“This Would be a Nice Place for a Rape”

Sexual assault and sexual harassment are widespread occurrences at American universities and colleges. Student outrage over a case at Harvard University is spotlighting an equally disturbing problem: how some campus administrators have tolerated sexual abuse by powerful academicians, and thereby perpetuated broadly unsafe conditions for students, staff, and even junior untenured professors.

Harvard’s handling of the case of political scientist Jorge Domínguez, a leading expert in the Latin American studies field, was exposed in an important February 27 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle reported on the stories of women who charged that Domínguez exercised his power as a star tenured professor over three decades to physically harass and/or pursue sexual relationships with them.

In one chilling incident, as Domínguez and Terry Karl, an untenured female professor in his Government Department, walked through a wooded campus area returning from an event, Domínguez allegedly told Karl, “This would be a nice place for a rape.”

The Chronicle reports in detail on how Domínguez’s constant advances eventually forced Karl to leave Harvard in the mid-1980s for Stanford University, where she earned tenure and served as director of the Center for Latin American Studies for more than a decade.

Karl reported the harassment to Harvard administrators, who at one point actually found Domínguez guilty of serious misconduct and imposed temporary penalties—stripping him of administrative duties. Yet, afterwards, Harvard kept promoting Domínguez—to vice provost for international affairs, and director of the prestigious Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

According to the Chronicle, a total of 18 female professors, students, and staff members have now come forward with allegations of Domínguez’s sexual misconduct. On March 4, more than 35 years after Karl first reported Domínguez’s behavior to Harvard administrators, the university placed Domínguez on leave and announced an investigation into the allegations. On March 6—a week after the Chronicle story appeared—Domínguez resigned from Harvard, ending a 45-year career on the faculty.

Harvard President Derek Bok, and Henry Rosovsky, dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, expressed concern and sympathy for Karl, but the university’s handling of Domínguez at the time struck her as inadequate and laughable.

The Chronicle reported on how Karl’s problems at Harvard had generated serious concerns among fellow Latin American-studies scholars. In 1984, a dozen of them from various universities wrote to Bok and Rosovsky, saying they could not recommend that any of their students attend Harvard until there was “absolute assurance that they will not face undue risk of harassment.”

In his dismissive response, Rosovsky told the scholars that their letter “displays a degree of moral arrogance that is unusual even by the unfortunate standards prevailing in the academic profession. It pretends to a detailed and objective knowledge of what happened here that you plainly do not have.”

In a 1991 essay in support of Anita Hill, who accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, Karl argued that filing a sexual harassment complaint often “pits a person against an institution that is predisposed to defend the accused.” Referring to her own harassment case, without mentioning Domínguez by name, she wrote that she had felt “forced to choose between pleasing this man or losing everything I had worked for.”

As the Chronicle reported:

Karl believes Harvard administrators played down her many complaints, attempting to mollify her rather than dealing with a difficult situation head-on. Harvard refused, as some universities still do, to publicly name the person responsible. They also let him stay, and promoted him, which sent a signal that Karl believes discouraged others from coming forward. If they hadn’t done that, “then these women who experienced harassment in the 1990s and 2000s, it wouldn’t have happened, or they would have known that someone would be punished if they were harassed,” she says. “That’s the great enabling. It’s why the silence is so terrible.”

The Chronicle report on Harvard’s handling of the Domínguez case stirred immediate outrage among alumni, faculty, and students. Hundreds signed an open letter to Harvard President Drew Faust demanding that the university apologize:

When students arrive at Harvard, they are told that the university ‘is committed to maintaining a safe and healthy educational work environment’. Over the past three decades, Harvard has failed to live up to this commitment. The Chronicle has reported that at least three women informed human resources of misconduct by Jorge Dominguez. In these cases, as in others, Harvard has not kept its promise to protect those most at risk. The burden of responsibility to hold abusers accountable does not lie with the victims. It lies with those in positions of authority. We feel an apology is necessary to rebuild trust and to show that the university unequivocally supports those who come forward.

We have all been shocked by the allegations against Jorge Dominguez. Now we call on you to take bold and immediate action to address the power structures that have left junior faculty, students, and staff vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

The signatories expressed their solidarity with Karl and other women who came forward and spoke to the Chronicle: “We respect and admire the courage it requires to share your story.”

