Letter defends privacy in situation that lacked it

I read with interest the Feb. 20 letter published from John Burness about the need to respect privacy in situations where an allegation of discrimination has been made.

What prompted his letter was The Chronicle's story in which a case arising in my department was described (by the accuser) in some detail. The important thing, in the context of Burness's letter, is that these accusations had been presented formally to the Office of Institutional Equity. That office conducted an investigation in a manner protecting the privacy of the two parties, as should be done. For a longer time than seems fair, the results of the inquiry were kept secret from both parties. When the accused finally obtained a letter from OIE saying they had turned up nothing that indicated further action, he was understandably relieved and naturally told others about it. Perhaps Burness thinks that was a breach of privacy.

But within my department it was never a private matter. Both parties had talked to other colleagues, giving their sides of the story. This is natural and probably inevitable. Of course it means that, if a charge is ultimately rejected, the accuser will suffer some embarrassment. Properly so, because one should not file a formal accusation of misconduct without a strong case. Conversely, if the charge sticks, the accused will surely be hurt beyond whatever the institutional sanctions might be, because others will know about it.

If Burness is merely defending OIE's policy of keeping its proceedings private with only the two parties being told the result, who can object to that? Once there is a result, the parties have every right to make it known to others as they see fit. On the other hand, for an accuser to spread trumped up charges in public through the newspapers is more than a breach of privacy. It smacks of slander.

Lawrence Evans

Professor Emeritus

Department of Physics