ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, July 16, 1996 TAG: 9607160032
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: M. PATRICIA FERNANDEZ KELLY
A COLLEAGUE of mine who has taught for more than a decade at a prestigious university was approached last October by a distressed graduate student, a woman in her late 20s. Six months earlier, the student had begun what used to be known as an ``affair'' with a male professor. The entanglement had ended in angry confrontation.
The student now realized she had been the unwitting victim of sexual harassment, and was considering a formal complaint to university authorities. My colleague, a professional known for her interest in women's issues, offered sympathy. She agreed an official complaint was feasible, but noted the student's involvement had been voluntary. She also suggested professional counseling.
Less than a week later, my colleague learned that the student had filed charges against her former lover - and my colleague. The grounds: my colleague's alleged willingness to let the male professor ``off the hook'' by minimizing his offense.
The accusations became public amid cries of zero tolerance to sexual harassment. At the end of a lengthy investigation, my colleague received a ``letter of concern'' from the dean; the other professor was forced to resign.
As a long-time feminist, I should be happy. I am not. Two aspects of this all-too-common story worry me:
The extent to which women's legitimate claims to respect and freedom are being reduced to absurdity by lax legal definitions that equate feelings with actual events.
The ways in which a growing reliance on bureaucratic and legal means is demolishing the capacity of individuals to resolve personal conflicts, thus undermining their adult status.
Both trends threaten to subvert women's achievements over the past two decades. The idea of sexual harassment and the complementary notion of sexually hostile environments were intended to flesh out the meaning of discriminatory practices under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. To repeatedly prey upon women in exchange for granting them jobs, salary increases or good grades was understood to be a gross misuse of power.
Unfortunately, the tendency has been to expand the meanings of sexual harassment. Dangers lurk in that trend. Concepts left to wander without rein mischievously beget a multitude of interpretations, many of which depend exclusively on subjective judgments. A coarse remark, an immodest proposal or an insensitive recommendation may be seen as distasteful, even immoral. But to characterize them as sexual harassment does violence to what should be common feminist sense.
When feelings become facts, the stage is set for repression and censorship. In the absence of tight definitions, almost any behavior can be construed as sexual harassment. A remark meant as praise can be experienced as an affront, an expression of sexual interest as a breach of trust.
Victims, real or imagined, multiply. Institutions required to abide by federal standards must implement cumbersome administrative processes and pursue investigations that often interfere with the right to privacy. In this new Inquisition, the accused are presumed guilty, imputations are transmogrified into evidence, reputations are destroyed.
An open-ended interpretation of sexual harassment thwarts our capacity to identify and alter conditions that truly deter women's advance in employment and education. Violence and sexual abuse do exist. But we do not serve our cause when we misuse ``sexual harassment'' to assuage hurt feelings.
The whole point of feminism is to boost women's ability to act freely upon the world. Why, then, are we abdicating our capacity to deal directly with perceived or real offenses? What does it say about women when we so readily yield the power of control and resistance not to the brutal patriarchs of yore but to the new morality police? Surely there is a place for the law in regulating the content and limits of proper behavior between men and women, between those wielding comparative power and those in vulnerable positions. Nevertheless, legal means should be a last resort, not the routine avenue to conflict resolution.
As for my colleague, her sense of trust has been shattered. She is no longer willing to offer advice.
M. Patricia Fernandez Kelly is a sociologist at The Johns Hopkins University.
- Los Angeles Times
LENGTH: Medium: 85 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: CATHERINE KANNER/Los Angeles Timesby CNB