BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XXXIV
Sexual Harassment Cases from NSF
(continued from the March/April 2008 issue of the ASPB News)

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

In the previous edition of the TBI (TBI XXXIII, ASPB News, 35[2]:19), I noted that 14 of the 45 cases of alleged mentor/student improprieties addressed by the NSF Office of the Inspector General (OIG) between 1989 and 2000 involved sexual harassment or gender discrimination as part of the complaint. Of these, two were too old to pursue (6 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.” In TBI XXXIII, I addressed four of the cases and summarized the NSF findings. The most egregious and complex of the sexual harassment cases is discussed by itself in this column.

Case I89110010. Dr. Off Kilter, a scientifically well-respected and powerful academic, has a field site outside the USA at a center where he serves as the director. He runs summer classes there with the help of teaching assistants (TAs). In 1988 and 1989, two summer courses were funded by an NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) award. Ten female students and TAs allege that Dr. Kilter has engaged in “sexual assaults and unwanted and unexpected sexual advances” from December 1988 to August 1989. The allegations include unwanted touching and rape. “In addition … [he] threatened [his] subordinates with damage to their careers if they revealed [his] sexual misbehavior, and [he] withheld data and assistance from students for the purpose of sexual advantage.”

This is the last case of sexual harassment from 1989 to 2000 that I received from the NSF OIG under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 07-17. One section of the 81-page report of this case details the statements that an NSF special interviewer obtained from the women, including the TA who was raped. These statements were obtained in person, via telephone interviews, or from sworn affidavits prepared by the complainant. The interviews were conducted from Madison, Wisconsin, to Scotland because the 10 women lived in different places and involved 17 separate incidents (1). Many of the women did not know each other (2). The most compelling thing in this section of the report is the consistency of the pattern of the sexual harassment: Although the responses of the women to the advances and the severity of the advances differ from event to event, the women all describe the same kinds of situations in which the events occurred and the same kinds of actions on the part of Dr. Kilter. For example, neck and back rubbing was one common way that these events were initiated by Dr. Kilter (3). For logistical reasons some of the students stayed with Dr. Kilter and his family and ate meals with them (4). During these times Dr. Kilter initiated sexual advances while his wife was elsewhere (5)—for example, getting ice cream with the children in the kitchen or putting them to bed (6). At least two of the women reported feeling overwhelmed by the physical size of Dr. Kilter (7). Most of the events occurred while Dr. Kilter was alone with individual students (8), but the rape occurred in the back of a truck and was witnessed by a second TA (9). During several of these incidents, Dr. Kilter was intoxicated (1). In addition, Dr. Kilter threatened one student “with professional blackmail if she reported his actions (See Attachment 3, Incident 2).” This incident was emblematic of a second pattern of behavior, and “these incidents of non-physical coercion (‘through control over computer and data’) are also central to this case” (10).

Dr. Kilter rebuts the allegations with statements that some of the women were witches, that some of them offered sex but that he refused (11), that some had physically assaulted him (12), that many of the women were engaged in profligate behaviors with other men (13), and that the women “had been conducting a mind probe of [him]” (14). He claimed that the allegations of sexual harassment were designed to destroy the entire field in which he has a PhD (15) and that the mafia or the U.S. government was involved in these allegations or in the students’ behaviors (16). He was sure that wire-tapping and video surveillance had occurred (16). Clearly, the views of Dr. Kilter and those of the women do not match.

If ever there was a topic that we do not discuss freely, it is sexual harassment. I myself have been the victim of unwanted sexual advances by some of my mentors or colleagues in the course of my professional career. My response was to blame myself or to pretend that it had not really happened. I certainly did not report these events because society has a tendency to blame the victims (“Oh, wearing that/being there with him/saying that/acting the way she was was ‘just asking for it’” are commonly heard statements [see 17]), and I did not want this blame to compound my already sore and confused feelings. Are such behaviors more surprising in our ivory tower than in the general populace? As the prior column and this one attest, academia is hardly immune to sexual harassment: Emotional intelligence (18) is unlikely to be correlated with one’s intelligence quotient, one’s accomplishments, or the extent of one’s education. One expert about such things (who wishes to remain anonymous) tells me that it tends to be the same individuals who make unwanted sexual advances again and again. Since the founding of the Ombudsman’s Office in 1982 at the University of Washington, the first sexual harassment complaint against an individual remains informal, but subsequent complaints are formally remanded to the vice provost. It is hoped that this policy is part of the solution for repeat offenders.

I found this report deeply troubling and am not sure how to reach closure on this topic. I suspect that the five cases I have dealt with in this and the previous column are only the tip of the iceberg: It is well known that sexual harassment is underreported. I do know that breaking the lock that mokita has on this topic would be a good step in the right direction.

Next time: Gender Discrimination Cases from NSF

Dina Mandoli
dina.mandoli@gmail.com

References

1. Investigative Report p. 1
2. Investigative Report, p. 4.
3. For example, Incident 1 and 2, p. 12.
4. For example, Incident 4, p. 13.
5. Investigative Report, p. 3.
6. Incidents 6 and 7, p. 14.
7. For example, Incident 1, p. 12.
8. Investigative Report, p. 3.
9. Incidents 1 and 12, Investigative Report, p. 3.
10. Investigative Report, p. 4.
11. Rebuttal on NSF Investigative Report, p. 27.
12. Rebuttal on NSF Investigative Report, p. 31.
13. Rebuttal on NSF Investigative Report, pp. 27, 31.
14. Rebuttal on NSF Investigative Report, p. 30.
15. Rebuttal on NSF Investigative Report, p. 39.
16. Rebuttal on NSF Investigative Report, p. 38.
17. Self-justifications of rapists include “Women really want to be raped” or “If she resists, she’s just playing hard to get” (Goleman, 1995, pp. 106–107).
18. Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.