazing incidents will be treated together. "Although there are three separate incidents they reflect a pattern of behavior -- an attitude on the part of the chapter," Combrinck-Graham said. "We may go further and single out people. I also have the alternative to single out individuals and find if they are in violation of the code of conduct and state and federal [regulations]." Phaup added yesterday that findings concerning individuals would not be referred to her office. Jonathan Seidel, the Executive Director of TEP's national office, did not return telephone messages placed at his office yesterday. The cases, which both date back to the last academic year, were handled as quickly as possible, Combrinck-Graham said. She added that the investigations were delayed for two reasons -- the summer break and the fact that she needed to become familiar with the investigations since Goodman had handled them last year. "In both cases I believe [Goodman] acted expeditiously and I acted very expeditiously," Combrinck-Graham said. "A summer intervened and a number of pieces of information did not come to this office until literally right before spring classes ended." The process the investigation will follow is detailed in the Fraternity/Sorority Advisory Board Judicial Charter. According to University policy, after the JIO completes the investigation, Phaup and Combrinck-Graham will decide if there is "reasonable cause to believe that a chapter has violated the Recognition Policy." OFSA will then attempt to forge a settlement between all of the parties, but if a settlement cannot be reached, the case will be referred to the Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Board. "The other role of the director of OFSA is to determine whether my report is founded," Combrinck-Graham added. "[Phaup] and I are now in consultation as to whether either of those chapters have violated the recognition policy."
(10/29/91 10:00am)
So what do they have to hide? Why do they insist on keeping police reports confidential? The University Police Department claims that because it is a private agency, it does not fall under state open records laws. But clearly, University Police are given full law enforcement power by the state -- they can arrest people, they carry guns, they conduct investigations -- and therefore are a public actor. Furthermore, any organization that can carry guns on the street and arrest people should be accountable to the press and the public. When such organizations are not totally open to review and inspection, abuse of power may occur. Currently, University Police do not give full descriptions of crime suspects to the campus community -- you may have noticed that descriptions of guns are often more complete than descriptions of perpetrators whose race is never given. Is this the best way to inform the public and put the brakes on crime? Also, University Police has recently decided not to release names of people whom they have arrested until arraignment, which is usually days later. As soon as the police take away someone's freedom, it should be public knowledge. Anything less brings to mind memories of midnight raids on political dissidents by Felix Dzherzhinsky's KGB agents. The Daily Pennsylvanian has repeatedly asked University Police to provide daily crime reports in full. We have repeatedly been rebuffed. Last semester, an attempted rape was reported at a fraternity house with a history of sexual harassment. But the University community did not find out about this report until at least a week after it was filed. In the meantime, countless women visited the fraternity house without knowing of this report. Is this the best way to ensure the safety of University students? Almost always, the student newspaper first hears about sexual assaults and rapes that occur on or near campus through the grapevine. Nailing down specifics is like pulling teeth. Information that is public record is never volunteered. For example, we first learned of a reported sexual assault in the Medical School complex last semester through the rumor mill and were not informed fully by the University Police until weeks after the incident. Allegedly, a building guard who most students would trust implicitly had assaulted a student, yet no one was informed of the allegation for days. As a result, we printed a story that contained misinformation. As the situation now stands, we are required to call the University Police daily and rely on them to tell us every crime that they think might be of interest to the University community. This system makes it very easy for them to delay notification for hours, days, weeks or indefinitely. As a result, the DP, along with campus crime activists, has asked the Pennsylvania Legislature to pass a new law supplementing existing open record laws to make explicit the obligation of campus police forces to allow public inspection of their crime reports. The state of Massachusetts passed a similar bill this summer. The problem is not limited to the University. The Lehigh University student newspaper, The Brown and White, has repeatedly run into the same problems. This, even after a Lehigh student was brutally raped and murdered in her campus dormitory room by another student. Just two weeks ago -- five years after the incident -- Lehigh opened its police reports for public inspection, but still insists on blacking out the names of students. If you agree that you have the right to know all the details about crime that occurs on your campus, write to the bill's sponsor: State Senator Richard Tilghman, 406 Gatcomb Lane, Bryn Mawr, PA, 19010. It's time to put campus crime on the record.
