Kathleen A. Hall
Library
EMC [MSU-Billings]
Twenty-five years ago, when I was an undergraduate, one of my English professors said something that I still remember. The class was discussing racism in American society. She said that she believed in democracy as a form of government, because democracy allowed governments to change people. Her example was the Civil Rights Act; she maintained that the government could change laws, which changed behavior and eventually changed hearts and minds. It is with this optimistic predilection of mind that I approach the subject of sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment is defined as any unwelcome conduct that is sexual in nature. The key word is unwelcome. Sexual attraction between two people is mutually welcome. Sexual harassment is not. Much has been made of who defines "unwelcome" and "sexual"; the courts have decided the person receiving the overtures decides, based upon "a reasonable person" standard. Admittedly, this is fuzzy.
The courts have also defined the two types of sexual harassment it recognizes: "quid pro quo" is the use of sexual favors (voluntarily or not) for some type of perceived good, i.e., a grade, a promotion, a raise; "hostile environment" is defined as a workplace where behaviors that are inherently sexual create a perceived impediment in allowing someone to fulfill the requirements of his/her professional position.
The sexual harassment definitions and laws in this country have been formed through litigation. It is because of litigation that American sexual harassment laws are a unique combination of fuzziness and hair-splitting. I recently had occasion to acquaint myself with the equivalent Australian laws. Their laws have been formed by legislation, not litigation. For instance, their laws concern workplace harassment, not just sexual harassment. Their altogether-more-sensible premise allows a far more equitable approach to what is a problem rooted in lack of mutual respect.
Many of us can clearly remember the social climate in the U.S. in 1964, which is an important benchmark in understanding the convoluted history of sexual harassment litigation. In an attempt to derail the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1964), a group of Southern politicians included discrimination based on sex (Title VII), certain that the absurdity of the concept of the sexes as equals would defeat the entire Act. Essentially, it is serendipity that women have equal rights under the law.
It wasn't until 1980 that the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission decided that sexual harassment in the workplace was a form of sex discrimination illegal under Title VII. Numerous studies by various organizations had concluded, as the EEOC did, that sexual harassment was successfully achieving what sexual discrimination used to do so effectively: keep people out of professional positions solely on the basis of gender. One fact which I found particularly disquieting was that sexual harassment has no relationship to educational level; the three professions in which women experience the highest levels of sexual harassment are banking, surgery, and welding. Sexual harassment against women is used to exclude and preclude women from being successful in professional positions, especially those professions traditionally considered "male."
The Supreme Court joined the fray in 1986, ruling in Meritor vs. Vinson that sexual harassment was sex discrimination made illegal by Title VII. In 1992 The Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment in public schools was illegal under Title VII and Title IX (which prohibits gender-based discrimination in schools which receive federal funds) and ruled that schools were liable for monetary damages (Franklin vs. Gwinnett). The latest ruling on this subject stated that, in a workplace deemed to have "a hostile environment," the harassed person need not prove damage in order to sue because of the harassment (Harris vs. Forklift Inc., 1993).
Two recent studies of sexual harassment issues in public schools, Secrets In Public and Hostile Hallways, are startling even to those of us who have become pessimistic on this subject. Both studies have very similar findings. Hostile Hallways reports on a survey administered to 1600 children, grades 8-11, all over the United States. Eighty-one percent of all children questioned reported being the victims of sexual harassment. Girls were victims more often than boys, but boys were victims as well. Almost every statistic in the report is alarming. Sixty percent of the harassing incidents occurred in the corridor or in the classroom, both public areas where adults are in attendance. As educators, we are not doing an adequate job of teaching future teachers about sexual harassment.
A friend of mine has a daughter in the 4th grade in a Helena elementary school. Did you ever wonder why we see so many little girls going to school with trousers under their skirts? The reason is "flip-up day." At recess, the little boys flip up the girls' dresses and grab them underneath. That is one score. The boy who scores the most wins. This is in Helena, Montana. In Hostile Hallways, when asked who, if anyone, the children told about the harassment, the children replied: 60% told a friend; 20% told a parent; 20% told no one; only 7% told a teacher. When my friend's daughter told the playground supervisor about "flip-up day," she was told to "stop being a tattletale." No wonder only 7% tell teachers; we are not educating future teachers to recognize what they see.
