2008 Woodie Awards
SemAntics: "Sexual" harassment?
Katie Rose Guest
Issue date: 10/3/06 Section: Opinions
Sexual harassment policy has become a joke in this country--not because harassment doesn't happen and not because victims don't suffer from abuse and discrimination. It's a joke because we have strayed so far from what sexual harassment guidelines were supposed to protect it's laughable.
Sexual harassment used to mean harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment policies were meant to protect against sexism. "Sex" in these terms meant male or female bodies, not sexual intercourse. Most employers' sexual harassment policies, including UNCG's, are modeled after the guidelines of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If you check out the EEOC guidelines on the Internet, the first thing they say is that "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." They even provide a hyperlink to Title VII.
If you read Title VII, you'll see that it's unlawful "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In other words, sexual harassment is harassment on the basis of sex.
But since 1964, protections against racism and sexism have become muddled by the conservative swing of our federal judicial system. Activist conservative judges have watered down the protections written into this monumental civil rights legislation. What we are left with is pretty much what you find in our sexual harassment policy here at UNCG.
According to our policy, UNCG recognizes two types of sexual harassment. The first is called "quid pro quo," which means an "exchange." This happens when a boss or a teacher says he'll trade you a promotion or a better grade in exchange for some sort of sexual act. Note that this is not harassment "on the basis of sex," as distasteful as such actions may be. This is nasty, exploitative behavior, yes. But is it always sex/gender discrimination?
The second type of harassment is called "Environmental sexual harassment." UNCG's policy describes it like this: "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature." The description continues: "Environmental harassment can inflict emotional and psychological harm on individuals and can make relationships and the work or study environment unpleasant, threatening and unproductive."
This type of harassment sounds non-fun as well. The guidelines continue, though, into the absurd: "There is no requirement that evidence of actual emotional or psychological harm be shown in order for environmental sexual harassment to be found to have occurred." In other words, there need not be a "victim" at all. Note, too, the emphasis on "sexual" conduct here, as in conduct having to do with sexual acts--not conduct having to do with sex/gender discrimination.
The problem starts with the words themselves: sex and sex. The slippage in meaning should have been easy to predict. It seems easy to see that one day someone--a judge maybe-would wake up and forget that the purpose of the 1964 law is to protect women against discrimination and start protecting women against sex. Think of the consequences of this mix-up. First, all of the discriminatory acts that are non-sexual in nature are ignored by these policies. We seem to forget that discrimination need not be sexual to be sex discrimination.
Second, we create an environment in which all sexual relationships are under suspicion. Cristina Nehring, in an article for Harper's magazine ("The Higher Yearning," 2001), writes of the beginnings of her relationship with her fiancé at UCLA. She was a graduate student; he was a professor in a different department. When the school administration learned of their relationship, they chose to begin sexual harassment proceedings against her fiancé against her will, stating that she was too "disempowered" to make such a choice. Her autonomy to make a choice about whom to marry was nearly stripped away.
The purpose of sexual harassment policies should be to protect against discrimination on the basis of sex. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to empower women, not to disempower them in the face of sexual witch-hunts. In the context of academia, in which students and teachers are often close in age, to forbid sexual relationships merely creates an environment of taboo and paranoia about sexual relationships. That's the sort of "environment harassment" I cannot stand.
Read more from Katie at her blog: http://southernsemantics.blogspot.com.
Sexual harassment used to mean harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment policies were meant to protect against sexism. "Sex" in these terms meant male or female bodies, not sexual intercourse. Most employers' sexual harassment policies, including UNCG's, are modeled after the guidelines of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If you check out the EEOC guidelines on the Internet, the first thing they say is that "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." They even provide a hyperlink to Title VII.
If you read Title VII, you'll see that it's unlawful "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In other words, sexual harassment is harassment on the basis of sex.
But since 1964, protections against racism and sexism have become muddled by the conservative swing of our federal judicial system. Activist conservative judges have watered down the protections written into this monumental civil rights legislation. What we are left with is pretty much what you find in our sexual harassment policy here at UNCG.
According to our policy, UNCG recognizes two types of sexual harassment. The first is called "quid pro quo," which means an "exchange." This happens when a boss or a teacher says he'll trade you a promotion or a better grade in exchange for some sort of sexual act. Note that this is not harassment "on the basis of sex," as distasteful as such actions may be. This is nasty, exploitative behavior, yes. But is it always sex/gender discrimination?
The second type of harassment is called "Environmental sexual harassment." UNCG's policy describes it like this: "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature." The description continues: "Environmental harassment can inflict emotional and psychological harm on individuals and can make relationships and the work or study environment unpleasant, threatening and unproductive."
This type of harassment sounds non-fun as well. The guidelines continue, though, into the absurd: "There is no requirement that evidence of actual emotional or psychological harm be shown in order for environmental sexual harassment to be found to have occurred." In other words, there need not be a "victim" at all. Note, too, the emphasis on "sexual" conduct here, as in conduct having to do with sexual acts--not conduct having to do with sex/gender discrimination.
The problem starts with the words themselves: sex and sex. The slippage in meaning should have been easy to predict. It seems easy to see that one day someone--a judge maybe-would wake up and forget that the purpose of the 1964 law is to protect women against discrimination and start protecting women against sex. Think of the consequences of this mix-up. First, all of the discriminatory acts that are non-sexual in nature are ignored by these policies. We seem to forget that discrimination need not be sexual to be sex discrimination.
Second, we create an environment in which all sexual relationships are under suspicion. Cristina Nehring, in an article for Harper's magazine ("The Higher Yearning," 2001), writes of the beginnings of her relationship with her fiancé at UCLA. She was a graduate student; he was a professor in a different department. When the school administration learned of their relationship, they chose to begin sexual harassment proceedings against her fiancé against her will, stating that she was too "disempowered" to make such a choice. Her autonomy to make a choice about whom to marry was nearly stripped away.
The purpose of sexual harassment policies should be to protect against discrimination on the basis of sex. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to empower women, not to disempower them in the face of sexual witch-hunts. In the context of academia, in which students and teachers are often close in age, to forbid sexual relationships merely creates an environment of taboo and paranoia about sexual relationships. That's the sort of "environment harassment" I cannot stand.
Read more from Katie at her blog: http://southernsemantics.blogspot.com.
Be the first to comment on this story