(10/28/91 10:00am)
Thank you President Bush and the 52 narrow-minded senators for condoning a workplace conducive to sexual harassment. On October 15, Clarence Thomas was confirmed as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. As a woman and as a proud American citizen, I am now frightened by the American government and the public that supports it. I have always taken great pride in my country and its relatively open-minded and progressive policies and attitudes toward women. So how could the United States Senate see fit to confirm this man? He will serve a life-long term on the most powerful court in the country. I was astonished at his dubious stance on civil rights. He may also deny women the right to control their own bodies. I am 21 years old, and this man will shape the destiny of my life as a woman and as an American for the majority of my adult life. My disillusionment increased when it became public knowledge that Clarence Thomas had been accused of sexually harassing Professor Anita Hill. The Senate seemed more preoccupied with the source of the leak to the press than immediately acknowledging the gravity of such an accusation. The entire country was shocked by the accusations. Of course, I assumed that Thomas would not be confirmed, and that another qualified American, possibly another African American, would be nominated. I could not imagine the American President or the U.S. Senate taking any chances with such an important nomination. I was sadly mistaken. The Senate Judiciary Committee decided to conduct a dramatic and sensationalized hearing that was to become a disgrace to the entire country. The subordination of women in the American government, not to mention of African-American women was clearly illustrated by several members of the all-male Judiciary Committee who attempted to destroy the credibility of Professor Hill. Professor Hill, to my mind, was a credible and intelligent witness. She was quoted in a press conference as saying, "I had nothing to gain by subjecting myself to the process . . . I had more to gain by remaining silent." Why would she lie? She passed a lie detector test. It seemed like the perfect time for the Senate to acknowledge the serious problem of sexual harassment in the American workplace. Again, I was wrong! Certain Senators went so far as to question Hill's sanity and to try to label her as a schizophrenic. They blamed her and assumed that she must have been making the whole thing up. If that was not bad enough, a great majority of the public did not believe Professor Hill either. A New York Times poll showed that only 24 percent of those surveyed believe Anita Hill. Apparently, the American public seems to feel that women are not as credible as men in the workplace. I thought that the United States believed in equality for all. But the peculiar American system of equality seems to be typified by the majority Senate vote to give Thomas the "benefit of the doubt" and to label Hill as a troublemaker. The American government and its public should not be rebuking Professor Hill, but rather we should all be thanking her for fighting against American sexism. She has taken a stance on an issue that has plagued American society for a long time and is only beginning to be recognized. On October 11, The New York Times reported that 38 percent of those surveyed had been affected by some type of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment subordinates and stifles women in the workplace. It promotes a male-dominated work atmosphere. Anita Hill placed her reputation on the line, but it did not make a substantial difference in American attitudes toward the problem. In fact, as a result of the hearings, women may be less likely to come forward with sexual harassment charges for fear of being ridiculed and denounced as liars and as "scorned" women. On October 15, the President and the Senate conveyed to the United States a powerful message. They have acknowledged the allegation of sexual harassment, but they have not taken it seriously. They have signaled to American women that, though they may be sorry that harassment occurs, there is little that can be done about it. Professor Hill has asked American women not to be discouraged by her experience. She has challenged others to find the strength to speak out. Unfortunately, the United States government has condemned women to silence. As a young woman about to enter the workforce, I am being told that sexual harassment is an aspect of American society that I will have to live with. If I fight back, I will be denounced, discredited and possibly accused of fantasizing. As my college years are coming to an end, I no longer look forward to going to entering the American workplace. Jodi Gold is a senior History major from Memphis, Tennessee.
(10/25/91 9:00am)
This past fall break weekend was certainly not the best public relations event for Justice Clarence Thomas, Professor Anita Hill or the U.S. Senate (particularly Ted Kennedy.) Possibly, the only person, or legend, that benfitted from the hearings was Long Dong Silver. In all seriousness, however, these hearings did illustrate the confusion, explosiveness and divisiveness created by the issue of sexual harassment. One can only hope that these hearings will produce more than a trendy analysis of, and response to, sexual harassment. For if Anita Hill was telling the truth, which I think she was, it is horrifying to think how many other women have had similar experiences but declined to file a grievance or a suit out of fear of demotion or termination. Who knows? Maybe Professor Hill was coaxed into testifying for financial or political gains, however, that should not shrink the gravity of the allegations because they just might be true, nor should it tarnish or diminish her character. If anyone deserves criticism for the tardiness of these allegations surfacing, it is that bastion of American leadership -- the U.S. Senate. The Senate, which had been aware of these allegations for at least a month, planned to skip right over this issue, until fortunately, journalists Nina Totenberg and Timothy Phelps, as a result of a leak, investigated and wrote a story. · Indeed, the hearing furnished America with a dose of radicalism. Aside from pubic hairs on coke cans, big-breasted women and animals having sex (Damn, Clarence, what were you thinking?) and Long Dong Silver being discussed on national television, there were two other radical outcomes of the hearing. The hearing was one of the first -- if not the first -- times since I've been alive that a black man, while in the process of defending himself, was categorically defending white men. Sexual harrasment in the workplace is normally initiated by white men simply because the overwhelming majority of American managers are white and male. Thomas's defense testimony, in effect, united black and white men for about four days by shoving aside race and replacing it with gender. You know deep down inside that Senator Kennedy and the rest of the Judiciary Commitee sympathized a bit with old Judge Thomas. This all goes to show that if women are tired of being labeled "fantasizers," liars and perjurers when it comes to this issue, women are going to have to step up to the political plate in 1992 with bat in hand, ready to swing. One has to wonder how the committee and the full Senate would have voted if the Senate had 52 women and 48 men. (The present make-up is 98 men and 2 women. But that's American Democracy, right.) The second radical thing about the hearing was that it marked the first time in American television history that every black person on the air over a consecutive four-day period had a college degree. Most of them even had graduate degrees. I realized that fall break weekend would be historic when the perennial cellar dwellers of baseball's National League Western Division, the Atlanta Braves, were still in contention to advance to the World Series, but the scene at the hearing was unbelievable. It was the most educated and enlightened group of blacks ever assembled for a television show or miniseries. I can remember the days when the evening news, Sanford and Son (God rest Redd Foxx's soul,) Good Times (where the hell is Jimmie Walker now?) and Roots would be the only shows where one could see blacks regularly. Today, of course, there is The Cosby Show, A Different World, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air et al., but not even Cosby could compete with all of the Yale law degrees and Harvard business degrees (and all of these degrees are legitimate because remember, black conservatives don't endorse or benefit from affirmative action programs) populating the hearing room throughout this television bonanza. As a matter of fact, excluding the senators, Clarence Thomas might have been the least qualified person in the room. Heck, at least Anita Hill had an opinion. Harold Ford is a senior History major from Memphis, Tennessee. Say It Loud usually appears alternate Thursdays.
