Re: Discrimination and Harassment Policy, Professor Kahn's response (UBC Reports, Sept. 19)
I must apologize in my original letter for not recognizing that the policy is employing civil procedures rather than criminal. However, I maintain that regardless of procedural choice, the policy still 1) contradicts commonly held precepts of justice; and 2) is internally contradictory. Moreover, Prof. Kahn's response did not address these issues.
She did not acknowledge that the policy does state: "Anyone who enters into a sexual relationship where a professional power differential exists must realize that if a charge of sexual harassment is subsequently lodged, it will be extremely difficult to defend the conduct on grounds of mutual consent." This statement contradicts the accepted standard of Canadian law and instructs the three-person panel to do so when weighting the balance of probabilities to reach their verdict. Given this situation, one might ask what would be an acceptable defense (temporary insanity, perhaps)? Implicitly, the policy fails to recognize that members of the university community are adults and hence have the right to engage in consensual sexual relationships regardless of power differentials.
I agree that to protect all parties concerned, it is wise to reduce potential conflicts of interest. However, informing one's administrative head of such a sexual relationship has no bearing on the question posed to the panel, namely did harassment/discrimination occur or not? Given the policy instructs the panel to determine if there has been a violation of procedure, one must wonder what probabilistic weight a violation of this administrative procedure has.
Finally, one original tenet of `natural justice' is the right to hear the testimony of the other party and to cross-examine this testimony. In the policy, the panel acts as arbitrator and this right has been removed. One must trust the panel to represent their interests. As the impact of the verdict may be devastating to either party in terms of career, family, etc., why has this right been removed?
In conclusion, my intention was and is to highlight some of the deficiencies in this policy, with the hope that the administration would respond in an insightful and responsible manner.
Campbell M. Clark, PhD
Associate Professor
Dept. of Psychiatry