Sexual Harassment And Women In Engineering
Q: More specifically, the California courts (I have no information
specific to Illinois courts) use the standpoint of a `reasonable woman'
when judging actions alleged to constitute workplace sexual harassment
directed toward a woman. The key word here is "reasonable."
A: Actually, I would think that "directed" is equally important. One of my worst visions regarding the U of I policy is this -- a woman walks in a nearly-empty room of 24 workstations, sits down next to the only other occupied workstation, sees something she finds offensive, and files a complaint. To me, the logical response is "the lab was empty; why didn't you simply pick another location?" Unfortunately, the U of I policy recommendations don't seem to cover that option. In addition, the recommendations completely ignore intent, which is (in my opinion) a cruicial proof of harassment. As I've said before, who among us would NOT cease such activity upon a polite request? Why should our policies encourage students to go directly to judicial action? In fact, I'd sug- gest that an offender's refusal to cease the activity upon request would actually *strengthen* a complaint against them. What if, in response to a complaint from an individual, I produce a dozen fellow students who say, "that doesn't bother me at all"? Would their opinions be considered by the judicial board, or would it boil down to the complainant and the mythical "reasonable woman"? You've stated that many women do not wish to participate in these discussions, for various reasons. I believe that their reluctance, while understandable in some situations, is detrimental. The near- insistence upon judicial action (whether explicit or implied) has a similar detrimental effect. If a person never