1

A Student's Experience of Sexual Harassment from a

Teaching Assistant

This is a case written by a student after reviewing materials on harassment. It is

exactly as the student wrote it, except that I have removed a few details about one of
her friends that might prove identifying.

- Caroline Whitbeck

What actions, other than those she took, were open to this student (and her two
friends)? What discouraged her from taking those actions? Consider the professor's
action. Did he fulfill the duties of a complaint handler?

August 23, 1991 Dear Caroline, This is an actual account of a situation that occurred
at MIT to myself and two female friends. I thought you might find it interesting or
could perhaps use it as a scenario for your class.

In the Spring of my sophomore year, I was taking a class at Sloan. The course had a
final project that was to be developed by groups of two to five students. The students
in the class were allowed to form their own groups and would attend recitations as a
group. My group consisted of two female classmates, Ms. X and Ms. Y, who are both
quite attractive. Our group was one of the smallest, and was also the only group that
was solely female. We started attending recitations. During the first recitation I
noticed that the recitation instructor seemed to be staring at me or one of my two
group members. While discussing the class material, he rarely looked away from
where we were seated. I thought perhaps I imagined this, but my two friends said that
they had felt the same way. At first it did not bother us, but later, in conjunction with
other events, it became quite disturbing.

Our first real assignment was a proposal of our group project. We each were to do an
individual proposal. We spent many hours researching and writing our proposals at
library facilities around Boston and Cambridge. Since we knew several people in the
class had not written their proposals until the night before, we felt that our proposals
were well researched and written. To our dismay, we soon discovered that we had
received the lowest grade on our proposals in our recitation. This could be true for one
member of the group, but since the proposals were written and graded individually,
we felt it odd that all three of us received the same low mark. Before this had
happened, Ms. X had missed a couple of classes due to illness. Therefore, some of her
assignments were late or overdue. It was at this point, I feel, that we really began to
noticed how our TA's treatment of us compared to his treatment of other groups. He
spoke to us individually, at times when the other group members weren't present. He
consistently gave my group member the lowest grades on every assignment. If the
work deserved a low mark, we could have accepted this, but we knew it did not. Our
belief was confirmed by the TA's next actions. He would schedule meetings with us to
"discuss this assignment," and "see what we could do about this grade." The meetings
he scheduled were always after normal hours and always in a secluded room that had
big couches as seats.

During the first of these private meetings, which all groups were doing to discuss their
project topic and which occurred before we had turned in any assignments, I was
supposed to meet with him in my group, but Ms. X was unable to be there, so Ms. Y.
and I met with him alone. He made use both feel very uncomfortable by staring at us
 2

and putting his chair in a position that was inches away from ours or sitting very
closely next to us. He would lean forward and speak almost nose to nose with us. I
thought perhaps, since he was not from the US, that it was just a cultural difference
about speaking distance and personal space. But he spent approximately five minutes
discussing our topic, which he approved, and 25 minutes asking us personal questions.
After this initial private meeting, we both felt a bit awkward, because we were unsure
if we were just imaging his treatment of us. After this meeting we always tried to get
chairs with arms so that he could not sit so closely to us or touch us.

Because she had missed the group meeting, Ms. X had to meet with him alone. This
was after she had been ill and had turned in an assignment late. He held the meeting in
the same room with the big couches at 6:30 P.M.. He told Ms. X, (who has an
impressive record as a professional writer) that her writing was substandard and ask if
she "did not understand the assignment." Ms. X said that she felt that she had
understood the assignment, but that she would be happy to rewrite it. The TA told her
that that would not be acceptable because it would be too late, and then asked her
"what can we do about this assignment?" She replied that since she would not be
allowed to rewrite it, she really didn't know. He again asked her, in an insinuating
tone, "what can you do to get a better grade on this assignment?" Ms. X, feeling very
disturbed at this point, replied as she had the first time. He pushed this question
several more times before he decided to give her time to think of something she could
do. Immediately after this meeting with our TA, Ms. X called Ms. Y and myself (we
lived in the same dorm suite) and told us how upset she was and how uncomfortable
he made her feel. We discussed it , but agreed that it was too late to switch TA's.

