To the Editor,

If anyone is guilty of treating a subject as serious as sexual harassment with “casual glee”, it's Francine Prose in her “Hers” column (Nov. 26). She says she found it “hilarious” that I was intimidated by Stephen Dobyns' mean-spirited and aggressive drunken banter. She understood my position to be that of a man who was there to “protect” women from “blunt mentions of sex”. She misunderstands that, forget about women, I was offended by his remark. I don't want to be talked to the way he talked to me any more than Anita Hill wanted to hear Clarence Thomas talking about porno movie plots. Women and men testified because neither women nor men wanted to continue to put up with distinguished Professor Dobyns' pathological pattern of sexual harassment—verbal and physical. The only “protecting” I can discern is Prose's protection of her friend's reputation, by writing this article. Does anyone really believe that she's writing in the name of free speech? No one with anything actually at stake in the hearing felt that it had mainly to with language anyway, as Prose understood it. Dobyns physically assaulted the female graduate student, after having made lewd sexual comments to or about her (and after having made the rounds with similarly mean and baiting remarks to others at the party). These facts are not even disputed by Dobyns himself. The student then filed a charge of sexual harassment, a charge which had to be taken seriously. Since I was a witness to the incident in question it was my responsibility to testify. The purpose of my testimony and the whole discussion of so-called “salty” language was to provide the hearing panel with an understanding of the context in which his assault occured. I didn't want to testify at all. I didn't enjoy it. No one who testified had an easy time of it. It was not a student theater production. It was not a sit-in, or a rally or play-time. It was no joke for any of us, though it apparently was for Ms. Prose who was so amused by my testimony. The hearing panel concluded, based on the testimony it heard, that Dobyns was guilty of violating university policy on sexual harassment. The university wrote the policy. The hearing panel made the decision. Dobyns threw the drink. Those testifying are not responsible for the “damage” done to Professor Dobyns' career. As for said “damage”, everyone acknowledges his punishment as symbolic. Professor Dobyns was scheduled for a year's leave of absence anyway, so his “banishment” from campus is meaningless. He has said himself that he has no economic reason for teaching (in the Syracuse weekly, New Times, May 24-31), so withholding salary is meaningless. Nothing is going to prevent him from continuing to publish his creative work. Nothing is going to prevent him from returning to his high-salaried tenure-secure job in two years. There is no mechanism whatsoever in place for enforcing the requirement that he attend AA meetings or do community service. I'll acknowledge that a symbolic sanction counts for something, but to compare this hearing and its outcome with Salem-witch trials is ridiculous—scratch that, hilarious.

David Keith

(Graduate Student at Syracuse University)