Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment was once considered a personal problem rather than a social issue. In recent years, it has attracted increasing public scrutiny, gained civil rights credibility, and received attention within the academic community. Crucial to this transition has been the character­ization of sexual harassment as a broad range of behaviors, ranging from gen­eralized sexist remarks to coercion into sexual activity by threat of punishments. Even today, however, the complex mat­ters of constructing a satisfactory defini­tion of the problem and developing an effective grievance procedure continue to generate controversy.

Research on sexual harassment within academe has clarified at least three con­sistent patterns: First, sexual harass­ment is widespread (in one study con­ducted at the University of California­ Berkeley), 30 percent of the respondents cited unwanted sexual at­tention from at least one male professor during four years at college; second, sexual harassment is not gender-neutral but a problem faced almost exclusively by women students; third, sexual harass­ment is perpetrated by a small number of professors on multiple victims.

Researchers who have studied the problem emphasize the emotional vul­nerability of students, and cite among the consequences the loss of intellectual self-esteem and confidence, and disillu­sionment with male faculty. Coping strategies are frequently individualistic, and include changing majors, dropping out of schools, or learning that friendli­ness and intellectual curiosity might be misinterpreted as inviting sexual atten­tion.

This may change; because in at least one instance, students have mobilized against sexual harassment. A group founded at the University of California­ Berkeley in 1978, “Women Organized Against Sexual Harassment,” monitors allegations of sexual harassment and offers moral support to women who want to talk about an incident. A recent court case, Alexander v Yale, filed orig­inally in 1977, established the precedent that sexual harassment could be action­able under Title IX of the 1972 Educational Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That legislation already barred sex discrimination in federally assisted education programs. In essence, the decision extended to higher education earlier decisions to the effect that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination in employment within the meaning of Title VII of the I 964 Civil Rights Act.

To deal with the problem of sexual harassment and to comply with federal guidelines concerning grievance proce­dures for student complaints, colleges and universities have sought to establish both working definitions of sexual ha­rassment and grievance procedures that safeguard the academic freedom of stu­dents and professors. Several institu­tions have adopted the definition of sexual harassment provided in the in­terim guidelines of the Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission (1980). The EEOC guidelines define sexual ha­rassment as “unwelcome sexual ad­vances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” when: “(1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly a term or condition of an individual’s em­ployment; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an indi­vidual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”

Other universities have opted to adopt Yale’s guidelines, which define sexual harassment as “an attempt to coerce an unwilling person into a sexual relationship, to subject a person to un­wanted attention, or to punish a refusal to comply. . . .” Within Yale’s definition, then, sexual harassment includes behav­ior ranging “from actual coercing of sexual relations to the forcing of sexual attentions, verbal and physical, on an unwilling recipient.” The broadest defi­nition, offered by the 1980 Report of the National Advisory Council on Women’s Education, labels sexual harassment as: “The use of authority to emphasize the sexuality or sexual identity of a student in a manner which prevents or impairs that student’s full enjoyment of education benefits, climate, or opportu­nities.”

The most recent suggested guidelines are those adopted in 1982 by the Ameri­can Association of University Profes­sors. The AAUP report asserts that “sexual harassment is a failure in ethical behavior” and is “unprofessional con­duct threatening to the academic free­dom of others.” It states: “sexual ad­vances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature consti­tute sexual harassment when: (1) any such proposals are made under circum­stances implying that one’s response might affect such academic or personal decisions as are subject to the influence of the person making such proposals: or (2) such conduct is persistently abusive of others and implies, in an abusive manner, a discriminatory hostility to­ ward their personal or professional in­terests because of their sex.” The AAUP guidelines urge “suitable internal proce­dures” to insure observance of ethical standards. Experience has demonstrat­ed that effective internal grievance pro­cedures can successfully resolve com­plaints and render court action unnec­essary. The grievance procedures suggested by AAUP are similar to those followed by many colleges and universi­ties. They include the use of mediation by “those destined to handle complaints of discrimination” (AAUP) or a media­tion board of faculty members, adminis­trators, students, and a counselor (Yale); they insist on prompt action with guar­antees of confidentiality; and they con­duct initial inquiries informally with op­tions for later disciplinary action.

The construction of definitions and grievance procedures had generated controversy and raised further ques­tions. In one evaluation of university definitions, Phyllis Crocker highlights several critiques of existing definitions. She cites definitions containing stipula­tions that remarks and conduct must be “grossly objectionable to most students” (Tulane) as “another instance in which the standard of offense is determined not by the victim but by the majority of non-victims.” She further states that to insist actions be “unwanted,” “inappro­priate,” or “unwelcome,” assumes that there are wanted, appropriate, and wel­­come advances that university officials would not consider as harassment. Crocker disagrees on the basis that students are inherently dependent on pro­fessors, arguing that “the student can never freely choose to say yes or no, the fear of reprisal is inherent in the sexual advance.” For others, the discussion of sexual harassment has raised and left unanswered difficult questions concern­ing consenting sexual relationships be­tween professors and students.

Notwithstanding the difficulties of definition and implementation of effec­tive grievance procedures, the discus­sion of sexual harassment has encour­aged conscious evaluation of behavior, sharpened awareness of a serious prob­lem for women students, and publicized the notion that sexual harassment of students is unethical and unprofessional and will not be condoned by the aca­demic community.