(10/16/91 9:00am)
Nonetheless, the affair has reopened a number of gaping wounds in this society on all levels, and it would appear that the pathology is systemic and that the patient may not recover. The racial issue was the first to float to the fetid surface like a bloated corpse. Thomas was a man selected to fill the de facto "black" seat held by Justice Marshall; it was, ironically, a Supreme quota bestowed on an individual who decried quotas. We were told, however, that race was not an issue, because Thomas was the man "most qualified" for the job. And yet Thomas claimed with a straight face that he had no view on Roe v. Wade and that he had not discussed the merits of the abortion issue with anyone. Thus, our country's greatest jurist is apparently an empty vessel (at best) with regard to the fundamental constitutional issues of the day. Then, sexuality raised its hideous head. What I think we saw was a brave women's attempt to come forward with important disclosures. She was met with rabid and gross distortions of her revelations along with relentless and groundless attacks on her honesty, character and even mental health. What woman would now consider it anything less than suicidal to come forward with similar charges directed at any man in a position of power? Finally (at least for the moment), Thomas's responses to Hill's charges were so self-serving, as well as so inappropriately vehement and indignant that, even if he did not commit the acts alleged by Professor Hill, he demonstrated conclusively that he does not have the detached temperament appropriate for the Court. So, what's left to say? Well, I want to propose an educational program that may -- in some incremental manner -- make men (especially those in positions of power or influence) more aware of the plight of the sexually harassed woman in the work place, because this seems desperately needed after the Thomas/Hill debacle. The fundamental obstacle, however, is that there is no easy way to convince many men that sexual harassment of women is inappropriate. Indeed, as far as I can tell from the intimations of the Senate hearings, the notion of lewd remarks or acts from a woman in a position of power or influence designed to coerce a man into performing sexual acts is, for a distressing number of those with an X-Y genotype, a description of paradise. So, why should women object when the roles are reversed? Therefore, if men have no endogenous appreciation of sexual harassment per se, we must instruct by analogy. Specifically, men should be subjected to experiences that approximate the degradation and demoralization routinely experienced by women. Men might perhaps (but it may be a stretch) get the joke. Here's one possible approach: The male "student" should be required to work long, underpaid hours in a cramped office with a male supervisor who is taller, stronger, and more aggressive. Most important, the supervisor should constantly tell the student -- especially in settings where there will be no witnesses -- that the supervisor wants to do something really unpleasant to the student, such as give him frequent and painfully vigorous prostate exams. If the student refuses to acquiesce in the supervisor's idea of a good time, the supervisor should physically intimidate the student to drive the point home. Eventually, of course, the student will no longer protest, because he cannot physically best his supervisor and because no administrative mechanism exists for effective remedial action. Sensing a weakness in his prey, the supervisor's overtures would become incessant. The student would be consistently passed over for promotions or raises, because he refuses to submit to his superior. The student also develops stress-related diseases. He cannot, however, get another job, because he is dead in the water without his supervisor's recommendation. Then, I suppose, to complete the training, the supervisor would be offered a promotion. The student musters up the will to come forward with descriptions of his supervisor's behavior. The student is not believed and his career is obliterated, however, because there are no witnesses to these actions and, besides, everyone knows that, when it comes to prostate exams, "boys will be boys." Oh well, maybe it's just another crazy idea, like the advice and consent of the Senate . . . Contest notice: Speaking of crazy ideas, the deadline for the "No Mayonnaise in Ireland" contest has been extended to October 28, 1991, in view of the overwhelming number of debilitating sunspots. So, send your elucidations of the phrase "No Mayonnaise in Ireland" to Steven Ochs at the Daily Pennsylvanian (Valencia, we need your number!!!). John Cooke is a former lawyer from Washington, D.C. He is currently a post-baccalaureate student studying a pre-medical curriculum. No Mayonnaise In Ireland appears alternate Fridays.