From this point on, he would try and arrange this "private meeting" with him on an
individual basis and make leading inquiries about how we could better our grades. We
had decided that none of us would met with him alone. He kept giving us low grades,
and would want to " meet to discuss" an assignment with him. We asked around and it
seemed we were the only ones getting this special treatment. Finally, Ms. X was
forced to meet with him again. When she showed up, he told her he forgot that he had
a prior arrangement, and rescheduled the appointment for 6:30 P.M. on the day before
spring break, which was a time that Sloan was very deserted. I'd also like to note that
his office hours always ended at 4:00 P.M. and his meetings always occurred at times
when the area we met in was very deserted. He also told Ms. X that he expected her to
have thought of what she could do about her grades. Ms. X immediately called us and
told us about this and wanted us to go with her. Before this occurred, we would
receive telephone calls and messages from our TA at 7:00 in the morning. He would
call if we missed recitation, which we did more often now since we felt uncomfortable
being anywhere near him. He would call us about insignificant things.

Because of this, we felt that we had to change recitations. To do this, we had to meet
with the professor. We realized that even though we felt that we were being single out
and sexually harassed, we really didn't have any substantial proof. There were many
occurrences that I haven't related here. We told our professor how we felt and the
things that had happened. I'd like to note that our professor was one of the best
instructor that I've have had, and we felt at ease, or as much at ease as we could,
discussing this with him. He agreed that we did have reason to change recitation and
was upset because our TA had been with him for several years and was married. We
did not present this as "Our TA is sexually harassing us," because we did not want to
bias our professor's reaction to what we told him. However, he did feel that we were
being sexually harassed. He immediately changed our recitation instructor and told us
that something would be done about this. He also told us that our TA had a good past
history and that he had a bright future. It was up to us if we wanted to bring our TA
 3

before the school's harassment board. Our professor ended up having a discussion
with all the TA's about what sexual harassment is and had each of them discuss it with
their recitations.

All this happened (and our assignments were re-graded by our new TA, who was not
supposed to know why he was doing this), a few weeks after spring break. About two
weeks later, both Ms. X and I received calls before 7:30 A.M. from our old TA. He
said he had some old assignments of ours and that we could pick them up from him.
He also kept asking us why we changed recitations. After his repeated questions and
offers to re-grading our assignments, he said to me, (this is a quote) "If you return to
my class, you will have A's." I had told him we had changed recitations due to a time
conflict and I now told him to give our assignments to our new TA. Both Ms. X and
myself were very upset.

I never told my professor about the last conversation that I had with the TA where he
offered us guaranteed A's. Ms. X ended up dropping the class because she could not
deal with this anymore. Ms. Y and I finished the class and both received good grades,
ones that we had earned. We still don't know if we should have reported him to the
harassment board. We discussed it at the time and decided not to for several reasons. I
believe the harassment board had just been established at that time. Frankly, part of
the reason we didn't want to take official action is because we knew that it would hurt
our academic career at MIT. We thought we would be branded by non-sympathetic
faculty and students. We were aware that our new TA thought that we were just
complaining because of the grades we received, and we were afraid that others of the
community would think the same thing too. (Our new TA had discussed it with a
close friend of ours, who was also our 2nd TA's roommate, and who didn't know that
our TA was talking about us at the time.) I am concerned that our first TA may do
something like this to other female students. As Ms. X said at the time, what if the
women he did this to were not as strong-willed and were more submissive than she
was. We did find out that a number of his past female students also felt very
uncomfortable around him.

I really don't know what more to write about this. I haven't thought about this in a
while, but one of the articles I read reminded me of it. This is a somewhat sketchy
version of it. If you would like to discuss it further, I am very willing to do so. I didn't
use my two friends names because I am unsure how they feel about this at the
moment.

http://temp.onlineethics.org/div/cases/har.html
 4

he following cases are composites of actual Asian-American experiences. There are

discussion questions at the end of each case and overall questions after the last case.

Charles Tang: Background

Personal History: First-generation Chinese-American, born in Taiwan and raised in

San Francisco. Came over from Taiwan when he was six, and now he and his parents
and his younger sister are all citizens. His father is a staff physician at a local hospital,
and his mother teaches Mandarin Chinese at the local community college. Their social
life centers around a Chinese immigrant community in San Francisco.

High School Accomplishments: Graduated in the top 10 percent of his senior class, an
accomplished tennis player, National Merit finalist, second-chair violinist in the San
Francisco Youth Symphony.

College/University: Graduated from the University of Chicago with B.S. and M.S.
degrees in electrical engineering. Dated one Asian woman, but the relationship ended
badly. Has not dated since.

Employment: Accepted offer as Design Engineer at Dynamo Disk Incorporated, the

world's second-largest manufacturer of disk drives for personal computers. Moved in
with a buddy (Caucasian) from his high school tennis team who works for another
high-technology firm in the Boston area.

