Work in Progress: Changing Academic Culture
I find myself often thinking of the Make Love, Not Warcraft episode of South Park. Every time Stan, Cartman, Kyle and Kenny load into Azeroth to go questing, a way-higher-level dude shows up and kills them, even though they don’t agree to duel. They concoct an elaborate long-term strategy to avoid the guy by hiding in the forest, slaying boars, to gain levels in order to eventually be strong enough to defeat him. The exchange at the end is the most poignant to me.
Stan: I can't believe it's all over. What do we do now?
Cartman: What do you mean? Now we can finally play the game.
Unlike a cartoon about a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, however, there isn’t just one person ruining the game. There is an entire academic culture organized around professional privilege and imbalances of power. And multiple harassers and assaulters are navigating these landscapes targeting vulnerable trainees.
In the midst of whispers, outright disclosures, and even confirmatory institutional investigations, some established colleagues will continue to say “well, no one can know what really happened” or “well, ‘he said/she said.” They then comfortably wash their hands of the matter and proceed to collaborate, co-mentor, co-author, review, invite, and party with scholars repeatedly implicated in sexual misconduct.
Such statements and actions function to signal throughout our community “I don’t want to know” or worse “I don’t believe what she said” or the worst “I believe her but I don’t care.” Such responses re-enforce power structures, protect predators, and perpetuate a culture of quiet.
We as a community must come together to productively address these obstacles— recognize they occur, protect the targets, and perpetuate a culture of accountability. Until then many women remain in the shadows slaying boors in the hopes of eventually being able to just play the game.
GETTING TO SAFE
As many readers likely know, since 2013 I have been actively grappling with issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault within academia. Robin Nelson, Julienne Rutherford, Kate Clancy and I conducted the Survey of Academic Field Experiences. Until now, however, I have not written any essays on this blog addressing my research in this area. I partitioned that domain of my scholarship from my primary research in lactation biology, my essays on other aspects of professional development, and my educational outreach efforts (Mammal March Madness!). I have instead channeled my messaging on sexual harassment and sexual assault via published work, interpersonal and roundtable conversations, and interviews with journalists. But recent and unfolding events have compelled me to share my reflections on the SAFE study and outline (hopefully) productive approaches to address sexual misconduct within our academic community.
What is Sexual Harassment?
How does one scientifically study sexual misconduct? This is no small issue. In early 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office asked the RAND NationalDefense Research Institute (NDRI) to conduct an independent assessment of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination in the military. Volume 1 of their report clocks in at 223 pages and is entirely dedicated to describing the methodologies of conducting such research and the multiple, simultaneous methods they employed for their study.
In conversation with colleagues and in reading scholarly publications, media reports, and the comment threads on face-melting MRA Reddits, two of the main criticisms of the SAFE study had to do with operational definitions of harassment and survey questions of inappropriate remarks. At times these criticisms seemed to be leveraged to dismiss or derail discussions of sexual misconduct in academia.
To summarize key parts of the NDRI report, in case you decided 223 pages was tl;dr, one thing they emphasized is that the absolute WORST way to measure sexual misconduct is to query “Have you been sexually harassed?” or “Have you been sexually assaulted?” People’s working definitions of these experiences are expected to fall far short of the legal definitions. This is in part due to variance of legal definitions across jurisdictions, but also reflects aspects of enculturation that lead to naiveté about sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Rather “published recommendations for measurement of sexual assault and harassment typically endorse the use of behaviorally specific questions… Given that many different kinds of experiences can be categorized as sexual harassment and sexual assault, measurement of these constructs requires multiple, behaviorally specific questions. Comprehensive lists of questions that ask respondent to consider different forms of sexual assault or harassment seem to aid recall and increase disclosure about unwanted events. (Farris et al. and citations therein of the NDRI Report Chapter 2, 2014).