Two years ago How Schools Shortchange Girls revealed how unfairly girls are treated in schools. One statistic is old news to anyone in education; after 7th grade, girls' recorded achievement in math and science plummets, as does their self-esteem. Theories abound to explain this away. I do not think it is coincidental that sexual harassment of girls peaks in the 7th grade. Sexual harassment destroys self-esteem; self-esteem is crucial to successful performance in subjects not historically seen as girls' subjects. One is reminded of the workplace environments for those bankers, surgeons, and welders.
I was speaking about this issue to a group of teachers recently. One woman sighed and said, "I don't suppose we'll ever get rid of sexual harassment." One of the press releases that accompanied the publication of Hostile Hallways quoted a 14-year-old girl: "I never wanted to tell anybody about this. I only did because I don't want my daughters to go through the same thing." Her statement should be a clarion call to all educators. To my cynical teacher I said, no. The Civil Rights Act has made possible great changes in the past thirty years, but sexual harassment is one glaring area in need of concentration and effort. We cannot commence a campaign while simultaneously acknowledging eventual defeat.
To say that sexual harassment is a hot topic is an understatement. When I first began working on this subject, I was overwhelmed by the amount of data currently being generated on sexual harassment. (For those of you familiar with the databases Infotrac and ERIC, Infotrac has 660 citations and ERIC has 393.) The daily newspaper alone contains so many references that I have long since stopped clipping them. What I eventually realized was that all the literature was saying the same thing: men and women, boys and girls are no longer willing to be silent victims. Mutual respect--in the classroom, in the workplace--is no longer optional.
One of the core recommendations regarding sexual harassment is that it is necessary to periodically evaluate the workplace environment. The premise is that you don't know if your environment is problematical unless you evaluate it. The standard way to accomplish this is by means of an anonymous survey. The EMC Faculty Association surveyed the EMC faculty in April 1993 (the EMC MPEA surveyed its members at the same time, using the same survey). The survey we used was a standard national form, adapted to individuals' experiences on the EMC campus. We did not want historic data, we wanted what people had experienced while employed at EMC. The surveys went out with my name on them; I suspected people would respond better to a name than a P.O. box number.
My first surprise was the extent of paranoia regarding sexual harassment. During the first few days, I received half-a-dozen phone calls asking who exactly would see the raw data. I decided only me. Additionally, virtually all respondents used anonymous envelopes, rather than re-using old ones, as is usual on our campus. The results were shocking to me, but conformed to national studies. Sexual harassment is a problem on our campus. One does not like to imagine the results if students were surveyed; the faculty and staff results made for grim reading. Our form had a space for "suggestions." The overwhelming response from both groups surveyed was requests for information: definitions, awareness training, whom to contact, what to do. This is my only sanguine point; on our campus, a troubling environment could be easily rectified, through what we think we do--education.
We did our surveys. I compiled the data into charts, graphs, and tables. The EMC Faculty Association then proceeded to present the data, remembering it included some horrific comments (which I had homogenized to protect the respondents), to members of the administration and the Commissioner's office who had a professional "need to know." I believed that all of us on campus would work together toward an environment which is safe, equitable, and legal.
The response of the administrators we met with was silence or hostility. They were adamantly not interested in working with faculty and staff to "get the word out" on any level. Our administration has had the survey results since May 1993. To date, no one in administration has made any visible effort to address the problems revealed in the surveys.
The EMC Faculty Association response has been to prepare a laminated red notice and post it on campus bulletin boards. Our message is as follows:
We also plan to survey our faculty and staff again this spring, to evaluate whether or not our information efforts are effective.
Again, sexual harassment is illegal. It is beyond opinion or feelings. The Supreme Court has decided these issues. Our responsibility is to follow the law; our professional responsibility includes providing a safe, equitable environment for ourselves, our colleagues, and our students. Finally, I believe sexual harassment is part of a continuum of violence against women in American society. I believe that continuum stretches from the popular "blond" jokes at one end to murder at the other. Sexual violence is about anger, power, and control--not lust. The vast majority of American women who are murdered are killed by someone with whom they have a sexual connection--husband, ex-husband, lover, ex-lover. Sexual harassment exists on this continuum. Particularly with regard to women, the American social environment is toxic; it does grave damage to some of us; it is harmful to all of us.