(10/10/91 9:00am)
Bye bye bow tie. Sen. Paul Simon has cancelled tomorrow's scheduled speech at the University because of the reopening of Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Simon (D-Ill.) was originally scheduled to speak tomorrow morning in Bodek Lounge, but as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bow-tied former Democratic presidential candidate must remain in Washington, D.C. to hear testimony on charges that Thomas once sexually harassed a co-worker. Sponsors of the speech said that Simon has not shown any intention of re-scheduling the speech in the future. But as Simon's duties as a legislator take precedence over his responsibilities as a public speaker, many students sponsoring Simon said it would be worth missing Simon's speech if the delay resulted in Thomas' rejection by the Senate. Yoram Borenstein, of co-sponsor Penn Israel Connection, added that "I personally dislike Thomas' views, and if the fact that Simon's not coming to campus will help in getting to the bottom of the issue, then that's for the best."
(10/10/91 9:00am)
The University defeated an appeal of a 1989 sexual discrimination case filed against it by default last week when the plaintiff did not show up for trial. "I went there with my witnesses," Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg said yesterday. "I think what happened was she Federal Expressed a letter to the judge, but I have not seen the letter." In the suit, former Van Pelt College House administrative fellow Ann McHugh claimed she was constantly harassed by a student and Van Pelt officials did not attempt to stop the abuse, despite her protests. Just days after taking her complaints to the University Ombudsman, she was fired, she contends. The University argued in a formal reply that she was fired because she was unable to "perform effectively" in her position and that she filed her complaints with the Ombudsman after she was terminated. McHugh argued that she was fired solely because of her complaint. In a confidential University document dated September 23, 1987 that was released into court records, McHugh told the student, Paul Cohen, that his actions violated the University's harassment policy. McHugh told Cohen that he is not permitted to ask about her personal life, touch her or "patronize" her and stop "demeaning" other residents of the house. "All references to Van Pelt as the three (four) F club -- freaks, fags, foreigners, (freshmen) -- will cease immediately," she told him. "This is offensive and abusive . . . " Cohen, who was not listed in the student directory for that year, could not be located for comment. McHugh was suing the University for reinstatement to her position as an administrative fellow and for reimbursement for her salary from 1987 to present, plus interest. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided in 1989 that McHugh's dismissal was not based on sexual discrimination. McHugh decided to appeal this decision through the courts. Hamburg said yesterday that McHugh's case was "frivolous." A counterclaim filed by the University alleged that McHugh's complaint in Municipal Court and complaints before the EEOC breached the settlement agreement the University made with her. This counterclaim was dismissed last week along with the rest of the case. McHugh has changed lawyers several times in appealing her case. Past attorney Elizabeth Warner declined to comment on the ruling, saying she had never taken the case. Another previous attorney, Alan Epstein, also declined to comment, adding that he was no longer assigned to the case. McHugh did not return several phone messages placed at her home last night.
(10/09/91 9:00am)
A Philadelphia man was found guilty of indecent assault yesterday in his third trial for sex-related crimes committed near the University. Raydell Luke -- who was found innocent of rape and attempted rape near campus in two prior cases and will be tried in a fourth case of indecent assault next month -- also faced charges yesterday of attempted rape and simple assault, but Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge Gene Cohen said the prosecution did not establish either an intent to cause injury or an attempt to rape. In his decision, the judge required that Luke be evaluated before his sentencing by a psychiatrist who specializes in sex crimes. The 36-year-old defendant waived the right to a jury trial in yesterday's case, choosing instead to have his case heard by only a judge. The alleged victim, 23-year-old Susanne Taylor, said she was walking home from visiting a friend who lived in the high rise dormitories on May 10, 1990, when she was assaulted. Taylor testified that as she walked west on Locust Street at 7:30 that rainy evening, she sensed that someone was following her, keeping a steady distance of a half a block behind her. She said she walked as fast as she could, but after she crossed 45th Street, the person moved within a quarter of a block. Taylor saw that he was a black male, whom she later identified as Luke. When she reached the middle of the 4500 block of Locust Street, Taylor said Luke came within several feet of her and tripped. Believing that he had lunged for her, she turned around to face him and screamed. As the defendant stood up, saying, "I'm OK," Taylor said she realized he had fallen, and turned away from him to continue walking. Luke then began talking to her, asking her if she was a student and saying she looked good in the dress she was wearing. Taylor said she was afraid, and she responded with one-word answers. "I didn't want to upset him," she said. "I didn't want to incite him by something I said or didn't say." Then, according to Taylor's testimony, Luke said, "You look so good in that dress, I'd like to fuck you." He grabbed her from behind, putting his arms across her breasts and pelvis, she testified. She kicked backward, pulled away from him and ran down Locust Street. He turned and ran up 46th Street. Taylor reported the incident to Philadelphia Police and did not see Luke again until she identified him in a police lineup last February. Luke, who was arrested in January for allegedly raping a University employee, was found not guilty last month for a 1988 attempted rape of a Children's Hospital of Philadelphia doctor. A Municipal Court judge also found Luke not guilty of a December 30 rape of the University employee in August. Luke still faces two charges in an alleged indecent assault and robbery which occurred just two hours after the December 30 incident just off campus. In yesterday's hearing, much of defense attorney Steven Gross's questioning focused on Taylor's ability to identify the defendant correctly after a gap of 10 months. He introduced a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence from the lineup, but this was denied when Cohen ruled that nobody had influenced Taylor's identification. During the trial, Gross questioned her repeatedly about the amount of time she had seen her attacker's face, and he asked her about the lineup, in which she asked Luke to step forward a second time. This was a deviation from standard procedure. After the trial, Gross said that while he understood the strong effect a witness's positive identification of a suspect can have on a judge, he believes there is a danger of misidentification. "I don't think you can view a total stranger in the dark for a few seconds and identify them nine months later unless there is something really strange about them," he said. Assistant District Attorney Jeanette Synnestvedt, who is prosecuting Luke in all four cases, said yesterday she was disappointed by the verdict. She thought she had established a case for attempted rape, but the judge did not agree. She added that she would have preferred to try the case in front of a jury. "It is easier from my perspective as a prosecutor to try these sorts of cases -- attempt to rape -- in front of a jury," she said. "Juries are very understanding of sexual assault cases, very sympathetic. In this case I felt that they would have been very willing to convict on attempt to rape." Taylor also said the verdict disappointed her, but she was relieved that the trial is finished and Luke is in custody. "I could stop everything and cry for a while, or I could call a counselor and cry for a long time, but I don't believe in wasting time," she said. "I'm going to keep going. This person is not going to take away my right to walk down the street or to wear a dress." Taylor said the trial was not as difficult as she had anticipated, and according to Synnestvedt, the belief that sexual assault victims will be harassed in court is a fading stereotype. "It's really not that way when you come to court," she said. "We don't rake you over the coals and call you a whore."
