Sexual Harassment Policy
The GSD seeks to maintain a learning and working environment free from sexual harassment. Sexual harassment seriously undermines the atmosphere essential to the academic enterprise. The determination of what constitutes sexual harassment will vary with the particular circumstances, but it may generally be described as unwanted behavior of a sexual nature, such as physical contact or verbal comments or suggestions, which has an adverse effect on the learning or working environment of any member of the GSD community. Examples in the academic context may range from subtle forms of behavior or off-color jokes to blatant instances of the abuse of power such as making sexual favors a condition of success in a course. Allegations of sexual harassment will be treated with the utmost seriousness and examined carefully and responsibly. This document outlines the procedures for responding to allegations brought against individuals holding teaching, research, studio critic, or other faculty appointments, full- or part-time, at the GSD. Guidelines for determining what constitutes sexual harassment follow.
Guidelines for Determining what Constitutes Sexual Harassment1
Any member of the GSD community who believes that he or she has been sexually harassed, who has experienced problems involving unprofessional conduct, or who would like clarification or information on GSD complaint and resolution procedures is encouraged to speak with an appropriate officer of the faculty, such as the contact persons listed below. There are specific procedures for resolving problems of sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct. These cover situations involving individuals of different university status and individuals of the same university status. They range from informal counseling and mediation to formal procedures for disciplinary action. A written description of these procedures in cases involving students appears in the Student Handbook. The Faculty Handbook contains procedures for complaints between faculty members. Complaints lodged against GSD staff members will be handled according to procedures outlined in the Personnel Manual or the contract with the HUCTW.
1 Closely modeled on guidelines prepared by the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
Descriptions of Sexual Harassment
The determination of what constitutes sexual harassment will vary with the particular circumstances,2 but it may be described generally as unwanted sexual behavior, such as physical contact or verbal comments, jokes, questions, or suggestions. In the academic context, the fundamental element of sexual harassment is ordinarily the inappropriate personal attention by an instructor or other officer who is in a position to exercise professional power over another individual. This could involve an instructor who determines a student's grade or who can otherwise affect the student's academic performance or professional future, or a tenured professor whose evaluation of a junior colleague can affect the latter's professional life. Sexual harassment can also occur between persons of the same university status. An example would be persistent personal attention in the face of repeated rejection of such attention. Such behavior is unacceptable in a university. It seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic enterprise.
2For example, the guildeline definition of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is as follows: unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment, when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Unprofessional Conduct in Relationships between Individuals of Different
University Status
Amorous relationships that might be appropriate in other circumstances always have inherent dangers when they occur between any teacher or officer of the university and any person for whom he or she has a professional responsibility (i.e., as teacher, advisor, evaluator, supervisor). Implicit in the idea of professionalism is the recognition by those in positions of authority that in their relationships with students or staff there is always an element of power. It is incumbent upon those with authority not to abuse, nor seem to abuse, the power with which they are entrusted.
Officers and other members of the teaching staff should be aware that any romantic involvement with their students makes them liable for formal action against them. Even when both parties have consented at the outset to the development of such a relationship, it is the officer or instructor who, by virtue of his or her special responsibility and educational mission, will be held accountable for unprofessional behavior. Teaching fellows, or teaching assistants may be less accustomed than faculty members to thinking of themselves as holding professional responsibilities. They may need to exercise special care in their relationships with students whom they instruct, evaluate, or otherwise supervise, recognizing that their students might view them as more powerful than they may perceive themselves to be.
Amorous relationships between members of the faculty and/or with students that occur outside the formal context can also lead to difficulties. In personal relationships between individuals with whom there is no current, direct line of professional responsibility and authority, the senior person should be sensitive to the constant possibility that he or she may unexpectedly be placed in a position of responsibility for a student's instruction or a faculty member's evaluation. This could involve being called upon to write a letter of recommendation or to serve on an admissions or selection committee involving the other individual. In addition, one should be aware that others may speculate that a specific power relationship exists even when there is none, giving rise to assumptions of inequitable academic or professional advantage for the student or faculty member involved. Relationships between officers and students or senior and junior faculty are always fundamentally asymmetric in nature.
Sexism in the Classroom
Sexism in the classroom usually involves conduct by members of the teaching staff that is discouraging or offensive, especially, but not only, to women. Alienating messages may be subtle and even unintentional but they nevertheless tend to compromise the learning experience of members of both sexes.
Some teaching practices are overtly hostile to women. For example, to show slides of nude women humorously or whimsically during an otherwise serious lecture is not only in poor taste, but is also demeaning to women.