Case

Charles's first assignment was a project to cost-reduce Dynamo's popular but mature
product, a 5 1/4-inch floppy disk drive. He had initial problems because his first
supervisor was abusing alcohol. The supervisor's behavior finally resulted in his
leaving the company. Unfortunately, Charles's career took a hit.With new supervisor,
Charles got back on track and contributed well. He was a quick study and soon made
suggestions which were later implemented. A year later, the project had exceeded its
objective of a 20% cost reduction, largely due to Charles's ideas. However, his
supervisor credited others more than Charles. His subsequent assignments were
similar. He worked well on small teams with his contributions generally
underestimated due to a perception that his quietness was a sign of a lack of
understanding or confidence. Since he rarely complained, his supervisor thought that
he was generally satisfied with his job. Having been at Dynamo for five years, Charles
began to observe that many of the people who had started at the company with and
after him were moving into managerial positions. His roommate was now a
department head at his company. Charles felt that he was doing an excellent job and
wondered why his opportunity to move up had not arisen. What Charles did not know
was that his peers were effectively networking. They belonged to the same churches
and outside organizations as their bosses. Their children played together, and many
were active in various social groups.

Discussion Questions

 In Charles's early years at Dynamo, what were some of the obstacles he

faced?
 What could Charles have done differently?
 What could his supervisor have done differently?

Back to Top
 5

Jessica Chang: Background

Personal History: Second-generation Chinese-American, born and raised in Storrs,

Connecticut. Both parents are originally from Hong Kong and are now citizens. Her
father is a physics professor at the University of Connecticut, and her mother teaches
science at a local high school. Has one younger brother. Parents are not active in
community affairs.

High School Accomplishments: Salutatorian of senior class, All-State chorus, flautist,

gymnast, National Merit finalist, hospital candy-striper volunteer. Rejected for
admission to Yale.

College/University: Graduated from Cornell with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in
electrical engineering and computer science. Met and married fellow graduate student
Barton Buchanan III.

Employment: Accepted offer as Design Engineer at Dynamo Disk Incorporated, the

world's second-largest manufacturer of disk drives for personal computers. Husband
works for another firm in the Boston area.

Case

Jessica worked for Dynamo for six years and began to notice that several people who
started working at the company after her were becoming managers. She felt that she
had been doing a good job and wondered why she had not been offered a managerial
position also. After much consideration, Jessica scheduled a meeting with her
supervisor and shared her feelings that time was running out on her in terms of
keeping up with her peers, most of whom were one or two promotions ahead of her.
Her supervisor expressed surprise that Jessica was interested in becoming a manager.
He said that she always seemed to be cheerful and happy with her work. In fact,
Jessica reminded him of the wife of one of his "closest" friends, Richard Wang.
Apparently, Mrs. Wang was a wonderful cook and mother. When pressed, Jessica's
supervisor said that she wasn't "leader-like" and needed to be more assertive.

This meeting angered Jessica, and she had a long discussion with her husband. After a
period of soul-searching, Jessica selected Marge Ross, one of only two women
managers at Dynamo, as a role model. Although Jessica was uncomfortable with some
of Marge's behavior, which she considered "masculine", she learned and became more
outspoken. She began to interrupt at meetings, learned to hold the floor when others
tried to break in, and honed her presentation skills. She developed a thick skin when
encountering sexual and racial jokes, especially during customer meetings and
business trips. Two years later, she was offered a promotion.

Discussion Question

 Should Jessica have selected Marge Ross as her role model?

 Why or why not?

Back to Top

Belinda Liao: Background

Personal History: First-generation Chinese-American, born in Hong Kong and raised

in a suburb of New York City. Came over from Hong Kong when she was three, and
 6

now she and her parents are citizens. Her parents were professors before immigrating,
and now they own and manage a small neighborhood grocery store. Their social life
centers around a small neighborhood Chinese immigrant community. Gatherings with
non-Chinese people are rare.

High School Accomplishments: One of three Valedictorians of her senior class,

Academic Decathlon Team, cross-country team, Westinghouse finalist, president of
the Math Club, an accomplished pianist. Admitted to every college where she applied.

College/University: Graduated from MIT with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in
electrical engineering and computer science. Married a post-doc, Alex Epstein, and
divorced two years later.

Employment: Accepted offer as Design Engineer at Dynamo Disk Incorporated, the

world's second-largest manufacturer of disk drives for personal computers. Recently
promoted to a managerial position after working at Dynamo for 11 years.

