I must respond to Dr. Sam Black's commentary (Bulletin, January) on the sexual harassment decision in British Columbia. Dr. Black suggests the decision will have a negative effect on the ability of professors to provide a rich learning environment for their female students. I reject this thesis based on my experience in both Britain and Canada and my discussions regarding Dr. Black's ideas with my own students and staff.

The thesis is specious since it depends on the assumption that to be able to provide a rich learning environment for students one must engage with them in one-on-one sessions in your home. This is entirely inaccurate. The kind of one-on-one mentoring Dr. Black speaks of can easily and effectively be done in the setting of a faculty member's office.

I have been involved in teaching for almost 20 years and, apart from the annual Christmas party, I have never felt the requirement to entertain students in my home. Likewise my PhD supervisor in Britain, for whom I have the greatest respect and warmest memories, conducted all of our discussions in his small, cramped office. With my own graduate students -- many of them female -- I have attempted to recreate the caring but professional attitude of my own PhD supervisor.

I find Dr. Black's apology for Dr. Dutton's actions unacceptable. There is no excuse for asking a female student to your house, entertaining her in candlelight and then discussing personal aspects of your love life with her. To suggest this is only "irregular behavior" is to suggest female students should not find this behavior offensive (only irregular). Some may not, but others certainly would. This behavior is rightly classified as sexual harassment.

Throughout the article Dr. Black exaggerates the impact of the tribunal decision. For example, Dr. Black suggests this ruling effectively means talking to students about anything other than academic matters is now seen as an infraction. This is not a convincing argument and I cannot reasonably believe Dr. Black supports it. I, like most experienced supervisors, have had many experiences in which discussions have dealt with issues as serious as deaths or mental illness in the family, or more recently, financial crises in the lives of students. Discussion of such important non-academic topics is clearly not threatened by the tribunal ruling.

Dr. Black speaks of the tribunal decision as "provincial." I understand him to mean provincial to be parochial, behind the times, not up with the modern and possessed of antiquated ideas. It is therefore surprising to hear a defence of Dr. Dutton's actions on the basis that he did not physically assault his student or demand sex from her. I would argue that such a defence is "provincial" in the extreme in 21st century North America.

I would further argue that Patricia Marchak's view is the "modern" view. Dr. Dutton's behavior "gave the student the impression that an intimate relationship was developing." I would suggest dean Marchak is correct in her assumptions and also correct in her decision that such behavior represents professional misconduct.

Dr. Black states the consequences of the tribunal decision will be that "Professors will simply pull back from their senior graduate students." I would agree professors will pull back from inviting female students to their home in the evening without others present. I don't know any excellent teachers at my institution who do that at the moment. To suggest this ruling will not allow me to "provide emotional support and guidance for senior students who suffer crises of confidence or upheavals in their personal lives" is totally incorrect. I have had such dealing with many of my graduate students over the years, all of them in my office. These issues are extremely difficult to deal with but the worst possible way of dealing with them is to cloud the issue with other intentions.

I would therefore submit the tribunal's ruling will be a net benefit to female students who will now be confident they can discuss important issues in their life, in a professional environment, without the professor attempting (or appearing to attempt) to take advantage of their vulnerable position.

A corollary to Dr. Black's argument is that this ruling will turn academic institutions into degree granting factories. I find it quite offensive that a colleague would assert that I am providing "factory" learning to my students simply because I don't have them "over to the house" all the time.

In an effort to understand Dr. Black's apology and assertions, I have come to the conclusion that one of two things is at play here. The first possibility is that his argument is an academic exercise in philosophical rhetoric rather than a thoughtful consideration of a complex issue. The second possibility is that the process of providing a learning environment for students in philosophy is vastly different from the process in biomedical science.

Immunology is the area of my scholarly endeavor. If the process of learning is so different I am tempted to ask why. Is there some fundamental reason why the teaching of philosophy could not follow the process for intellectual pursuits in areas such as my own? I find it hard to believe the process Dr. Black describes cannot be brought into the 21st century to the benefit of all involved.

In conclusion, I would suggest that "women who aspire to academic excellence and equal treatment" should be very happy with the trend towards zero tolerance in sexual harassment in our academic institutions and society as a whole.

Timothy D.G. Lee
Microbiology & Immunology, Dalhousie University