Other alienating practices may be simply thoughtless and may even be the result of special efforts to be helpful to women students. For example, it is condescending to make a point of calling only upon women in class on topics such as marriage and the family, imposing the assumption that only women have a "natural" interest in this area.
Consistent with principles of academic freedom, course content and teaching methods remain the province of individual faculty members. At the same time, faculty members should refrain from classroom or other behavior that focuses attention on sex characteristics in a context in which sex would otherwise be irrelevant.
A pamphlet on sexual harassment has been developed by students, in consultation with the GSD administration. It is distributed to all faculty annually.
REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ALLEGATIONS OF FACULTY MISCONDUCT
Preliminary Considerations
· The importance, both in fact and in appearance, of thoroughness,
fairness, objectivity and acting with reasonable speed.
· The importance of protecting the reputations of individuals
and, to that end, maintaining confidentiality to the extent that it
is appropriate and consistent with other obligations of the School.
· The need to protect the rights of the person alleged to have
engaged in misconduct, including the right to be informed, with specificity
at the appropriate time, of the allegations and the evidence in support
of the allegations, and the right to be informed of the procedures to
be followed.
· The need to protect the quality of the academic environment
of the GSD from acts of unprofessional behavior.
· The importance of ensuring that the interests and the full
obligations of the GSD faculty, both within and outside the University,
are thoroughly considered.
Contact Persons
Any GSD faculty member who believes that he or she is subject to, or is aware of, sexual harassment is encouraged to bring the situation to the attention of any of the individuals listed below. This should be done within thirty days from the date upon which a possible violation occurred, or from the time that the faculty member had knowledge of a possible violation, or from the most recent incident in a pattern or action. Contact persons: Executive Dean (Gund Hall, Room 422, 617-495-0774); Department Chairs: Architecture (Gund Hall, Room 207, 617-495-2591); Landscape Architecture (Gund Hall, Room 409, 617-495-2573); and Urban Planning and Design (Gund Hall, Room 312, 617-495-9571).
Informal Review
Possible cases of discrimination or sexual harassment are sometimes easier to resolve and correct when an informal atmosphere encourages people to identify the difficulty, talk it out and agree on how to deal with it. However, the suggestion that informal methods be employed in the first instance should not be interpreted in any way as suggesting that the School does not consider discrimination and sexual harassment to be serious offenses.
The contacted officer or faculty member will explore with the aggrieved party the various alternatives for resolving the matter. These may include, among other possibilities, an informal conference involving the aggrieved party, the subject of the possible violation, and one of the individuals listed above. Alternatively, the aggrieved party may ask the individual she or he sought out as an advisor to meet with the person accused of causing the problem. It may also be necessary to arrange for administrative changes, such as office reassignment, to alleviate the immediate effects of the behavior to which objection has been taken. The informal review will normally be completed within sixty days of the initial report of a possible violation to a contact person.
Throughout this informal procedure, any supervisory person contacted by an aggrieved individual will ordinarily hold information in confidence unless or until the initiating individual agrees that another party or parties may be informed to facilitate a solution. For example, if an individual requests administrative action that would reduce the incidence of contact or association with the individual objected to, the advising supervisor would first inform the latter, then seek assistance from the officer to whom he or she reports for the administrative relief sought.
Initiation of Complaint
If the complainant desires to submit a formal written complaint, he
or she will first confer with one of the contact persons listed above
and then submit a written complaint to her or him within thirty days
of the conference. A formal written complaint may be avoided in cases
of discrimination and sexual harassment if satisfactory resolution can
be found through the informal approach described above. There may be
cases when the informal approach does not satisfactorily resolve the
complaint or when the aggrieved party may elect not to seek informal
resolution. In such cases, and in all cases of research misconduct,
it is expected that a written complaint will be prepared. The written
complaint will specify the following:
· the full name and address of the person filing the complaint;
· the full name and address (if known) of the person or persons
against whom the charge is made;
· a brief statement of the facts that support the allegation
of a violation of GSD policy;
· the date or dates of the alleged acts or practices.
A copy of the charges will be mailed or delivered to the respondent
(the person against whom the charges are made) and to the Review Board
(as described below) by the contact person within seven days from the
date upon which the charges are filed. The respondent may submit a written
reply stating his or her response to the complaint to the Review Board
within fifteen days of receipt of the complaint.