Case

Belinda encountered difficulty as a first-line manager. Lacking a sympathetic mentor,

she encountered unexpected opposition from her subordinates, who viewed her entry
as an affirmative action appointment. It seemed that her people were constantly
testing her, no matter how small the incident. With great determination, Belinda found
ways to support her people, cards on their birthdays, congratulatory notes, and
uncommon listening skills. Slowly, she won them over and her group was soon
developing an excellent reputation. She also quieted her management peers by being
better prepared for meetings, underrunning her budget, and delivering her key
commitments ahead of schedule. Belinda's success was occasionally tempered by self-
doubt. Many of her high school friends were raising families, and her parents often
hinted about their desire to have grandchildren. Her life also seemed a little out of
balance, since she worked an average of over 60 hours per week and rarely took
vacations.

Nevertheless, Belinda's reputation and good work caught the attention of a

sympathetic sales director. He valued her strong technical background and her
Chinese heritage. Would she be interested in leading Dynamo's negotiation team with
a key personal computer maker based in Hong Kong? Her social life took a back seat,
and Belinda jumped at the chance, approaching this new task with the same
enthusiasm as she did her previous assignments. She studied the history of the
Chinese firm, talked to other suppliers, and knew their buying habits and
idiosyncrasies. She reviewed her Mandarin Chinese in a night-school class.

Her first customer meeting turned out to be less than she had expected. The customer,
while polite, seemed strangely distant. Subsequent meetings resulted in little progress.
Belinda befriended an engineer in the Hong Kong company, who confided in her. He
indicated that Dynamo had lost credibility by sending a woman, since senior
management was more comfortable negotiating with a man. Her heritage presented
them with another problem because they expected that her loyalty would first be to the
Chinese people and then towards Dynamo. Thus, when she opened the talks with a
strong pro-Dynamo position, they were upset.

However, they were impressed with her technical depth and felt that Dynamo's offer
was a technically superior one. Unfortunately, it also had the highest price. This
engineer felt that if Belinda sweetened the offer with red envelopes (containing
money) given to the right decision makers, Dynamo would win the disk-supply
 7

contract. He offered to help and even indicated that the amounts need not be large, but
that the respect this gesture showed was important.

Belinda realized that the contract was critical to Dynamo's survival. A recession in the
United States had significantly hurt earnings, and rumors of more layoffs were
rampant. She knew that such practices were commonplace in many parts of the world
and that other firms had found ways to hide the payment of these funds. After many
sleepless nights, Belinda decided to maintain her integrity and quietly informed her
friend in Hong Kong that "red envelopes" were not forthcoming. The firm awarded
the contract to Dynamo's chief American competitor two weeks later.

The result of this loss was felt quickly. Dynamo announced major staff cuts. Belinda,
unable to deal with the guilt and resultant stress, resigned.

Discussion Questions

 In many of the incidents, Charles/Jessica/Belinda was the victim.

 What responsibility did Dynamo, as a corporation, have, if any, to help
him/her?
 Some sociologists and psychologists have observed that the failure of some
Asian-Americans in business results from factors in upbringing and environment.
Select a few of these and discuss them (e.g., lack of role models at home,
emphasis on scholarship, racism, sexism).
http://temp.onlineethics.org/div/cases/asian.html
 8

Introduction

Subtle discrimination does exist in the professional workplace, whether we want to

accept it or not. Recognizing this fact seems to be the key to overcoming the obstacles
of cultural differences and to successfully integrating at all levels of the corporate
world. Despite efforts to diversify corporate America, there is still a disturbing
shortage of minorities at the upper level positions of all professions.

I am personally concerned about this issue because I am a Mexican-American with a

distinct cultural identity. I want to understand the issues I will face in the future, and I
want to be prepared to do what is necessary to overcome these barriers to professional
success. I am also concerned about the problem from the point of view of human
rights and equality. The essence of the problem is that discrimination, in any sense of
the word, is unfair and may infringe on the right of individuals to pursue their own
goals and their own way of life.

Back to Top

Interviewees

To investigate the issues presented in the hypothetical scenario, I conducted

interviews with people who have experience with the problem of subtle
discrimination. Within the M.I.T. community, the best qualified people in this field
are the two ombudsmen (complaint handlers), Mary Rowe and Clarence Williams,
and I interviewed both of them. The fact that one is a white female and that the other
is a black man ensures a rather broad perspective on the issue. I also interviewed a
minority engineer who has a good deal of experience, having worked for both small
and large engineering companies. His view, as opposed to the other characters of the
scenario, was most important because, from my interviews with the ombudsmen, it
seemed that the ultimate solution to the problem must come from the person being
discriminated against. This is not to say that the other factors of subtle discrimination
are insubstantial. However, I felt that the minority's perspective was the most relevant
if it is expected that he ultimately remedy the situation. A summary of the interviews
is given.