(10/07/91 9:00am)
The Judicial Inquiry Office is investigating a sexual harassment complaint that charges Acacia fraternity brothers with stealing and then circulating a nude photograph of a brother's girlfriend to other members of the house. The complainant -- a female student who agreed to discuss her case only if granted anonymity -- said the photo was originally stolen from her boyfriend's off-campus apartment in December, and was xeroxed and shown to Acacia brothers until at least April, when she discovered the incidents and filed the complaint. Interim Judicial Inquiry Officer Jane Combrinck-Graham said last night that a complaint was registered against the fraternity and individual members for sexual harassment. Combrinck-Graham -- who picked up the investigation after former JIO Constance Goodman resigned this summer -- said the chapter has not been notified of any charges because her investigation is continuing. Acacia President Brian Baxt declined to comment until he is officially informed of charges. According to the University's judicial charter, if the fraternity is found to be collectively responsible for the incidents, the house could be kicked off campus. The complainant said that after she and her boyfriend -- a former Acacia brother who has been granted early alumni status -- left for winter break last year, her boyfriend's roommate invited seven members of Acacia to their apartment. "They went into my boyfriend's bedroom and searched without his consent," the student said. "They found a box that was hidden under a big pile of clothes. One member opened the box, looked through it, and found a nude picture." The complainant said the Polaroid photograph was taken with her consent, but "was obviously not open for public viewing." She added that the photo was then shown to all of the brothers in the apartment and replaced in the box. Within 24 hours, one brother who was in the apartment told another about the photograph and "the two of them together decided to go back to the apartment with the intent of stealing the picture, xeroxing it and putting it up within the fraternity house," she said. It is unclear how many photocopies were made, but they were never put up in the fraternity house, according to the complainant. One of the brothers showed a photocopy of the photo to a member of the fall pledge class, she added. Acacia has two pledge classes each year -- one intiated during the fall and spring semester. "The pledge assumed that since he had been been shown the photo, many of the members knew of it," she said. It was later learned that many of the brothers did not see the picture, but were aware of its existence, she said. "They definitely knew about it -- and knew the specifics," she added. The complainant also said at least two of the brothers told people outside of the fraternity of the photograph. As part of a pledging event, one or several members of the spring pledge class were instructed in early April to perform a skit in front of her boyfriend and other brothers in which the pledge was to assume the position that the complainant had taken in the photo, she said. "The pledge then said, 'Look familiar?' " the complainant added that she learned later. The complainant also said she was told that several of the brothers found the skit amusing and that several of the brothers seemed to know the background of the skit. She added that no attempt was made to stop the skit. "I approached fraternity chapter officers with my concerns and was told that it would be discussed at a chapter meeting," the complainant said. "At this point, I found out about the xeroxes when a fall pledge, who had been shown the xeroxes, came forward and let my boyfriend and I know." After hearing precisely what happened from several members, the complainant said she decided to go to the JIO. "I feel that my privacy had been violated, and my trust," she said. "Several of the people who committed these acts were the first people I met at this University. I just didn't think this was appropriate behavior that I could just forgive without formal action." The complainant said she then made a personal statement to the fraternity "telling them that I was hurt by some of the members' actions, but that I would hope that they would understand and respect me for my action in dealing with what happened." Immediately following the statement, she left the room, and a brother brought up a motion to ban her from the house, she said. The motion was tabled, but it passed when the fraternity members learned she had gone to the JIO, she said. "This hurt me and continues to hurt," she said. "It's not that I would want to keep going to their house or their parties. It [hurts because] they were essentially placing the blame on me. In taking this vote, it was essentially saying that the complainant was wrong." No apology has ever been made by the chapter, the student added. "A few of the brothers actually expressed the opinion that because I let the photo be taken I should accept the consequences." "I personally feel whether or not people agree with the moral issues behind a nude photo, no one deserves to have something they kept private and sacred to be divulged to the general public," she said. "It is like if someone was to read your diary." The student's boyfriend said in an interview last night that he had suspected a break-in in his room, but when he questioned people he found a "circle of denials." He added that "the alumni do not condone the actions of the chapter and I feel that they support my girlfriend and I." Acting JIO Combrinck-Graham said that since the investigation is not complete, she has not filed charges which would subsequently be sent to the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs. It is not clear when she will finish her investigation. OFSA Director Tricia Phaup could not be reached for comment over the weekend.