Review Board
The Review Board will be composed of six voting members of the Faculty of Design serving staggered three-year terms, of which one will be designated chair by the dean. Three members of the Review Board will be elected, one from each academic department. The dean will appoint three at-large members and will also appoint an officer of the administration to serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the board. The membership of the Review Board should also comprise the membership of the Screening Committee, as required by the University policy on "Procedures Concerning the Discipline of Officers."
All formal complaints and charges will be reviewed by a panel consisting of at least three faculty members normally selected by and from the Review Board in advance, plus the nonvoting member of the board. Either the respondent or complainant may challenge participation by any member of the Review Board on the panel reviewing the case in question, by written petition to the Review Board. For good cause as determined by the dean of the Faculty of Design, the challenged board member shall be replaced by action of the chair of the board.
(The Review Board referred to above is the same board from which panels reviewing charges of student misconduct are to be selected. In the case of faculty misconduct, the matter of rank becomes relevant; therefore, to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest, panel members should be of no lesser rank than the faculty member charged with misconduct.)
Review Board Procedures
Investigation of Facts. The panel may investigate the facts or may request that an appropriate non-panel member investigate and report in writing. This process will normally be completed within thirty days of receiving the written statements from the complainant and respondent. Due consideration will be given to the privacy of all involved parties.
The respondent and complainant or their designees will be provided with the opportunity to review the written investigative report in the office of the non-voting member of the Review Board and to respond in writing to the dean within fifteen days from the date that the panel receives the report.
Hearing. The panel may hold a hearing, after notice of at least ten days to all parties, to consider further whether any violations of institutional policy have occurred. If the panel decides to combine the investigation and hearing procedures, the first hearing will be scheduled within thirty days of receiving the written statements from the complainant and respondent. Otherwise, the hearing will be scheduled within thirty days of completion of the investigative report. The hearing will not be open to the public. Participation will be determined by the panel. The complainant and the respondent may each normally bring an advisor to the hearing. A record of the hearing and file records of any proceedings brought pursuant to these policies will be kept by the Office of the Dean for a minimum of three years and will be considered confidential.
Referral to University Hearing Committee. If the Review Board determines that the case should receive further consideration, a University Hearing Committee shall hold hearings. The Hearing Committee shall consist of four members of the Faculty involved and three members of other Faculties of the University. It should be noted that no Faculty member who served on the Screening Committee (in the case of the Faculty of Design, the Review Board and the Screening Committee are synonymous) for a particular case may serve on the Hearing Committee for that case. Each Faculty is asked to choose by election or designation five tenured and two untenured members to serve as part of a pool available for duty on a Hearing Committee. The Faculty members of the University Committee on Rights and Responsibilities shall designate the Hearing Committee for a particular case from this pool.
Report of the Panel. If the Review Board determines that a referral to the University Hearing Committee is not called for, the panel will forward its findings and any recommendations to the dean. The panel's report will be supported by specific findings of fact and conclusions, including, wherever appropriate, a statement of the reasons for the recommendations. The panel's report will normally be completed within thirty days after the conclusion of the hearing. The panel will provide both parties or their designees with an opportunity to review its written report in the office of the non-voting member of the Review Board. Either party may submit a response to the dean within ten days.
Miscellaneous. Upon agreement of the complainant and respondent, the panel may waive any step(s) in these procedures. The panel may determine at any point in these procedures that, based on the information available, insufficient evidence exists to warrant further review or possible sanctions. The panel will notify all concerned parties of this finding and consider the matter closed, except as provided in the "Appeal" section below.
Decision. The dean may request further information or assistance from the panel or other individuals. The dean shall then take whatever action he or she considers appropriate. The decision of the dean will be made within thirty days of receipt of the panel's report and is final, except as provided in the "Appeal" section below. The dean's decision shall be communicated to the parties in writing within fifteen days.
Appeal. All sanctions or other decisions (including denial of a hearing) are subject to appeal. An appeal may be directed to the dean within thirty days of the decision in question. Appeals will generally be granted only on the basis of new evidence or significant procedural error. The dean's ruling on the appeal will be made in writing to all parties in the case in question within thirty days of the appeal submission. The dean's disposition will be final.
Disclosure. The GSD is allowed to disclose the results of a disciplinary proceeding against an alleged perpetrator of a crime of violence to the alleged victim of that crime without the prior written consent of the alleged perpetrator. In case of sexual misconduct involving violence, disclosure to the victim of the outcome of the review process against the alleged perpetrator is required.
The Review Board will be responsible for assuring that the dean's decision is carried out.