More than 200 undergraduates led by 59 students in the Government Department wrote an angry letter to the Government faculty, calling the university administration’s failure to take appropriate action against Domínguez “reprehensible” and making a series of demands addressing the underlying problems:

We feel deeply betrayed by the fact that he was allowed to continue teaching at this university, putting students, faculty, and staff at risk for so long despite the fact that he was censured for sexual harassment thirty-five years ago.

Both Domínguez’s crimes and the department and the administration’s failure to take action for years are reprehensible. But they are also telling signs that the Government Department (and Harvard at large) are home to misogyny, rape culture, and exploitative power dynamics– problems that run much deeper than any single perpetrator of sexual or gender-based violence or any single failure to act to keep our community safe.

More than 100 Government graduate students, in their own letter to the faculty, expressed anger over the administration’s response to the Chronicle story. The letter followed a meeting between graduate students and Government Department Chair Jennifer L. Hochschild:

“We went into the meeting hoping for answers. We left disappointed, disillusioned, and, for many of us, angry. The meeting communicated a message of equivocation, powerlessness, and an unwillingness to commit to addressing this issue or instituting any significant changes within the Department.”

Money, Power, and Sexual Assault (Part 2)

In 2016 and 2017, two of the country’s most powerful conservatives—Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News—were shown the door for sexual harassment of female subordinates. This week—thanks in part to the willingness of harassment victims to speak out—it’s the turn of one of America’s most influential liberals: Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein.


An investigation by the New York Times—whose reporting last April led to O’Reilly’s precipitous downfall—revealed sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein stretching over nearly three decades. After being confronted with allegations including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact, the newspaper reported, Weinstein reached at least eight settlements with women.

According to the Times:

In interviews, eight women described varying behavior by Mr. Weinstein: appearing nearly or fully naked in front of them, requiring them to be present while he bathed or repeatedly asking for a massage or initiating one himself. The women, typically in their early or middle 20s and hoping to get a toehold in the film industry, said he could switch course quickly—meetings and clipboards one moment, intimate comments the next.

In a statement to the Times, Weinstein apologized for his behavior: “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it. Though I’m trying to do better, I know I have a long way to go.”

Meanwhile, the board of the Weinstein Company—known for such films as Django Unchained, The King’s Speech, and Silver Linings Playbook—announced that Weinstein was taking an indefinite leave of absence; one-third of the board had immediately resigned amid the allegations of rampant sexual harassment by the company’s co-chairman.

The Times story cites a multi-page 2015 memo to company executives by Weinstein employee Lauren O’Connor, which detailed sexual harassment she and other women experienced at the hands of their boss. She wrote:

“There is a toxic environment for women at this company. I am a professional and have tried to be professional. I am not treated that way however. I am sexualized and diminished.

“I am a 28-year old-woman trying to make a living and a career. Harvey Weinstein is a 64-year-old, world famous man and this is his company. The balance of power is me: 0, Harvey Weinstein: 10.

“I am just starting out in my career, and have been and remain fearful about speaking up. But remaining silent is causing me great distress.”

Following a settlement with Weinstein, the Times reported, O’Connor withdrew her complaint six days after sending her memo.

Weinstein is known as a champion of liberal causes, and a donor to Democratic Party candidates. Former President Barack Obama’s eldest daughter Malia interned at the Weinstein Company last summer. Weinstein recently helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in the name of feminist icon Gloria Steinem.

The combined force of power and money was evident in Hollywood’s deafening silence after the scandal broke:

In the wake of the blockbuster Times exposé, The Daily Beast reached out to dozens of prominent actors, actresses, and filmmakers—who both have and have not worked with Weinstein—only to receive many replies of “no comment” and plenty of radio silence.

“Nauseating, chicken-hearted enablers all—all the people who knew and said nothing—and those who are STILL staying silent,” TV personality/writer/chef Anthony Bourdain, one of the few celebrities who did speak out, tweeted in response to the Beast story. Bourdain, who made clear he was not referring to Weinstein’s victims, has 6.45 million Twitter followers.


“Harvey Weinstein Is Fired After Sexual Harassment Reports” (New York Times headline, October 8, 2017).

