LAW : Sex Harassment Disclosures an Emotional Campus Issue

A university student files a sexual harassment complaint with school authorities, alleging that in the privacy of his office, a professor embraced her and declared, “I can’t maintain a professional relationship with you.”

Should the charge be made public--even if it has not been proven?

“Yes,” says Susan Hippensteele, a graduate student at the University of Hawaii who says she was victimized in that way. “Students deserve to know who these people are.”

Publicizing as-yet unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations would fly in the face of traditional practices, but Hawaii’s new public records law may require it. The state attorney general recently directed the university to release the names of all state employees formally charged with sexual harassment, even those whose cases are pending or were dismissed.

And the situation in Hawaii reflects increasingly sharp disagreement nationwide over how to deal with the issue of sexual harassment on campus.

BACKGROUND: Such cases have almost invariably been treated with almost complete confidentiality. The University of California, for example, treats sexual harassment as an in-house disciplinary matter. “We limit disclosure only to those people who have a need to know or right to know: the accused, the complainant and any witnesses,” says Carmen McKines, compliance officer at UC Berkeley.

A few schools across the country have begun releasing names, but only of those disciplined. Public universities in Florida and Minnesota, for instance, make public the names of faculty and staff disciplined for sexual harassment and spell out the nature of the sanction.

Hawaii’s law, known as the Uniform Information Practices Act, uses language taken almost verbatim from a “Model Code” drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws. It mandates opening most state records to public scrutiny, including “information relating to the status of any formal charges against the (state) employee and disciplinary action taken.”

The law took effect in 1989, but the university considered it so sensitive that three opinions were sought from state attorneys before a decision was made to begin releasing names this January. Incensed, faculty and staff unions filed suit and obtained a court injunction ordering the university to take no action until the case comes to trial.

Campus protesters responded by posting anonymous flyers identifying four professors as sexual harassers.

PROPONENTS: Students see public disclosure of alleged sexual harassers as a powerful weapon in a system they believe is stacked against them.

“It would act as a strong deterrent so other professors don’t harm students in this way,” says Jahan Byrne, an editor of Ka Leo o Hawaii, the student newspaper.

Students argue that sexual harassment is pervasive but most victims are afraid to assert their rights. The few who press charges often find them swept under the carpet, they say.

“Professors know that the risks are not that great,” Hippensteele contends.

OPPONENTS: Unions representing staff and faculty argue that Hawaii’s law invades privacy and could needlessly tarnish reputations. They also contend that discipline has always been confidential under their contracts. The unions hope to persuade the Legislature to amend the statute.

“We will not sit idly by and allow innocent persons to be tainted with guilt simply through unsubstantiated accusations,” vows J.N. Musto, executive director of the faculty union.

In requiring disclosure even where no findings have been made, Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education, says, “I think this law goes half a step further than anything else we have.”

OUTLOOK: Given the emotion-charged factors involved for both sides, confrontational attitudes are likely to become increasingly common on the issue of how to deal with allegations of sexual harassment in colleges.