We framed the questions in several different ways, we primed a free-write question about frequency and elsewhere, so as to avoid too long of a survey, questions binned verbal comments previously implicated in sexual harassment and gendered workplace hostility. We binned a second set of experiences of unwanted physical contact; people seem less aggrieved about that.
We framed the questions in several different ways, we primed a free-write question about frequency and elsewhere, so as to avoid too long of a survey, questions binned verbal comments previously implicated in sexual harassment and gendered workplace hostility. We binned a second set of experiences of unwanted physical contact; people seem less aggrieved about that.
Art by the incredible Tatyana Falalizadeh
Some colleagues quickly contorted scenarios that quite likely were not harassment but could fall within SAFE’s questions about inappropriate remarks. These same savvy, intelligent biologists are quite happy to use the term “species” on the daily without articulating which species concept they are employing. Biologists, typically quite comfortable with necessarily squishy systems, all of a sudden become theoretical physicists when the conversation turns to sexual harassment, attempting to disprove with a single counter-example.
So I’ll offer a deal- I will deliver a perfect construct for sexual harassment that excludes all non-harassment in every context for every potential target and bystander the same day these folks provide me a construct of species that includes every individual within a species and excludes every individual not within the species.
Tick Tock.
Until then let’s talk about sexual harassment concepts… the conversation will be ever so much more productive.
I. Free Speech
I’ve encountered the “Free Speech Harassment Concept” that holds constitutionally-protected a person’s right to say whatever effing thing they want and tough toodles if their provocative speech is offensive or hurtful.
Sometimes folks bundle Freedom of Speech with “Freedom from Consequences of Objectionable Speech.”
1) Did the government punish you for your speech (aside from threatening POTUS)?
2) Did you get fired as one or more of the following while working: as a non-federal employee, in a right to work state, without a collective bargaining agreement, or under a contract that includes clauses about not violating company policy after a due process investigation?
3) Did your colleagues distance themselves from you or publicly shame you because you’re a douche canoe?
Guess what— only one of these outcomes is likely to be a violation of constitutionally-protected free speech.
II. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Then there is the “EEOC Sexual Harassment Concept” that states
“It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general… Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision.”
NB: Sexual harassment can be menà women, womenà men, menà men, womenà women (unfortunately the wording on the page sticks to binary gender concepts)
III. Principles of Community
And lastly, assuming that most people do not want to hurt their colleagues and are motivated by principles and/or empathy to exceed the legally-mandated minimum, academics can embrace a “Dignity Harassment Concept.” Employing our kickass capacity for Theory of Mind we can contribute to a community of equal opportunity and inclusivity by pausing for one fucking second to think “does my joke or comment or invitation have the potential to deprive my colleague of their dignity based on their gender?”
And if the answer is more likely to be “yes” than “no,” then DON’T SAY THAT THING!
Where there is an imbalance of power, err in favor of affording even more dignity down the hierarchy because they are less likely to let you know you are making them uncomfortable or creating a hostile professional space. Same question applies not just to gender but all aspects of identity such as race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, faith, nationality, immigration status, alter-ability, body mass, mental health status, etc. (and the intersections among them).
And don’t fucking tell me “well it wouldn’t bother me,” or “I would take it as a compliment,” or “it’s just a joke.” Because guess what asshat- THAT AIN’T THEORY OF MIND- that is just you thinking about you- and people just thinking about themselves is the whole fucking problem. Just. Fucking. Stop.
Additional Pro-Tip: Don’t explain “intent,” start paying attention to impact. Words can marginalize, undermine, and demean colleagues whether a good person overtly means to or not. When a person invokes an “intent” argument they are basically saying “I want you to use your theory of mind to forgive me when I have refused to use my theory of mind to just be a decent person.”
SLJ is not impressed by "intent" arguments.
And by the way, a person’s “intent” means fuck all when they have exerted zero effort to understand the impact of their words and actions. The internet is full of exceptional personal essays and the library is full of systematic research on the lived experiences of people who remain under-represented in academia in the year twenty-fucking-sixteen. Read some regularly. I am not even going to “here let me google that for you” because I am so effing fatigued at the willful naiveté of “good” colleagues.