Questions

The following set of questions was used to guide the interviews.

 Is this scenario realistic? If it is, do you feel that it presents an ethical issue?
 Who is responsible for finding a solution to Pepe's problem, and what do
these responsibilities involve?
 Are there programs or policies in technical companies which are aimed at
dealing with subtle discrimination?
 Are these programs or policies effective and/or necessary?

Back to Top

Scenario

Casper and Pepe started working for the same company at the same time and under
the same supervisor, Mr. Harmless. Casper and Mr. Harmless are both European-
Americans, while Pepe is a Mexican-American. Soon after they started working, Mr.
 9

Harmless invited both of them to his traditional Sunday afternoon barbecue, an event
which was held biweekly and attended by many of the other professionals in the
company. Both Casper and Pepe attended the event.

While Casper seemed to have a great time, Pepe felt uncomfortable because he was
the only minority present out of about six employees and their families. His cultural
expectations of the event had proven to differ from those of the others. For example,
he prepared a dish to share with everyone and then realized that the families had each
brought their own food and drinks. He also felt that it was difficult to find common
ground with his co-workers outside the world of their profession.

Pepe decided not to attend any future barbecues, not because he disliked the other
employees but simply because he felt uncomfortable. For the next several months, the
event continued and the supervisor continued to invite both subordinates. Casper
attended every time; however, Pepe never did, and he consistently struggled to come
up with reasons why he could not do so. He certainly did not want the supervisor and
other employees to either take his rejections personally or develop negative feelings
towards him.

As time went on, Pepe sensed the personal relationship between Casper and Mr.
Harmless developing into a strong one. Eventually, a year after they had both joined
the company, Casper had been promoted to a high-level position, mainly as a result of
a fine recommendation from Mr. Harmless. Pepe had occasionally thought that Mr.
Harmless exhibited favoritism for Casper due to their personal relationship, and he
believed this was the main reason for the recommendation. Pepe felt that he had been
doing superior work and that his contributions to the company had been at least as
significant as, if not more so than, Casper's. Pepe became even more concerned about
the situation when the new subordinate, hired to replace Casper, turned out to be
another European-American. A month after this, the new subordinate seemed to be
following in Casper's footsteps, by developing a strong personal relationship with Mr.
Harmless. What should Pepe do?

http://temp.onlineethics.org/div/problems/sub.html
 10

ENGINEERING ETHICS

The Aberdeen Three 
Department of Philosophy and Department of Mechanical Engineering 
Texas A&M University 
NSF Grant Number DIR-9012252

Introduction To The Case

The Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland is a U.S. Army facility where, among
other things, chemical weapons were developed. The "Aberdeen Three" Case
involved three high-level civilian managers at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in
Maryland. All three managers were chemical engineers in charge of the development
of chemical weapons. In 1989, the three engineers were indicted for a criminal felony,
tried and convicted of illegally handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes in
violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The violations
occurred between 1983 and 1986.

Instructor Guidelines

The issues covered in the student handout include the importance of an engineer's
responsibility to public welfare, and the need for this responsibility to hold precedence
over any other responsibilities the engineer might have. Also discussed are the
responsibilities of a manager/engineer to look after the safety and well being of
his/her subordinates. A final point is the fact that no matter how far removed an
engineer may feel from society and the environment, all of our actions have an impact
and are subject to the same guidelines that affect others in our field. This point is
especially important in this case because of the criminal violations of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.

A videotape presentation of the case by Jane Barrett, the prosecuting attorney, is

available from

Geo-Centers, Inc.
1220 12th SE, #300
Washington, DC 2003-3723
Phone 202-544-7277

A suggested method of presenting this case to the class involves giving the students
the handout a day or two before showing the videotape. After showing the videotape,
the next class period could be spent discussing the case, using the enclosed overheads
to review the roles of the people involved, the key dates, and the key issues. Listed
below are some sample questions to stimulate class discussion

Questions for Class Discussion

1) What could the three engineers have done differently? 

