1. It is rather absurd to say that a critical ex- amination of the tools (i.e. questionnaire), methodology and publicly announced re- sults/generalizations cannot be carried out without the benefit of participating in This is like saying that we cannot be critical of the nuclear tools and meth- ods of the superpowers with- out attending the Reagan- Gorbachev meetings... My criticism was only meant to show that when the only tool you have is a hammer, there is a tendency to see every problem as nail — a fact rec- ognized even by the greatest scientists. The assertion that I “discredit all forms of seeking knowledge by scien- tific means” (March 31) is a pure figment of an over- worked imagination ‘— but it is typical of many other unfounded assertions in the reactions to my critique.

seminars.

2. Similarly, there was not the slightest intention at ‘discrediting colleagues” or anybody else, only at ‘raising the consciousness. of the university community. Contrary to all the ridicu- charges of innuendo, etc., therefore, my _ article focused primarily on the survey, not the surveyors, — except insofar as they seemed responsible for some of the survey shortcomings, in addition to those inherent in the social science tech- For instance, the

“social-scientific

lous

niques.

expression form of voyeurism” did not refer to the researchers at all — but only to the psycho- invasive scientific

technique,

logically survey and to the eventual ing of the pooled anony- mous/confidential responses by the public at large — whose usage has yet to catch up with the proposed defini- tions of sexual harassment.

social view-

‘Ethical concerns in psychological research, re- lating to what was tech- nically called ‘cover-story deception” (which refers to a procedure, not to the researcher), have been de- bated im scientific ences and journals for at least two decades, and have

confer-

neither damaged reputations |

nor jeopardized research pro- grams — as is obvious from the fact that such research is still done and funded. Only very questionable research can be “harmed” or “‘jeopar- dized” by just one critique — unless one also admits that this was very valid criticism. However, only good criticism will even arouse such fears. Thus the. ethical behavior of the researchers was never questioned, but only their use of a procedure which has long been so questioned.

In this context, there- fore, the use of the term “sneaking” had no _ ethical

‘implications whatsoever. It

was purely descriptive of the well-known secretive proce- dure of introducing a set of questions not explicitly re- lated to the declared issue — without properly respecting the right of the respondents to be fully informed about all that they are being tested for. No more, no less. Even then, it was not the importance of feminism that was questioned, but only the ambiguity/validity of some questions relating to it.

4. Far from being con- descending, such, categories as ‘gullible’ and ‘gossipy’ .de- scribe real flesh and blood humans — not sugar-coated abstractions. Recognition of such human qualities actu- ally guards against the ob- jectification of human beings

in terms of statistically av- eraged perceptions and per- centage opinions. Without such human traits, we would be back in the time of

Graphic /The Caril on

-to thank

primitive and easily quan- tifiable growls and grunts — a state in which group

pressure was the sole means

of browbeating one into con- formity. In fact, awareness of such human traits shows the folly of treating people as simple countable objects ~ which neither gossip nor are gullible. It is these traits which also make it difficult to determine the credibility of the responses:‘to a ques- tionnaire on sensitive issues like sexuality.

It becomes doubly ee ardous to base broad gener-

alizations on limited returns

Such unwarranted generalizations were questioned — not the specific findings based on the limited information.

from random samples..

5. The existence or seriousness of the problem of sexual harassment. was never questioned, only the necessity of sensational sur- veys to boost policy making. The existing human rights policy was suggested only as

a possible alternative — to

avoid the trigger-happy con-_

sequences that seem to fol-

In search of the green ee

by Laurie. Reeves

Hello again: (for the last time this year.) Phew! It has

been an extremely interest- ing year as the Financial Aid

Advisor and I look forward to next year’s challenges— and surprises. I really want those folks who helped me learn the ropes, and those students who were wonderfully patient.

I thought I would write about the Student Services Centre this week because I feel that when utilize the information and services available their whole financial situation improves. Some examples of these op- portunities are;

students

Part-time work Career planning ~

Personal problem assis-

. tance

Career information Reading training

Health service Residence accomodation Testing

Exchange programs Ecumenical programs Resumé writing

Speak Easy

University 100

Course planning

Study habit development

University orientation

low sexual harassment poli-

cies which are based on broad/loose definitions. For instance, if it is true that al- most everyone (i.e. 9 out of 10) seems to be experiencing sexual harassment, then it would be best to stop the business of education, since all the available time would be needed for investigation. Some readers who have questioned the fair- ness/objectivity of my cri- tique may want to read my. article again, or merely read it! For, I cannot respond to points which are nowhere to be found in my article — except perhaps between the lines, or in the impassioned imagination and eyes of the beholder. On all such points, therefore, I shall exercise my right to remain silent, since what I did not say or mean has already been turned and used against me in all the verbiage, distor- tions, name-calling and red herrings which have sanc- ‘tified this spirit of ‘‘free debate”’. ’ Amidst all the heat and

noise, however, the major

Scholarship and financial aida ere A] Placement service. Off-campus housing ‘Food service — Overseas student organi- zations Services of worship Involvement in student organizations

many

Job search techniques Studentship -.and more.

My last bit of advice for this year is to emphasize the

i Student Services Centre and

how it can work for you. USE IT!

The people have worked for you this

following

past year and despite the

usual changes most of these people will Re back next year:

Director: Jim Griffith, 566-0568

Secretary: Gayle Taylor, 566-0423 ;

Booking Office:

Secretary: Carol Heartz,

566-0488

Counselling: Jack Blan- chard, 566-0518, and Shirley *

Hudson, 566-0443 Health Centre:

Nurse: 566-0616

2 concerns raised in my initial article, regarding the poten- tial problems and: hazards

Sharon Mullin,

of such surveys/policies have been completely ignored and still remain unanswered. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how the reputation of UPEI has been smeared by all the unwarranted gen- eralizations and TV_ sensa- tionalism, i.e. that most students here have been sexually harassed by other students, staff or faculty. Based on such vague and limited information, this is a rather serious charge which places the whole university community under public sus-

Picion. While I have never had

much reputation to lose, I do seem to have gained some undeserved notoriety. How- ever, that was a small price for me to pay in an attempt to identify/clarify some of the problems and implica- tions of such surveys for the majority of our Island community — who, unfortu- nately, have so far decided to remain silent in this debate.

. —Mujeeb Rahman «

He

Residence | Manager: Mike R d, 5660488 . . “Head residents: fae

Cathy Ronahan (Ber. Hall), 566—0319 -

Mary | Ross (Marion Hall), 566-0318 -

Noreen Gillan (Blan- chard), 566-0318

Reading Lab: Suzanne

Manovill, 566-0581 - Food Service: John Mac- Cuish, 566-0436

Tutoring: . Vicki John- ston, 566-0423 : Canada Employment Centre: Manager: Jim Trainor, 566-0486 . : Secretary: Madeline Lannan, 566—0529 se There you have it ex-

cept for some of the most important members of this illustrious team, and guess who they are? I’m referring to the Centre’s student as- sistants of which I am one.

Well, I guess that is it for now. Have a good summer everyone! Make lots and lots of money so that you have less worry for your next educational ven- ture. See you next year, and remember that the “Search for the Green” begins. with youl,