Earlier this year, Ohio University paid a $350,000 settlement to student Rebecca Humes in exchange for dropping her sexual harassment suit against former professor and director of Visual Communications, Larry Nighswander. Nighswander had allegedly harassed Humes during a topless photo shoot, making lewd noises and comments, and fondling her breasts. As part of the settlement, which included free admission and tuition to the Scripps School of Journalism for Humes and a new rule that Visual Communications professors cannot do nude photo shoots of students, the University agreed to rework its sexual harassment policy to prevent the kinds of problems that arose in the Nighswander case. When Humes filed a complaint, the University did not pursue it, saying that there was not enough evidence to do so. But it turned out that Nighswander had a pattern of such behavior, and that the pattern had been informally reported by students in the past; however, because no formal complaints had been lodged, Nighswander's behavior pattern was never properly noted or addressed.

Now the new policy is getting positive reviews from the Ohio University trustees, and it sounds as though it may verge on a code that neither respects the due process rights of the prospectively accused nor the free speech rights of anyone on campus. Although the full policy has not to my knowledge been published, the Athens County paper's description of it is worrisome. According to the paper, the new policy requires that

"any member of the university community" who hears such a complaint, even in an informal setting, has a duty to report it to the Office of Institutional Equity or the Office of Legal Affairs.

"There's no longer a distinction between an informal complaint and a formal complaint," Dioguardi confirmed. "All complaints are taken, and it doesn't matter if they're verbal or in writing, if they're e-mailed or by the telephone."

She noted that in the Humes case, the complaints that seemed to support her claims against Nighswander were informal, and not passed on to university authorities.

"That's exactly what happened in the Humes case," she said, when the faculty members or administrators who heard the complaints kept them quiet at the request of the complainants.

"They can't do that any more," she said. "That's what's clear in the (revised) policy that wasn't so much in the last policy -- there is a duty to report."

But that isn't all there is to worry about with the new policy, which appears to be so concerned with honoring the sensitivities of potential victims--or of those who may not see themselves as victims, but may be seen by informants as victims--that free speech and academic freedom have been thrown out the window. The new policy defines "lewd" or "sexually suggestive sounds" as harassment; it also facilitates the surveillance of teachers who use sexually suggestive material in their classes. Both are highly tendentious moves--the first is what anyone inclined to accusation wants it to be; the second opens a curricular Pandora's box in which it could conceivably become an issue to assign or discuss such works as James Joyce's Ulysses, Aristophanes' Lysistrata, or Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues.

Let me get this straight: She posed topless for her professor and was shocked--shocked--that he made sexual overtures to her?

And there's a pattern of this behavior, which says to me there are a lot of dopey young women who'll show their boobs to guys for the sake of "art." Or something. Certainly not for a little racy, transgressive thrill; oh no. (Jeez, I'm morphing into Church Lady.)

I'm not saying he's not a jerk, but these women are idiots. And the university's response is awful. Informants, indeed. Yech.

On a sillier note, his name seems vaguely punny, in a Victorian kind of way...

And she's now said "It's okay if you harrass me for $350,000, but not a penny less."

And then, there is nothing in the policy apparently to address what happens when an allegation may be false. There are the rare students who are more than willing to make an allegation out of spite or retribution. Sexual harassment is already a difficult situation as it is without adding to it the removal of due process, which this does, and leaving off the hook people who may make a false statement. I also have to agree with the other commentators, a lot of dopey women out there doing dumb things. While the guy may be a jerk, women like that only make things difficult for everyone else. The policy should be of concern to anyone in academia as it opens itself to simply telling scholars to keep their mouth shut lest some student, or other campus member snitch, "misunderstand" something and go tell on the "offending" professor. Anytime the powers that be expect a community to snitch on others is just a step closer to tyranny and repression of rights. That's how fascists and nazis used to do it.

I live just outside of Athens. It's a wonderful place to live (when the students aren't there, when school is not in session, and when you're not trying to find a parking place in a town where the city council seems to be made up of towing company lobbyists).

From a place where no one is sure what rules actually apply to whom (from teaching english to where to park), this is exactly what I would expect from the university.

Is there something not being mentioned here? Was Hume threatened in some way into posing topless? Because if not, then I completely agree with Rose.

As for turning everyone into informants...

I can only talk for myself. There have been times when I "checked in with someone" on an interpersonal issue (of various types) that I'm having with someone else to see if I'm reading a situation correctly or am over reacting. Sometimes it's just about strategizing a way to deal with someone. Under the Ohio U rules, would such discussions now be considered "complaints" that require reporting? What happened to some personal accountabilty? Shouldn't interpersonal issues start with an individual confronting the problem person before bumping the situation up to authorities?

I have to disagree with Rose & RT.

From what I can tell, he wasn't just making a few lewd remarks during the shoot (which would still have been inappropriate) - he had actually groped her. This wasn't a porn set, and she wasn't answering some ad in the back of Hustler - this was at a university, being shot by a professor. She had every right to expect to be treated professionally.

In addition to detailing recent allegations of email fakery made against Nighswander, this article notes that in addition to her $350,000 cash settlement, Ms. Humes has also received tuition-free admission to graduate school at OU. Given that the case in question did not relate to the student's academic performance, this seems to be a rather unmerited bonus.

If there's no confidentiality at all, they could be setting themselves up for other legal problems.
But you also have to wonder who was pushing this. Seems like there's a hidden agenda here, along the lines of the movement to suppress anti-feminist speech that was being pushed about 5 years ago.

Moreover, Jon, one would expect it's least possible that the cash settlement would be actually be paid by the university's general liability insurer. Not free tuition, of course, however: that's coming straight out of the pocket of the state's taxpayers.