Like most of us starving college students, I am spending my summer working. Being known as the notorious “temp” or “intern” in an office throughout these summer months has led me to think about an often debated topic during the Clinton presidency: sexual harassment.
In my own experience, I’ve found that there’s a very vague line to walk when it comes to sexual harassment, and I’ve come to seriously question what it constitutes. To find out what our society believes sexual harassment is, I turned to the laws.
I discovered, however, that the very language of sexual harassment’s definitions and laws are pretty confusing and inconsistent in that the individual’s, or the victim’s, reaction to harassment often determines if a particular situation is illegal. 9to5, an organization that works toward the equal and fair treatment of women in the workplace, defines sexual harassment as “unwanted, repeated sexual attention at work.” Their definition comes from the 1993 Harris v. Forklift Systems Supreme Court decision, which goes on to explain that “(sexual) harassment is illegal if: a) Your job depends on your going along with this behavior, or b) The condition of your employment (such as pay, promotion, vacation) depends on your going along with this behavior, or c) The harassment creates a hostile or offensive work environment which interferes with your ability to do your job.”
I find this to be an ambiguous definition. The first crucial, conditional words are “sexual harassment is illegal if,” which I take to mean that not all sexual harassment is illegal, even if the advances are unwanted. I’m immediately confused by this condition, since I’ve read the poster in our company’s lunchroom, my temp agency’s pamphlet, and even UCLA’s sexual harassment policy, all of which that state that all sexual harassment will not be tolerated.
What I’m left to believe is that the “legal” sexual harassment that the court decision refers to is the kind that comes in those borderline harassment moments, such as when a male employee tells a female employee a mildly offensive joke without the intention of harassing the woman or making her feel uncomfortable.
In these situations, the people who may become victims of sexual harassment have to make a choice: they may not take offense, or they may decide to take action.
Based on what I read in this law, the attitude or reaction of the person being harassed seems to affect what constitutes sexual harassment in those extremely “vague” situations. (Let me emphasize the importance of the phrase “vague situations” here. I’m not talking about the obvious, “Sleep with me or you lose your job,” or assault situations, which are obviously illegal even if the victim “cooperates.”)
I think many women can remember a “vague” moment in their working experiences. I know I can. This summer, as I work at a company of about fifty employees, I am one of six women (and the youngest) working there.
During the short time I’ve been employed, many of my several male coworkers have befriended me: they ask me about my social life at college and tease me about my age. Many of them have goofy nicknames for me, including “kiddo,” “sweetheart,” or even “doll.” I choose not to take it seriously when their teasing becomes inappropriate because my reaction to those questionable moments determines whether I’m being harassed. Thus, if I take a comment as a joke, then it remains a joke.
No men have threatened me and I don’t feel uncomfortable at work, so I don’t think these minor incidents merit a one-on-one with my supervisor or action in a courtroom. I’ve come to realize that these kind of moments are inevitable when men and women work together, and that I must learn to handle such incidents with a degree of maturity.
Maybe you think I’m crazy or complacent for not having a more extreme reaction. Maybe I’m not, though. Our own university’s policy on sexual harassment contains the statement, “In determining whether the alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, consideration shall be given to the record of the incident as a whole and to the totality of the circumstances, including the context in which the alleged incidents occurred.”
Although phrased ambiguously, the university’s statement seems to show the same reserve that the Supreme Court has in determining what constitutes sexual harassment. I read a conflicting message. The “no tolerance” stance of these institutions seems to be tempered with an insistence on a case-by-case judgment, based on the context of the situation, which I take to include the reaction, receptivity, and sensitivity of the victim. Basing the illegality of situation on the reaction of the victim doesn’t seem like a very precise method of justice to me.
Look at it this way: should a robbery be determined legal just because the store’s owner didn’t really mind that he was robbed? This system of analysis appears in the crucial wording of the Supreme Court, which states that a “hostile or offensive work environment” is illegal. But who determines if an environment is hostile or offensive, particularly in those vague situations? What should happen if one victim’s definition of “hostile or offensive” differs from another victim’s, or if one victim is particularly sensitive?
I don’t think there’s a simple answer, which makes it hard for men and women alike to know where to draw the line. The possibility of offending women must continually haunt men while at work (not to say that women shouldn’t watch what they do and say as well), and these confusing, conditional laws don’t seem to offer much in the way of relief or guidelines apart from the “obvious” sexual harassment cases.
Perhaps some women will be angry with me for questioning and scrutinizing these laws. Considering that sexual harassment lawsuits have taken on such a bad connotation in America, particularly following the terms of Clinton.
I’m probably not doing much to ameliorate the situation, at least not immediately. But I’d hate to think that a victim might not receive the proper compensation simply because an institution did not feel his or her reaction to a situation, or the “context” of a situation, merits any action. The laws need to be more specific in order to protect potential victims.