2) What, if anything, could their subordinates have done differently? 
3) What, if anything, could their superiors (i.e., the Army command) have done
differently? 
4) Should the Justice department have done anything differently? 
5) Do you think the judge's sentencing of the "Aberdeen Three" was too lenient or too
harsh? Why? 
6) What do you (the students) see as your future engineering professional
responsibilities in relation to preserving or protecting the environment?
 11

Essay #7, "Engineers and the Environment," appended at the end of the case listings
will be found directly pertinent in preparing to discuss these issues. Also, essays #1
through #4 will have relevant background information for the instructor preparing to
lead classroom discussions. Their titles are, respectively: "Ethics and Professionalism
in Engineering: Why the Interest in Engineering Ethics?;" "Basic Concepts and
Methods in Ethics;" "Moral Concepts and Theories;" and "Engineering Design:
Literature on Social Responsibilities Versus Legal Liability."

Recommended Overheads

1) Organizations/People Involved 
2) Key Dates 
3) Key Issues

The Aberdeen Three Overheads

1) Organizations/People Involved 
2) Key Dates 
3) Key Issues

ORGANIZATIONS/PEOPLE INVOLVED

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND - U.S. Army facility, which employed the

following three civilians: 
CARL GEPP - Manager at the Pilot plant. He answered to Dee and Lentz. 
WILLIAM DEE - Developed the binary chemical weapon. He headed the chemical
weapons development team. 
ROBERT LENTZ - In charge of developing the processes that would be used to
manufacture chemical weapons. 
U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
JANE BARRETT - Prosecuting attorney

KEY DATES

1976 - Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

September 17, 1985 - Acid tank leaks into Canal Creek. 
March 26, 1986 - Pilot Plant shut down. 
June 28, 1988 - Gepp, Dee, and Lentz indicted. 
January - February 1989 - Trial of the "Aberdeen Three" 
May 11, 1989 - "Aberdeen Three" each sentenced to 1000 hours of community
service and three years probation.

KEY ISSUES

HOW DOES THE IMPLIED SOCIAL CONTRACT OF PROFESSIONALS APPLY

TO THIS CASE? 
WHAT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES DID THE THREE ENGINEERS
NEGLECT, IF ANY?

The Aberdeen Three - Environmental Issues

Student Handout  -  June, 1992

Synopsis
 12

The "Aberdeen Three" Case involved three high level civilian managers at the
Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. All three managers were chemical engineers
in charge of the development of chemical weapons. In 1989, the three engineers were
indicted for a criminal felony, tried and convicted of illegally handling, storing, and
disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The violations occurred between 1983 and 1986.

Organizations and People Involved

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND - U.S. Army facility, which employed the

following three civilians:  
CARL GEPP - Manager at the Pilot plant. He answered to Dee and Lentz. 
WILLIAM DEE - Developed the binary chemical weapon. He headed the chemical
weapons development team. 
ROBERT LENTZ - In charge of developing the processes that would be used to
manufacture chemical weapons.

U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

JANE BARRETT - Prosecuting attorney

Key Dates 
1976 - Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 
September 17, 1985 - Acid tank leaks into Canal Creek. 
March 26, 1986 - Pilot Plant shut down. 
June 28, 1988 - Gepp, Dee, and Lentz indicted. 
January - February 1989 - Trial of the "Aberdeen Three." 
May 11, 1989 - "Aberdeen Three" each sentenced to 1000 hours community service
and three years probation.

Details of the Case

In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
purpose of the act was to provide technical and financial assistance for the
development of management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other
resources from discarded materials and for the safe disposal of discarded materials,
and to regulate the management of hazardous waste.1

This 1976 act expanded the Solid Waste Disposal Act thereby authorizing state
program-and-implementation grants for providing incentives for recovery of resources
from solid wastes, resource conservation, and control of hazardous waste disposal. In
addition to establishing the EPA Office of Solid Waste, requiring state planning and a
ban on open dumping of solid hazardous wastes, RCRA also implemented criminal
fines for violations of the open dumping or hazardous waste disposal guidelines.

Aberdeen is a U.S. Army facility where, among other things, chemical weapons are
developed. All three engineers involved in the case were experts in the chemical
weapons field, and Dee was responsible for developing the binary chemical weapon.
The U.S. Army has used the Aberdeen Proving Ground to develop, test, store, and
dispose of chemical weapons since World War II. Periodic inspections between 1983
and 1986 revealed serious problems at the facility, known as the Pilot Plant, where
these engineers worked. These problems included

 flammable and cancer-causing substances left in the open

 chemicals that become lethal if mixed were kept in the same room
 13

 drums of toxic substances were leaking. There were chemicals everywhere -

misplaced, unlabeled or poorly contained. When part of the roof collapsed,
smashing several chemical drums stored below, no one cleaned up or moved
the spilled substance and broken containers for weeks.2

The funds for the cleanup would not have even come out of the engineers' budget. The
Army would have paid for the cost of the cleanup. All the managers had to do was
make a request for the Army clean-up funds, but they made no effort to resolve the
situation.

