Wolff Alleges Professional, Sexual Harassment, Settles Out of Court

   By Sarah Y. Keightley
   
   Contending that MIT breached its obligations as an employer by
   allowing a "hostile work environment" to continue, Professor of
   Literature Cynthia G. Wolff filed a lawsuit against MIT in April 1992.
   The civil action suit was settled out of court in November.
   
   As part of the settlement, neither MIT nor Wolff could disclose the
   terms of the settlement. According to the released joint-statement,
   the resolution "does not mean that either party attributes blame or
   concedes merit to the other's position."
   
  BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
  
   
   
   Because Wolff could never comment on the case, her allegations are
   paraphrased and quoted from the suit.
   
   Wolff based her suit on "the Institute's wrongful acquiescence in and
   perpetuation of a persistent and continuing pattern of professional,
   political, and sexual harassment towards [her] in the workplace." In
   her suit she made several allegations.
   
   The suit alleged that other professors in the literature section
   isolated Wolff because of her stance on particular personnel decisions
   -- when she voted to deny certain junior faculty tenure.
   
   In particular, Wolff claimed that she was excluded from the Women's
   Studies Program because in 1981 she voted to deny tenure to Professor
   of Literature Ruth Perry, who was later granted tenure and currently
   heads the Women's Studies Program.
   
   The suit also alleged that when Wolff voted to deny tenure to another
   junior faculty member in 1988, she and another female professor were
   verbally abused by some of their colleagues in the literature section.
   
   Furthermore, the suit alleged that Professor David M. Halperin had
   sexually harassed another male professor.
   
   Wolff expressed her concerns to then-Provost John M. Deutch '61 that
   tenure cases "were not being judged on professional criteria," that
   section meetings were unprofessional, and that Halperin had harassed
   another professor. Deutch told her that nothing could be done,
   according to Wolff's suit.
   
   Wolff approached the current provost, Mark S. Wrighton, in 1991. He
   created the Clay Committee "to review the tenure process and the
   literature section generally," the suit stated.
   
   The suit also claimed the Clay Committee found that a certain
   literature professor's tenure process and rights had been interfered
   with. In September 1991, Wrighton acted on this finding and suspended
   the literature section's personnel selection powers.
   
   Wolff said Wrighton "laid the foundation for further retaliatory
   action" when he later identified her as the informant whose actions
   led to the formation of the Clay Committee.
   
   The suit contends that MIT did not prevent retaliation against Wolff
   during the peer review process, did not take action against faculty
   who conducted themselves improperly, and knowingly allowed harassment
   to interfere with Wolff's work.
   
   Wolff sought damages "in an amount likely to exceed at least $50,000,"
   according to the civil action document.
   
  PROFESSORS COMMENT ON THE SUIT
  
   
   
   The settlement agreed to by Wolff and MIT, which assigned no guilt to
   either party, concerned several members of the literature faculty.
   They felt they had no opportunity to try to disprove claims Wolff made
   about them.
   
   In May, Donaldson said that he was concerned about characterizations
   of the literature section made by _The New York Times_ and The Boston
   Globe in their articles about the suit. '`We've been characterized as
   politically correct, but the curriculum we offer is one that ... has a
   strong traditional element to it."
   
   After the suit was settled, Halperin said in a telephone interview
   that "for me, the whole affair won't be over until I find a way of
   clearing my name."
   
   "MIT's lack of a formal Institute-wide grievance procedure for
   handling sexual harassment enables charges and counter charges to be
   used for partisan political purposes by faculty who are fighting with
   one another," Halperin said.
   
  RESPONSE TO THE SUIT
  
   
   
   Wrighton said in April that the Clay Committee's report led him to
   conclude that "improvements were necessary." He said appointments and
   selections in the literature section were being handled by Head of the
   Literature Faculty Peter S. Donaldson, Dean of the School of
   Humanities and Social Sciences Philip S. Khoury, and himself. This is
   "somewhat unusual," he added; normally these decision are made in the
   sections themselves.
   
   After the suit was filed Perry said, "My own feeling is people in the
   literature faculty have tried to talk to each other about our
   intellectual differences. ... I think the process has been a healthy
   and a good one -- that's why [the suit] has been quite a shock."
   
   Perry said that the Women's Studies Program could not have excluded
   Wolff, since she never approached the program. "Wolff has never
   submitted a course proposal to Women's Studies," Perry said.
   
   Isabelle de Courtivron, current head of the foreign languages and
   literatures section, who headed the Women's Studies Program from late
   1987 to early 1989, said she did not remember getting a proposal from
   Wolff.
   
   According to Perry and De Courtivron, course proposals are judged by
   the Women's Studies Program Curriculum Committee, not by the head of
   the program. Thus, Perry could not have excluded Wolff from the
   program.
   
  MIT FILED TO DISMISS SUIT IN MAY
  
   
   
   In May, MIT attorneys filed a motion asking that Middlesex County
   Superior Court dismiss the case, saying that the "plaintiff's claims
   [rested] on allegations that she is unhappy in her relations with her
   colleagues, but do not show that MIT [had] done anything to impinge on
   any of her legal rights."
   
   Robert Sullivan, one of MIT's lawyers working on the case, said,
   "Everything that Professor Wolff has said about difficulties she has
   had with colleagues, and so forth are not the kind of difficulties
   which courts look into judicially for the obvious reason that courts
   think universities and colleges should run themselves." Courts do not
   want to act as "surrogate administrators," he said.
   
   "Wolff has not alleged any acts of discrimination," Sullivan added.
   
   While the case was still in litigation, a member of the literature
   section said that Wolff was confusing disagreement with harassment.
   The source said that Wolff blatantly disregarded expected standards of
   civility with her colleagues by approaching deans and other
   administrators rather than discussing the problems with the
   individuals first.
   
   The source also said that anyone who has had extended dealings with
   Wolff would say she is a "notoriously difficult" person.
   
   In June, MIT filed motions for a conference and a stay in discovery,
   which is a halting of pretrial disclosure of pertinent facts or
   documents. MIT stated that "the plaintiff's complaint makes highly
   personal allegations about the conduct of her colleagues." The
   statement went on to mention that the discovery requests included 42
   separate categories of documents containing "information of a highly
   sensitive and private nature concerning the plaintiff's colleagues."
   
   After a hearing and review in late June, MIT's motion to dismiss the
   case was denied. By default, the motion for a stay of discovery was
   also denied.
   
   On Aug. 25, a Middlesex County Superior Court judge issued a
   procedural order prohibiting further litigation until Sept. 8 in an
   effort to have the parties resolve the case.
   
   The suit was settled in late November.
   

----
Copyright 1993 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on  Friday,  January 29, 1993.
Volume 113, Year in Review
The story was printed on page  6.
This article may be freely distributed electronically,
provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes
this notice, but may not be reprinted without the
express written permission of The Tech.  Write to
archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.