THE SAFE TAKE-AWAYS
SAFE was a project designed to shine a light on a problem in academia that had been almost entirely ignored. We wanted to disrupt the conventional wisdom that sexual harassment and sexual assault during field work were rare and an unfortunate, but insurmountable byproduct of conducting research embedded in a foreign culture. Setting aside that extensive field work is conducted in the US, these attitudes about field work prevented overdue and frank discussions about the lived experiences of many researchers.
Indeed we found among our respondents that these negative experiences were overwhelmingly happening inside the research teams and that women were targeted predominantly by more professionally powerful colleagues. Lastly, there were substantial deficits in existence of, awareness of, or adherence to codes of conduct, sexual harassment policies, or effective pathways of reporting.
SAFE Study Fig. 3. Visual representation of respondents to the survey, their experiences, and who were aware of, made use of, and were satisfied by mechanisms to report unwanted physical contact.
Since our publication, follow-up research in targeted disciplines has further substantiated that academia has a problem. Professor Alice Wright and colleagues surveyed archaeologists working in different settings. Their study was wonderfully designed and executed, refining and extending the approach of the SAFE study in their sampling, questionnaire, and exploration of how experiences of sexual harassment and assault impacted careers. Evaluating results across academia, government, and industry, they found that academia was the worst in terms of the percent of respondents experiencing sexual harassment and sexual assault. These academics engaged in sexual misconduct are able to do so because of our cultural institutions and entrenched sexism.
Don't Miss the Forest for the Trees by Thinking About A Few Bad Apples
CULTURE CHANGE
When we launched the SAFE study, we did so with no little trepidation. At the time we were all pre-tenure. We knew that some people would be hostile, some dismissive, and some less than enthused that we were opening up this kettle of fish because culture change means more work. But at the end of the day, we decided we wouldn’t want to be part of a discipline if our colleagues would penalize us for tackling systemic abuses within our community.
Sofia Loren Side-Eye
But our trepidation was allayed as we watched the cultural landscape shift. As SAFE transitioned from concept to data to manuscript to review to publication, the White House launched One is Too Many campaign, the US Department of Education increased investigations of Title IX violations across universities, and an estimated 1500 campuses have adopted “Only Yes Means Yes” affirmative consent policies.
On the eve of publication, we talked about the end goal of the SAFE study. I hoped that members of our community would engage in sustained conversation openly recognizing and productively addressing gendered experiences in academia. I estimated that SAFE would have contributed, in concert with efforts elsewhere and other aspects of the national dialogue, to noticeable culture change within 5-10 years.
Instead we saw dramatic progress within 5-10 months!
Come scholars, editors, please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall
Colleagues emailed to discuss best practices at their field sites, worked with their University admins to implement policy for entire Study Abroad programs (Michelle Bezawesome), and in collaboration with trainees developed a glossary and code of conduct template (PJ Perry). More broadly, leadership in professional organizations released statements, drafted new policies, and changed their conference codes of conduct.
People started speaking up and speaking out. Targets, bystanders, allies. Not in whispered corners of department hallways and conference corridors, but out loud in journal clubs and lab meetings, at conferences and workshops, across online social networks and traditional print media. And in essays so moving I was sobbing in my office (Holly Dunsworth).
And finally, more people have been listening
High impact journals invite commentary by prestigious scholars about the role of power differentials and “Zero Tolerance, Period” of sexual misconduct. Members of Congress write open letters and deliver speeches from the Congressional floor about sexism and sexual misconduct. Funding agencies communicate publicly and internally publicly "Not on our watch" (additional thoughts). And we saw that no one is too big to fail and even the Gray Lady can be held accountable.
