cont. from Page 5 booster club). By excluding these two members from the Panther Lounge, the univer- sity in effect has withdrawn some support from the team. Secondly, the Panther Lounge lost a lot of money because the hockey team wanted to celebrate together as a team along with their With two members excluded from the student lounge, it was only common fans. _ sense that the celebration ~would be moved. the need for authority and puni- I can’ understand tive actions, but there is an exception to every rule. Signed, A hockey Fan who cele- brated at Myron’s A reply to Rehman To the Editor; After the all the fiery rhetoric, innu- endo, and guilt by associa- tion has been cleared away, smoke from HII SMITH _ == CORONN TOMORROW'S TECHNOLOGY AT YOUR TOUCH. ‘ pereny JUST WRITE FORANY COURSE... Smith Corona On Campus XL 2000 Electronic Typewriter with Spell-Right™ Electronic Dictionary .... The Affordable Portable — ; Perfect for Back-to-School © Spell-Right™ electronic dictionary checks spelling of 50,000 words. ®@ WordFind™ locates errors. © Full line memory correction allows correction from one character to an entire line. ® WordEraser® removes an entire word with one tap of a key. © Other features include bold print, auto retum, auto center, auto halfspace, auto super/subscript, end of page warming, and more. Save $40.00 $309.95 or Rent to Own $39.95 month (x9) XL 1000 Electronic Typewriter Save $30.00 $259.95 or Rent to Own z $34.95 month (x9) Carter, & Co. Ltd. 74 Queen St... there appear to be several points worth mentioning in response to Prof. Rahman’s article about our research: (1) To Prof. Rahman, sexual harassment, except in its coercive Al- intrusive most extreme, forms is a nonproblem. sexually behaviour is eaither a reflec- or bad manners (for example, offer- most all tion of poor taste ing to exchange sex for bet- ter grades, or repeated un- wanted touching by a faculty member). We disagree... so do the federal and provincial governments and most of the universities in Canada. Given Rahman’s posi- tion on sexual harassment generally, would pect that this to his scrutiny. Prof. not wish one sus- research into stand up Apparently, no topic would Rahman simply does to see this topic looked at, and he would presumably criticize any re- search that did. Case closed. (2) One serious charge Rahman levels is that the information ‘|. provided by our respondants may not be confidential, and that our assurance of confi- dentiality may have been “ hint /invitation / encouragement| a to provide names and other specific details.”” What Rah- man fails to mention is that we soecifically asked respon- dents in the event that they re- lated a and in not to give names specific incident-— fact, none did. It jseems ludicrous to suggest that when a_ questionnaire is mailed to individuals by name, one should do any- thing other than assure both anonymity and confidential- ity. (3) Prof. Rahman sug- that our research is This is gests unethical. rious allegation as he well a Se- knows. Actually, he says our research is “consistent with ethically questionable prac- tices” because we “sneaked in” questions unrelated to sexual harassment. What Rahman precisely objects to, is that in a section of our questionnaire headed “At- titudes”, we asked ques- tions about attitudes to- ward men and women (‘“fem- inism”’) and didn’t tell peo- ple why. This is tive and ethically question- able, he. says. But, in addition to 2 these attitude questions, we decep- “sneaking in also asked students their age, sex and year at the univer- sity. Was this also decep- tive? Unethical? Would it be if we had the idea that sexual harassment might in- crease with year at the uni- Would Rahman be questions if versity? raising ethical we had “snuck in” questions about extraversion, sociabil- ity or attitudes toward au- thority? Is it the inquiry into attitudes toward “feminism”? that bothers him so? (4) We are not the only targets of Rahman’s criti- cisms. There are also the 215 students who completed our questionnaire. According to Rahman, anyone who did fill out the survey without ques- tioning what our “sneaky” attitude questions were do- ing there (ic. the large ma- jority of our respondents) is simply so gullible and sug- gestible that their answers to our questions are not to In addi- tion, Rahman must also have be taken seriously. a fairly low opinion of the lo- cal granting body for fund- ing our “costly” (a phrase he uses more than once) re- search. So much for our response to the content of Prof. Rah- man’s article. But it seems to us that there are other issues raised by this article that have lit- tle to do with us personally. We are deeply offended by this article. It makes serious charges about our academic competence and ethics. Our reputations have been ques- tioned and our ability to carry out our research pro- gramme potentially jeopar- dized. But we think it would be dent was unfortunate if this inci- only seen as an Rah- We he- lieve that it raises questions issue between Prof. man and ourselves. that need to be addressed by all sectors of the university. What should be- tween people be like at a uni- relations versity? Of course, the right to speak one’s mind freely, to teach and write what you believe is essential at a uni- versity, but what role, if any, should respect for other per- process? sons play in this How does referring to peo- ple’s work as bad nonsense, bantering about its pseudo- scientific qualities and cava- lierly challenging their ethics relate to the idea of academic freedom? How responsible should the criticism of oth- ers’ work be; how well in- formed need critics be about the work they criticize. Substantive debate and . . discussion about research and ideas plays a vital role in the life of the univer- : — eo sity. At the Faculty Sem. inar we gave on Jan. 29 we provided a public forum where such debate could take place, where criticisms could be voiced and responded to, At this presentation, we dis. cussed what we saw as the limitations and problems of survey methodologies. But Prof. Rahman did not at- tend, choosing The Gem in. stead, where a direct and im- mediate response to his com. ments would not he possible. We believe that the ques- tions we have raised are.im- portant ones that should be relected upon widely and commented upon. A_nonre- sponse on the part of the aca- demic community will only this The is- reflect kind sue here (perhaps like the is- acceptance of of criticism. sue of sexual harassment it- self) is not simply what kind of behaviour is permiissable within academic community when it comes to questions bubt what the kinds of behaviour of academic freedom, are desirable... not just what you can get away with, but how people ought to be with others. And finally: What does the nature of Prof. Rah- man’s criticisms of our work tell our students about what academic debate should be like? And what would si- lence to Rahman’s article tell our students about how they should relate to people who hold opinions different from their own? Don Mazer & Beth Per- cival UPEI Psychology Dept. Life W ith Shari m1 English Yesterday was the pits. The computer ate my term paper, I spitied coffee on pre€. Qi roomate locked me out. It was just one af hese days where you wish you'd never gotten out of Good thing I'm not going malee the same Wer ane ci _ Se eS ee ee ee