(09/17/91 9:00am)
In the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs conference room hangs a poster depicting a classical Greek sketch of a man and a woman. The man is impaling himself on the woman, who is pushing his face and looks angry. "Today's Greeks Call It Date Rape," the caption underneath the print reads. "Against her will is against the law." The poster is part of a nationwide campaign by fraternities to educate their members about acquaintance rape -- an effort several fraternity members say has been successful. Yet many who work with victims of acquaintance rape say fraternities need to move more quickly to police their members and change their attitudes. And while everyone agrees that fraternity members are a captive audience to discuss social issues, many dispute whether this audience really agrees with the message on the poster. · Many observers say women are raped or sexually assaulted in fraternities because they do not see fraternity parties as a potential danger -- particularly in their first few months on campus. "The myth is the black guy from West Philly," Women's Center Director Elena DiLapi said. "They don't fear the upstanding white fraternity." But several incidents over the past few years have contributed to an attitude of mistrust of fraternities on campus. In the spring of 1988, Zeta Beta Tau was suspended from the University for a year for hiring strippers for a rush event. Rushes attending the event performed sexual acts on the strippers with cucumbers and ketchup. And in February 1983, a woman was allegedly gang raped at Alpha Tau Omega by five or six men. While no one was convicted in connection with the incident, the fraternity was suspended for a semester. And many at the University believe fraternities have encouraged the objectification of women. Members of the Women's Alliance said yesterday that women going to fraternity parties should be aware of the attitudes houses have toward women. They have kept a collection of fraternity party fliers from the past few years which they say are particularly offensive and show an unstated goal of sexual conquest. One flier, posted by Phi Sigma Kappa, shows a whale on the awning of the Phi Sig house. The party, called the "Beached Whale" party, offers guests the chance to "meet Jonah." Women's Alliance member Wai-Sum Lee says the poster refers to a practice known as "beaching," where a brother convinces a woman to have consentual sex with him. Unbeknownst to her, however, other brothers are outside watching. Another poster, advertising a Beta Theta Pi party last fall, shows a woman and offers "Live Animals" for "Crab Night." On several of the posters, the fraternity promises beer free and "women free." "It's almost like a promise," College senior Lee said yesterday, adding it is unclear whether the hosts are promising women free entry to parties or men free access to women. The Beta poster drew criticism from the Panhellenic Council last year and, in part, spurred a new Interfraternity Council poster policy. The policy requires the chapter's executive board to approve all promotional literature and offers confidential review of promotional materials by several University organizations. Interfraternity Council President Jim Rettew said he is concerned about perceptions that the mood of fraternity parties is demeaning. "I would hope that we're not promoting . . . an atmosphere which encourages sex," Rettew said. "[T]hey don't help the situation . . . They foster a lot of bad attitudes," one junior woman said. And many of the respondents matched one senior woman's adamant criticism of fraternities: "The system and attitudes are to blame." But more than half of the respondents said fraternities are unfairly criticized on this front, saying fraternities may be a center for acquaintance rapes only because they are the center of undergraduate social life. The parties are a traditional haven for people to meet and drink underage. Over 62 percent of the respondents to the poll said alcohol was partially responsible for at least half of all acquaintance rapes. Others said they felt the parties, not fraternities themselves, were responsible for acquaintance rape and the houses should not be blamed. "What the hell for! Now that's definitely a stigma," one male respondent said. "It starts at parties and the majority of parties at Penn are at fraternities." And a freshman woman said although fraternities might be responsible for some acquaintance rapes, they would happen in other places if there were no fraternity parties. Still, some fraternity members admit they would have suggestions for women attending their first few fraternity parties about what they might encounter there. "Sure I'd have some advice," IFC President Jim Rettew said. "It'd be like going to West Philadelphia and not worrying about the crime . . . It's not a fraternal problem -- it's part of the social environment of coming to a new place." · Peggy Sanday, author of Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood and Priviledge on Campus, has a very personal interest in the research she conducts. "My book was about a student of mine," the Anthropology professor said, adding she has a "strong sense of responsibility" to educate both men and women at the University about attitudes and actions that will affect them all. Yet her chronicle of the alleged gang rape at Alpha Tau Omega is harshly criticized by fraternity members and observers who have an equally personal interest in her work. In the book, Sanday maintains that gang rape and fraternity disrespect for women is rooted in initiation rituals which promote an agressive "macho" attitude toward sexual discourse and identity. Brothers humiliate and dominate pledges during initiation and characterize the pledges' weakness as feminine, Sanday contends. When pledges finally become brothers, their brotherhood is based on a shared sense of power that others do not have. She said brothers feel entitled to exercise power over others -- particularly women. Sanday's work has given complaints about fraternities the weight of academic scholarship, but others maintain it is, at best, a snapshot of the past and, at worst, a description of events that never happened at the University. "For Peggy Sanday to point and to blame the whole problem on fraternities is not only an exaggeration, it's inflammatory," Rettew said this week. "People make out the Greek system and intitation and pledging as if we teach sexim and racism in our curriculum. [It's] so far-fetched, so far from the truth . . . it doesn't even warrant a response." And journalist Hank Nuwer, who has written about hazing in society, said Sanday's book is overly general, taking a few isolated incidents and characterizing an entire system. Derek Goodman, a member of Phi Kappa Sigma fraternity and the Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape executive board, says although he agrees with Sanday's message, he questions her research. "I don't know about any of the initiation incidents -- they didn't come from my house," Goodman said. Yet Sanday said she has never heard that her book was inaccurate and said several fraternity brothers told her gang rape happens all the time. "My book is not an overreaction," Sanday said. "It's one of the only reactions to the problem." Sanday's research is not the only written condemnation of University Greeks in the past few years. In 1987, an internal University report said "most acts of violence, discrimination and harassment occur in or around fraternities." The report, commonly known as the Berg Report, also said the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs held little sway over fraternities. "Fraternity leaders claim that they would be at best ignored and more likely mocked if they were to attempt to lead discussion on ethics and morality in their houses," the report read. "This suggests that it is unrealistic to expect reform to arise from within the fraternities."