These advances are incredible, but we still have far to go. Right now in classrooms, at conferences, in laboratories, and at field sites, our colleagues are too often still crawling through a river of shit. Lets ensure that they come through clean on the other side and that no future generations of scholars even have to deal with this in the first place.
WHAT EACH PERSON CAN DO
Steps every academic can take at every career stage include learning your institution's conduct policies (and following them), reaching out to the Title IX office for literature (and reading it), and finding out who is a mandatory reporter and best practices for responses when someone discloses sexual harassment or sexual assault to you (pro-tip: it is not disbelief). Learn to spot the Serial Harasser's Playbook. Learn to confront words and deeds that diminish your colleagues and communities. See something, say something.
Make it clear through words and actions that you don’t tolerate sexual misconduct in your group or our broader community. Team leaders and Principal Investigators can distribute campus policies to their trainees and emphasize that they are vigilant about and responsive to sexual misconduct. Provide them with oblique pathways of reporting in case the power differentials and relationship dynamics inhibit direct disclosure. When they join the team provide them with information about the many options for reporting and support. Learn how to help and how NOT to "help."
Some targets may not want to report their experience and that is their prerogative, the process of reporting can be soul-crushing. Make sure they understand and communicate your role as a mandatory reporter before they disclose and start the mandatory reporting process. But don't communicate that in a way that shuts down conversations and figuratively closes doors. Obviously, we will all have to work on our communication finesse.
Some targets may not want to report their experience and that is their prerogative, the process of reporting can be soul-crushing. Make sure they understand and communicate your role as a mandatory reporter before they disclose and start the mandatory reporting process. But don't communicate that in a way that shuts down conversations and figuratively closes doors. Obviously, we will all have to work on our communication finesse.
To be clear, “zero tolerance” means that sexual harassment and sexual assault are systematically addressed within the institution (at minimum, in certain circumstances there can be involvement of professional societies or legal cases). “Zero tolerance” does not mean we automatically reach for the tar and feathers. Systematically addressing sexual harassment and assault involves best practices investigation (make sure your HR knows what that means!), supports the well-being and professional development of the person/people harassed or assaulted, and that the perpetrator receives training, interventions, and sanctions commensurate with the magnitude of the transgression.
So to all the stakeholders within our academic community, at this time that the culture is changing, which side are you on?
Further Reading:
All the embedded links in the essay, obvs.
Sexual Harassment Series in Forbes by Prof. Janet Stemwedel:
All the embedded links in the essay, obvs.
Sexual Harassment Series in Forbes by Prof. Janet Stemwedel:
False Allegations of Sexual Harassment: Misunderstandings and Realities (about Canada, but a lot is applicable to the United States)
Three Ways to be an Ally by Hope Jahren
Sexual Harassment & Assault Prove Common during Scientific Field Studies by Henry Gass
Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town by Jon Krakauer
You Are Worthy by Melissa Wilson Sayres
Show Me The Money: Sexual Harassment After The Headlines
Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town by Jon Krakauer
You Are Worthy by Melissa Wilson Sayres
Show Me The Money: Sexual Harassment After The Headlines
The price of sympathy with the harasser by Mathew Francis
Further Learning in Comic Form!
Oh and while you are at it, read these resources too!
On Being a Queer Primatologist by Prof. Christopher Schmitt
On Being a Queer Primatologist by Prof. Christopher Schmitt
Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia edited by Gutiérrez y Muhs, Niemann, Gonzalez, & Harris
Strangers in Paradise: Academics from the Working Class edited by Ryan & Sackrey
White Women's Tears and The Men Who Love Them by Dr. Robin DeAngelo
And since I linked to Union Folk Music:
Unions Must Address Racism by Ian Haney López
Special thanks to Prof. Robin Nelson, Prof. John Johnson, Erin Pousson Johnson and Todd Mitchell for providing valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this essay.
Oh and targets, bystanders, allies, never forget the importance of self-care.
Oh and targets, bystanders, allies, never forget the importance of self-care.
Comments
Post a Comment