When an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into a nearby river,
state and federal investigators arrived and discovered that the chemical retaining dikes
were unfit, and the system designed to contain and treat hazardous chemicals was
corroded and leaking chemicals into the ground. The three engineers maintained that
they did not believe the plant's storage practices were illegal, and that their job
description did not include responsibility for specific environmental rules. They were
chemical engineers, they practiced good "engineering sense," and had never had an
incident. They were just doing things the way they had always been done at the Pilot
Plant.

On June 28, 1988, the three chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert
Lentz, now known as the "Aberdeen Three," were criminally indicted for storing,
treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA at the Aberdeen
Proving Ground in Maryland after about two years of investigation. Six months
following the indictment, the Federal Government took the case of the "Aberdeen
Three" to court. Each defendant was charged with four counts of illegally storing and
disposing of waste. In 1989, the three chemical engineers were tried and convicted of
illegally storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous waste. William Dee was found
guilty on one count, and Lentz and Gepp were found guilty on three counts each of
violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Although they were not the
ones who were actually performing the illegal acts, they were the managers and
allowed the improper handling of the chemicals. No one above them knew about the
extent of the problems at the Pilot Plant. They each faced up to 15 years in prison and
up to $750,000 in fines, but were sentenced only to three years probation and 1000
hours of community service. The judge based his decision on the high standing of the
defendants in the community, and the fact they had already incurred enormous court
costs. Since this was a criminal indictment, the U.S. Army could not assist in their
legal defense. This case marked the first time that individual federal employees were
convicted of a criminal act under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Discussion of the Ethical Issues

The actions of the three engineers bring to mind an important question. These
engineers were knowledgeable about the effects of hazardous chemicals on people
and the environment (they developed chemical weapons), so why were they so
seemingly unconcerned about the disposal of hazardous chemicals? It is interesting to
note that even after they were convicted the three engineers showed no apparent
remorse for their wrongdoing. They kept insisting that the whole case was blown out
of proportion, and that they had done nothing wrong. All containers of hazardous
chemical have labels which state that the chemicals must be disposed of according to
RCRA requirements, yet the three engineers maintained that they had no knowledge
of RCRA. Perhaps the best answer to this question is that they did not hold their
responsibilities to the public as engineers as high on their list of priorities as other
responsibilities they held.
 14

To better understand the responsibility of the engineer, some key elements of the
professional responsibilities of an engineer should be examined. This will be done
from two perspectives: the implicit social contract between engineers and society, and
the guidance of the codes of ethics of professional societies.

As engineers test designs for ever-increasing speeds, loads, capacities and the like,
they must always be aware of their obligation to society to protect the public welfare.
After all, the public has provided engineers, through the tax base, the means for
obtaining an education and, through legislation, the means to license and regulate
themselves. In return, engineers have a responsibility to protect the safety and well-
being of the public in all of their professional efforts. This is part of the implicit social
contract all engineers have agreed to when they accepted admission to an engineering
college. According to the prosecution, the three engineers involved in the Aberdeen
case placed a low priority on this responsibility to society, and instead emphasized the
importance of their military mission.3 The first canon in the ASME Code of Ethics
urges engineers to "hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the
performance of their professional duties." Every major engineering code of ethics
reminds engineers of the importance of their responsibility to keep the safety and well
being of the public at the top of their list of priorities. Although company loyalty is
important, it can, in some circumstances be damaging to the company, if the employee
does not think about the long-term effects of his actions on the company.

It is a sad fact about loyalty that it invites...single-mindedness. Single-minded pursuit

of a goal is sometimes delightfully romantic, even a real inspiration. But it is hardly
something to advocate to engineers, whose impact on the safety of the public is so
very significant. Irresponsibility, whether caused by selfishness or by magnificently
unselfish loyalty, can have most unfortunate consequences.4

The engineers were also unaware that their experiments and their handling of waste
products had social impact, even though they considered themselves to be far
removed from the outside world. The leaking of sulfuric acid into Canal Creek
quickly disproved their claim of being removed from the outside world. No matter
how far an engineer feels removed from society, he still has an effect on it, even if it is
an indirect one. Even though the Pilot Plant was located on a military base, it still had
to follow the RCRA guidelines, regardless of its military mission.