The Weinstein Company fired its co-founder Harvey Weinstein on Sunday, after a New York Times investigation uncovered allegations that he had engaged in rampant sexual harassment, dealing a stunning blow to a producer known for shaping American film and championing liberal causes.


Money, Power, and Sexual Assault

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. This focus is as urgent as ever, given that our sitting Republican president himself has faced accusations of serial sexual assault and harassment. On April 1, the New York Times published a disturbing and important story about alleged sexual misconduct at one of America’s most influential cable networks, Fox News Channel. The story is an illustration of how sexual assault is enabled by a culture of impunity.


After more than 60 interviews and reviewing 100 pages of documents, Times reporters Emily Steel and Michael S. Schmidt found that a total of five women had received $13 million in payouts from Fox or TV host Bill O’Reilly in exchange for agreeing to not pursue litigation or speak about their sexual misconduct accusations against O’Reilly.

The Times report indicated that two of the settlements contradicted a Fox statement in 2016 that claimed it did not tolerate behavior that “disrespects women or contributes to an uncomfortable work environment.” That statement was made after the Fox’s chairman, Roger Ailes, was fired in the wake of another major sexual harassment scandal at Fox—the company had reached a $20 million with former Fox anchor Gretchen Carlson. Instead, the Times reported, even as the two other O’Reilly cases came up “the company has repeatedly stood by Mr. O’Reilly.”

O’Reilly’s pattern of alleged misconduct, according to the Times:

The women who made allegations against Mr. O’Reilly either worked for him or appeared on his show. They have complained about a wide range of behavior, including verbal abuse, lewd comments, unwanted advances and phone calls in which it sounded as if Mr. O’Reilly was masturbating, according to documents and interviews.

The reporting suggests a pattern: As an influential figure in the newsroom, Mr. O’Reilly would create a bond with some women by offering advice and promising to help them professionally. He then would pursue sexual relationships with them, causing some to fear that if they rebuffed him, their careers would stall.

The Times story indicates that money and power trump the treatment of women at Fox.

O’Reilly’s show The O’Reilly Factor is the No. 1 show in cable news and generates more than $446 million in annual advertising revenues. O’Reilly earns an annual salary of $18 million. That doesn’t include his massive royalties from books that became best-sellers in part because of his prominence as a nightly TV host on Fox, such as Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, Killing Reagan, and Killing Jesus. Describing O’Reilly’s appeal to Fox’s conservative viewers, the Times said he “presents a pugnacious, anti-political-correctness viewpoint and a fervent strain of patriotism.”

In an April 5 interview with the Times on various topics, President Trump was quick to defend O’Reilly: “Personally, I think he shouldn’t have settled. Because you should have taken it all the way. I don’t think Bill did anything wrong. I think he’s a person I know well. He is a good person.”

Trump, who was strongly supported by evangelical religious leaders and voters in his 2016 residential campaign, has also been accused of sexual misconduct by numerous women. An audio tape made on the set of a TV soap opera in 2005 and unearthed by the Washington Post during the 2016 campaign revealed Donald Trump bragging about forcing himself on women including married women:

“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Like Trump, O’Reilly denies the merits of sexual assault accusations by women against him. In a statement to the Times, he cast himself as the victim:

“Just like other prominent and controversial people, I’m vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity. In my more than 20 years at Fox News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department, even on the anonymous hotline.

“But most importantly, I’m a father who cares deeply for my children and who would do anything to avoid hurting them in any way. And so I have put to rest any controversies to spare my children.

“The worst part of my job is being a target for those who would harm me and my employer, the Fox News Channel. Those of us in the arena are constantly at risk, as are our families and children. My primary efforts will continue to be to put forth an honest TV program and to protect those close to me.”

Fox issued this statement to the Times:

“…we have looked into these matters over the last few months and discussed them with Mr. O’Reilly. While he denies the merits of these claims, Mr. O’Reilly has resolved those he regarded as his personal responsibility. Mr. O’Reilly is fully committed to supporting our efforts to improve the environment for all our employees at Fox News.”

Even before the Times story broke on April 1, the Justice Department was reportedly looking into the way Fox handled payments related to sexual harassment cases to determine whether the company misled investors.

There may be more to the story to come.

UPDATE 4/19/17:Fox News drops Bill O’Reilly in wake of harassment allegations“—Fox News