(08/01/91 9:00am)
After facing the most damaging findings of a federal research cost investigation that shook universities across the nation this year, Stanford University President Donald Kennedy stepped down this week -- just one week after announcing that Stanford would reorganize the way it accounts for its research spending costs. "It is very difficult, I have concluded, for a person identified with a problem to be the spokesperson for its solution," Kennedy said in a statement dated July 28. Kennedy also said that he and the university responded poorly to the early allegations of Stanford's spending improprieties. But he blamed the initial response on inadequate information about the depth of problems in the school's accounting department. "If you had perfect hindsight and if you had perfect information, you would handle any bad situation differently," said Kennedy, who also said he plans to return to teaching biology at the university. The government continues to investigate allegations by U.S. research contract negotiators and auditors that Stanford overbilled Washington as much as $200 million in the 1980s for overhead costs related to research. Overhead includes maintenance and library services, costs which are not associated with any one particular research grant. Stanford's financial woes prompted similar audits at institutions around the nation, including at the University. Last month, federal investigators completed their inquiry at the University, and announced they had found $402,000 in overbillings during 1987. The government has cut more than $18 million from Stanford's annual research budget of about $240 million. The 59-year-old Kennedy, who said he would step down in August 1992 after 12 years as president, was humiliated at a congressional hearing in March. The panel noted that Stanford billed the government for a cedar-lined closet and a shower curtain in his home and for Kennedy's laundry. "The sad truth was he had lost the confidence of just about every faculty member," said William Spicer, an engineering professor and critic of Kennedy. Kennedy joined the Stanford faculty in biological sciences in 1960 and later served as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration for 21/2 years during the Carter administration. Stanford has been beset with other problems this year, including the resignation of a medical professor who said she had been sexually harassed for years and the firing of a computer-science lecturer who bragged about carrying drugs on campus. The Associated Press contributed to this story.
(04/25/91 9:00am)
A Faculty Senate committee has called for the University to remove the Reserve Officers' Training Corps from campus in June 1993 if the two campus units do not comply with the University's code of non-discrimination. After a seven-month review of Navy and Army ROTC, the Faculty Senate's Committee on Conduct determined that the programs discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to fully participate in the programs. The committee also recommended that President Sheldon Hackney work to change the Defense Department's stance that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. University Council ordered the study last May as part of a resolution saying that ROTC should be kicked off campus by June 1993 unless they abide by "the spirit and the letter of the University's non-discrimination policy with respect to sexual and affectional preference." Council called for the study to find out if ROTC does violate this policy. The University's non-discriminatory code states that "the University does not discriminate on the basis of . . . sexual or affectional preference . . . in the administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, athletic and other University administered programs." The Council resolution also calls for the University to join a national effort "to pressure the Department of Defense to abolish its policy of discrimination against gay men and lesbian women." Council's resolution came as a reponse to allegations from a former University student enrolled in Naval ROTC who said he was harassed at the campus' unit when he revealed that he was gay. NROTC Director Lyle Lewis refused to comment on the Conduct Committee's report until he has read it himself, and Army ROTC Director Jerry Warnement could not be reached last night. Council Chairperson Almarin Phillips said last night the report also suggested allowing current ROTC students to receive University credit for military science courses taken as part of the program if it is moved to another school. He said this would prevent ROTC students from suffering for military policy they have no control over. The committee's report will be presented to Council members for their approval in May. Council is an advisory board to President Sheldon Hackney. Council votes are only recommendations to Hackney and carry no official weight. The president is the only person at the University who can authorize the removal of ROTC. Hackney said last night he will listen to advice from Council members at next month's meeting before he decides if he will follow the committee's suggestions. He would not give reasons for why he would allow ROTC to remain on campus despite the committee's findings. The president noted that while the ROTC units do not pay the University to be present on campus, they do provide financial aid for several students. Council Steering Committee member Peter Freyd, a Mathematics professor, said last night the results of the report clearly show that the ROTC units do not belong on campus under current military policy. "We can not run a University having a department that goes against its policy," Freyd said. Freyd said he hopes the actions of the University -- as well as other schools across the country -- will make the Defense Department change its discriminatory policy. "Everything [the military] is saying about homosexuals now, is the same thing [it] said about blacks in the 1950s," Freyd said. "If enough good schools say [ROTC] can't discriminate, it will have an effect that will change military policy." Phillips said he expects Council members to accept the conduct committee's report as readily as they accepted the resolution last May, but said he does not know how the president will respond.