In addition to their responsibilities to society in general, the "Aberdeen Three" also

had responsibilities to their subordinates, which they also overlooked. It was one of
these employees who originally went to the press and exposed what was going on at
the Pilot Plant. Employees were working under conditions where chemicals were
dripping down from leaky pipes above them, and in violation of RCRA rules.
Employees who had no hazardous materials training were ordered to handle and
dispose of chemicals about which they had little or no knowledge. Whether or not
there were rules for the training of employees who would be handing hazardous
materials, the three engineers had a responsibility to those employees to inform them
of what they were dealing with and how to handle the waste materials properly.

The three engineers convicted in this case were well aware of the dangers the
chemicals they worked with on a daily basis posed to society, yet they allowed their
unfounded feelings of separation from the outside world and their misguided loyalty
to their military mission to lessen the importance they placed on their responsibility to
society as engineers. The prosecutor in the case had this to say about the Aberdeen
Three: "These are experts in their field. If they can't be expected to enforce the law,
then I'm not sure who can."5
 15

Annotated Bibliography

Curd, Martin and May, Larry, "Professional Responsibility for Harmful

Actions," Module Series in Applied Ethics, Center for the Studies of Ethics in the
Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1984.

This essay explores the grounds on which professionals should be held responsible for
harms caused by their actions. Most examples used concern engineers, designers, and
architects involved in real-life cases from tort law.

Davis, Michael, "Thinking Like An Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the
Practice of a Profession," Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2, Spring 1991,
pp. 150-167. (see also, "Explaining Wrongdoing," Journal of Social Philosophy,
Vol. 20, Numbers 1&2, Spring/Fall 1989, pp. 74-90.

In these lucid essays, Davis argues that "a code of professional ethics is central to
advising individual engineers how to conduct themselves, to judging their conduct,
and ultimately to understanding engineering as a profession." Using the now infamous
Challenger disaster as his model, Davis discusses both the evolution of engineering
ethics as well as why engineers should obey their professional codes of ethics, from
both a pragmatic and ethically-responsible point of view. Essential reading for any
graduating engineering student.

Nesteruk, Jeffrey, "The Ethical Significance of Corporate Law," Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 10, No. 9, September 1991, pp. 723-727.

In this article, the focus is corporate decision-making structures, and conflicts

regarding particular role obligations. Nesteruk argues that as laws change, so do the
roles in the corporate hierarchy, thereby creating problems in the legal scholarship of
corporate social responsibility.

Robinson, Carlton C., "Safety--An Important Responsibility," ITE Journal (Institute

of Transportation Engineers), Vol. 61, No. 7, July 1991, pp. 21-24.

This article discusses safety as a critical ingredient for transport engineers and their
managers.

Schapker, Dennis R., "Tort Reform and Design Professionals," Journal of

Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 116, July 1990, pp. 258-265.

Discusses the battle over tort reform and how it has affected the engineering
profession since 1980. It is a call for engineers to get involved in the debate.

Stone, Christopher D., "Where the Law Ends: The Social Control of Corporate
Behavior," New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

This book looks at corporate moral behavior; in particular, how law is a reaction to
misdeeds in business behavior. Stone provides a thorough, albeit negative analysis of
corporate ethics, and provides recommendations for promoting ethical behavior.
Although written in 1975, the book still holds value for the student interested in social
responsibility versus legal liability issues.

Tomlinson, Don E., "Choosing Social Responsibility Over Law: The Soldier of

Fortune Classified Advertising Cases," Business and Professional Ethics, Vol. 9,
Nos. 1&2, Spring-Summer 1990, pp. 79-96.
 16

This article discusses the ethics of the Soldier of Fortune's guns-for-hire

advertisements that resulted in several murders across the United States.

Notes

1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. P.L. 94-580. Abstract.

Lengthy congressional document which outlines the planning and implementation of

stricter guidelines for the handling, treatment, storage and disposal of environmentally
hazardous materials. Challenging to read.

2 Weisskoph, Steven. The Washington Post Magazine. "The Aberdeen Mess" January

15, 1989. p. 55.

Article that went to print just as the case was going to trial. Focuses on the personal
side of the case, and comes across as being biased in favor of the defendants. 8 pages.

3 Videotape of prosecuting attorney Jane Barrett.

4 Baron, Marcia. The Moral Status of Loyalty. Illinois Institute of Technology: Center

for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, 1984, p. 9.

One of a series of monographs on applied ethics that deal specifically with the
engineering profession. Provides stimulating discussions both for and against loyalty.
28 pages with notes and an annotated bibliography.

5 Weisskoph, p. 57.