not happening in many—possibly more than many—rninstances. Instead, something far more dangerous is afoot.rnIn almost all the cases receiving media publicity—and manyrnthat are not—the women bringing the complaints are in’okingrna clause in their schools’ sexual harassment policy that has torndo with the work (or study) place. If, in a woman’s opinion, arnmale superior’s behavior creates a “threatening environnrent”rnor makes her uncomfortable in any way, then she is able—rnindeed she is encouraged—to come forward with a complaint.rnNo proof is required. No witnesses are required. No blatantrnphysical or even verbal abuse needs to have occurred. Indeed,rnall a woman has to do is to assert that she has developed an impressionrnthat her superior has sexual designs on her or even thatrnhis presence makes her uncomfortable. She might even havernencouraged him, might, indeed, have been the originator of arnflirtation or a solicitor of his attention. That does not matter.rnAll that matters is that she is not happy with those attentionsrn—real or imagined—when they are directed toward her.rnCertainly, there are serious complaints. Overt propositions,rnrequests for sexual favors, repeated badgering for dates or assignations,rninappropriate comments on a woman’s sexuality allrnconstitute clear violations of propriety if not a school’s statedrnpolicy. But at least some charges are, in the main, frivolous. Inrnone instance, a woman complained that a professor “wiggledrnhis eyebrows” at her in a suggestive way; in another, a womanrnclaimed that a professor held a door open for her and let herrnpass by him so he could sneak a peek down the arm-hole of herrnsweater; in another, a computer operator said her superiorrntended to pull his chair too close to hers when he needed tornread what was on her screen.rnSilly as these complaints mav sound, they are taken veryrnseriously by the Office of Equal Opportunity, and the arernsufficient cause for university officials to launch a full andrnsometimes secret investigation of a professor’s or administrator’srnbackground, to interview potential witnesses, indeed tornruin the career of an’ academic if he has ever, at any time,rnmade any untoward gesture or comment toward a female atrnthe school. Instances can range back for years; there is nornstatute of limitations on a careless comment or thoughtlessrngesture, an off-color joke, or the reading aloud of publishedrnmaterial, even great literature containing potentially offensivernlanguage.rnHere is a list of several cases either pending or of recentrnvintage;rn—^An adult, married female student writes in a diary eroticrnfantasies about one of her professors. She and her husbandrnseparate shortly afterwards. The husband finds the diary andrnthreatens to bring charges and/or a lawsuit against the professor,rnwho has no personal relationship with the woman at all, unlessrnthe university acts against him.rn—^A woman approaches a university attorney about a professorrnshe says has “bothered” her. The attorney advises her tornwear a “wire” or carry a tape recorder to gather evidence. Shernenters the professor’s office and blatantly propositions him,rneven describes specific sexual acts she is willing to perform forrnhim. He agrees and is lured into suggesting a time and place.rnHe is later confronted with the tape, minus her proposition andrnsuggestions, which have been erased, and invited to resign orrnface charges.rn—An unmarried assistant professor invites a former and alsornunmarried student on a between-semesters date to a nearbyrntown. On their return, he blatantly propositions her, but herndocs not connect the proposition to any school function or activity;rnnor does he attempt to coerce her on the grounds thatrnhe, as a member of the university faculty, might do her harm.rnShe refuses, and he takes her home; she files a complaintrnagainst him. He is reprimanded by his department for sexualrnharassment, even though the incident occurred on personalrntime, away from campus, between semesters, and betweenrnadults. The following fall he is advised not to put himselfrnforward for tenure but to “start looking for another job.” He isrnterminated in the spring.rn—^A professor is asked for a ride home by a student he hasrnknown since childhood. On the way, she explains that her husbandrnis gone and invites him, in what he infers is a suggestiverntone, to come inside for a drink. He immediately pulls overrninto a eoncnience store parking lot, calls her a taxi from a payrntelephone, and stands in clear view of the counter attendantrnuntil the cab arrives. She files charges against him the nextrnmorning for “humiliating and sexually harassing” her.rn—A female student who has consistently bragged of herrn”former life” as a professional prostitute and of several presentrn”lovers” approaches a professor from whom she has never had arnclass. She overtly propositions him; he accepts and follows herrnto her apartment. She files sexual harassment charges againstrnhim the next day. He is told to face charges, although hisrnaccuser is not named, or to resign.rn—A male instructor fails a male student who has, in front ofrnwitnesses, made a provocative homosexual suggestion to himrnin a restaurant away from campus. The instructor rejects thernadvance, and when the final grades are posted, the student filesrna sexual harassment complaint. The instructor is suspendedrnfor two semesters “pending an investigation.”rnApart from these, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of cases,rnwhere complaints are based on far less obvious evidence. Inrnsome eases, students have stated merely that they “felt” arnprofessor’s “eves on them” either during class or elsewhere.rnOne might argue—and most university officials do—thatrnthere is a svstem, a process in place for the investigationrnof all such complaints. It is generally established by facultyrnhandbooks to deal with matters of professional misbehavior.rnBut these systems were designed to handle cases where hardrnevidence could be produced, not situations where inference,rninnuendo, and even intuition and hearsay become admissiblernevidence. The basis of most complaints is subjective in thernextreme, and since an alleged action or statement may haverntaken place in private, it comes down most often to the word ofrnthe accuser against the word of the accused.rnMost departmental or college committees are ill-equippedrnto function as judiciary bodies, are often ignorant of the “rulesrnof evidence” such as might function in a legal court, rules thatrndo not appK in university procedures anyway. They are rarelyrntrained in psychoanalysis, a vital tool necessary to determinernwhether a complainant’s “fearful feelings” are the result ofrngenuine threats and insinuations. Hence, the procedures becomernlittle more than rubber stamps for administrators whornwant the “problem” dealt with rapidly and quietly. The mostrnexpedient method is to get rid of the accused faculty member.rnAfter all, professors can be replaced more readily than federalrngrants, and liability suits filed by dissatisfied complainants canrnbe ruinously expensive. But the administrative bureaucrats gornMAY 1995/19rnrnrn