(04/19/91 9:00am)
University and Philadelphia Police have identified a single suspect in the alleged attempted rape at the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity house, a Philadelphia Police spokesperson said yesterday. At the same time, Philadelphia Police reports reveal discrepancies between when University Police learned of the incident and when they reported it to the University community. University Police Commissioner John Kuprevich admitted last night that the department did not inform the community about the incident as quickly as it should have, blaming the delay on a flawed reporting system within the department. Philadelphia Police officer Dorothy Kearsey said the victim of the alleged crime, a Harvard University student, has identified the person she says attacked her. Kearsey said police have already questioned the suspect and plan to give him a lie detector test. Kearsey would not say if the suspect is a brother of the fraternity or if police might charge him with the crime. Kuprevich, who has been out of town most of this week, was not sure if the suspect was a University student. Kearsey and Harvard University Police Chief Paul Johnson both said the victim reported the incident to Harvard Police, who then reported it to University Police. Johnson said the victim has since taken a leave of absence from Harvard. Neither Johnson nor the Harvard Police detective investigating the case would comment further. Kearsey said Philadelphia Police have been in contact with both the victim and her family. According to Kearsey, the victim did not report the January 26 incident to Harvard Police until March 19, almost two months later. Kearsey said Harvard Police notified University Police, who then notified the Philadelphia Police Sex Crimes division on March 29. But in the weekly crime log sent to the Almanac, University Police state that the crime was reported on April 2, three days after Sex Crimes was notified. Kuprevich said the unusual nature of the incident led to this difference. He said University Police have deferred to Sex Crimes in the investigation, adding that both University and Philadelphia Police spent the three days talking to the victim to determine if she wanted to go forward with a complaint. "It wasn't really clear what the complainant wanted to do in the case," Kuprevich said late last night. He said the April 2 date represents the time the two departments decided they had enough information to start a formal investigation of the case. Victim Support Services Director Ruth Wells said yesterday she knew of the incident by March 29, when she first contacted the victim. Wells said she is talking with the victim regularly. The department and the administration in general have come under fire from student leaders for how they report sexual assaults to the University community. At University Council's monthly meeting last week, both Safety and Security Committee Chairperson Jeffrey Jacobson and Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Chairperson Susan Garfinkel criticized President Sheldon Hackney for not making more information on the incident available to the University community. Jacobson said at Council that University Police never mentioned the incident to his committee even though it had met April 5, a full week after the department notified Philadelphia Police. And the April 2 date police listed in the blotter meant the incident appeared in Almanac a week later than it would have if police listed it for March 29. This is the third time this semester University Police have not offered information on campus sexual assault reports in a timely manner. Kuprevich was not immediately available for comment on a reported December sexual assault at the Medical School even though he made himself the official department spokesperson on the matter. Last month, University Police failed to inform a DP reporter of an attempted rape of a University employee when he made his routine check for weekend crimes. Only after DP staff members learned of the incident independently and asked Kuprevich about it directly did the department provide any information on the crime. University Police, like most police departments on college campuses, choose not to make their incident reports public. Rather than viewing reports directly, reporters and other members of the community must rely on police spokespeople for information. But Kuprevich said last night the department has never tried to cover up any reported crimes. "Our policy has never been to hide anything that's been reported to us," he said. "Our community needs to know about crimes that are going on." He attributed the lack of notification to the DP and the Safety and Security Committe to an oversight and said the department is trying to build trust with the community. But he admitted the incident "shows a flaw in our system of reporting things." "The clear paths of communication are not completely set up," he said. "They just are not. But we're getting there." Former Safety and Security Chairperson Helen Davies said last night, however, that the University Police Department seems to have informed the committee regularly about these cases. "I think they have been extremely good about it," she said. Davies and Wells said it is not unusual that the victim did not notify authorities of the incident until well after it occurred. Wells said victims of sexual assaults, especially on a college campus, may fear harassment, intimidation or will blame themselves for the incident. In addition, Wells said they may feel reluctant to charge an acquaintance with a crime that carries prison sentences. Davies said the University's counseling services and Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape are reducing this problem, but other schools may not have similar support systems.
