The Silva Case at the University of New Hampshire

Abstract

In spring 1992, eight first-year students brought sexual harassment charges against Professor J. Donald Silva, a professor of writing and communication in the University of New Hampshire's Thompson School, our twoyear school of applied science. In accordance with our procedures at the time, the charges were heard in three steps-first, an informal meeting with our associate VP for Academic Affairs (March 1992), which resulted in a formal reprimand and the setting up of alternative writing sections for the complaining students; then, because Professor Silva refused to accept the reprimand, a formal hearing before a five-member hearing board (January 1993) followed by a ruling from the university president, Dale F. Nitzschke, supporting the board's decision; and, finally, a second formal hearing (March 1993) before a five-member board.' Both boards found, unanimously, that Professor Silva had violated our sexual harassment policy. In accordance with the boards' recommendations, Professor Silva was suspended from his teaching duties for one year without pay and required, as a condition for reinstatement, to undergo counseling. Rather than pursue the additional grievance procedure that is provided by our collective bargaining agreement, Professor Silva, with the backing of the conservative Washington-based Center for Individual Rights, brought suit against the university in federal court. The suit was filed in fall 1993; a year later, in September 1994, Judge Shane Devine, the presiding judge in the case, handed down an Order of Preliminary Injunction against the university, reinstating Professor Silva. The case was ultimately settled out of court in December 1994, under an agreement that returned Professor Silva permanently to the classroom and awarded him $60,000 in back salary and benefits plus $170,000 in legal fees. As the chair of the appeals board that heard the case on campus, I have a special perspective on this story. In this article, I will describe the case as I saw it, as well as the aftermath in the courts and in the press, and draw what conclusions I can about the implications of this notorious case for the struggle against sexual harassment on university campuses.