BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XXXIII
Sexual Harassment Cases from NSF

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea

In February 2007 I submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552) requesting “all closeout documents and reports of investigation involving allegations of mentor/student improprieties and abuse of the mentor relationship from 1989 to 2000.” In March 2007 an e-mail message arrived from the senior counsel at the NSF Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with three attachments detailing 45 cases in nearly 200 pages of text. “Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), information that constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is exempt of disclosure.” This means that all the names, grant and manuscript titles and authors, and places where the incidents had occurred had been redacted from the documents.

In the FOIA documents, there were 14 cases that mentioned sexual harassment as part of the complaint. Of these, two were too old to pursue (six and 10 years old at the time they were brought to the OIG), and two were closed due to a lack of follow-through by the complainant. Another three were closed because NSF determined that no party had any connection to NSF “in proposing, carrying out, or reporting results from activities funded by NSF [45 C.F.R. 689.1(a)(1)] at the time of the alleged misconduct.” To illustrate specific actions by those involved, I review four of the cases here. The most complex and egregious of the sexual harassment cases will be discussed by itself in the next column. Two cases on gender discrimination will be reviewed in a future column. The NSF OIG case numbers are given, and the findings of the NSF are below each case.

Case M97030009 (p. 34). A student had a one-month-long “romantic/sexual” relationship with his adviser. In January 1997 this student alleged that, among other issues, his adviser had “creat(ed) a hostile work environment for him” after ending the romantic relationship.

The university office responsible for handling harassment/discrimination complaints addressed this allegation, finding that despite the intimate relationship “the evidence did not support a conclusion that [the adviser’s] conduct following the affair constituted a hostile work environment.” However, the adviser’s behavior “violated the university’s sexual harassment policy, which prohibits all romantic/sexual relationships between students and their instructors.” The NSF OIG concluded that the adviser’s actions did not constitute a case of scientific misconduct.

What would a university do in such a situation? Class C Resolution from the University of Washington Senate dated February 1992 (www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/handbook/02-02-24.html) stipulates that this would be a conflict of interest. “Conflicts of interest resulting from romantic or sexual relationships are detrimental to the functioning of the University.…Such relationships compromise execution of the University’s responsibilities “to the public and to individual members of the University community.”

Three harms result from such sexual or romantic relationships. Sexual harassment may coerce the student to participate in the relationship, deny access to the professor’s unbiased expertise, and cloud the professor’s decision making.

“Faculty members should be aware that the harms listed above do not arise only from existing relationships, but may also arise if an individual in a position of authority to a student makes overt sexual or romantic advances upon that student. Even if the advances are welcome, the faculty member should remove him- or herself from the teaching or supervisory role, which may impede the student’s academic progress. If the advances are unwelcome, the student may suffer unneeded stress, and the academic relationship may suffer.”

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Faculty Senate of the University of Washington, that no faculty member, teaching assistant, research assistant, department chair, dean or other administrative officer should vote, make recommendations, or in any other way participate in the decision of any matter which may directly affect the employment, promotion, academic status or evaluation of a student with whom he or she has or has had a familial, sexual, or romantic relationship.”

Case M-89020002 (p. 38). A complainant tells the U.S. Department of Education of sexual harassment by the adviser and files a lawsuit at the same time. The lawsuit ends with a settlement agreement. The NSF OIG received “a great deal of information about the alleged sexual harassment.” Sexual harassment was evidenced by the adviser failing to reference the student’s prior work. Was this truly a case of sexual harassment?

The confidential portion of the settlement agreement “restricted the parties from further discussion of the allegations.” OIG and the institution each “determined that, although the [adviser] could have acted in a more collegial manner, no intellectual theft had occurred. Consequently, the complainant’s claim that the [adviser’s] intellectual theft was evidence of his sexual harassment was not supported.” Citing the “complainant’s detailed descriptions of the alleged sexual harassment,” the OIG states that the relationship between the adviser and the student was “complex and confusing.” The OIG “regarded the settlement reached…as the resolution of the allegations in this case.”

Case M93090047 (p. 43). Responding to highly publicized cases of sexual harassment, a corporation forms “a committee to address sexual harassment issues.” An expert presents a several-hour seminar on the topic. The seminar is offered enough times so that all can attend. “The complainant objected to these seminars, viewing them as a waste of resources more appropriately spent on research support.”

“NSF supports the institutions’ efforts to ensure gender and racial equality in the work place.” Such preventive measures are particularly important in educational institutions whose mission includes education (including social and practical knowledge about sexual harassment), teaching, and research. Institutional commitment to equality in the workplace derives directly from the 1964 civil rights laws and the 1972 educational amendments or Title IX. The relevant congressional records can be found at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm and http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm.

Case M94110037 (p. 54/55). In 1994 an NSF division director received an anonymous letter stating that an NSF-supported subject had transferred to a new institution to “avoid a censure investigation for the sexual harassment of his female graduate students.” The subject said that some time ago he had been informed that his former institution had investigated him for an alleged sexual harassment but, finding no wrongdoing, had dropped the case. The same anonymous letter had previously gone to “all senior officials” at the new institution. After substantial investigation, the provost “concluded there was no substance to the allegation, offered the subject his current position (chair of the department), and informed him of the investigation.” A similar investigation at the former institution reached the same conclusion. “The student suspected of sending the letters had…been severely criticized during a qualifying exam.” She was angry that her adviser “had not defended her vigorously” and claimed that she got him fired.

“OIG found that two separate institutions’ investigations had concluded that there was no basis for the allegation and that it was possible that the anonymous letter was authored by a disgruntled graduate student who was using the allegation as a mechanism to harm her mentor’s reputation rather than to report actual harassment. OIG concluded that the institutions’ efforts satisfactorily addressed the allegation, that it was doubtful that NSF had jurisdiction over this matter under its misconduct in science regulation, and that there was no need to pursue it further.”

Next time: Sexual Harassment Cases from NSF continued.

Dina Mandoli
dina.mandoli@mac.com