|
December, 2002, Volume 13, Issue 3 - Is It Sexual Harassment or a Witch Hunt? |
 |
 |
 |
By Ken Mason
In case you have not noticed the administration is on a campaign to enforced its sexual harassment policies spurred primarily by student accusations against faculty and staff. It goes without saying that sexual harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, and we should all applaud the District’s efforts. What is troubling is the District’s application of this policy and near McCarthyist manner by which allegations are investigated. The District’s approach, particularly in situations where alleged claims were proven to be unsubstantiated, reminds me of what H.L. Mencken said about high-minded Puritanism: there is “the haunting fear that somewhere, someone is having fun!” It is this outdated definition of sexual harassment, combined with a maddening, enthusiastic rush to treat the accused as guilty before proven that is so worrisome. How can we to be sure that this legal muscle flexing, this cry of moral of outrage, is none other than a crusade to achieve something else? Where are the checks and balances here? In short, what role does the faculty, staff or students play in enforcing this policy?
Have any of you actually read the sexual harassment policy? I’m told its been widely circulated in a different format among students, while few faculty know of its existence. The policy, currently under review by a committee of the Senate, is embedded in the District’s administrative regulations. Or as Edward Gorey would say, that sacred “PRO” (Priceless Ritual Object). And it is here, in the “regs,” where the problem lies.
The college’s policy states that sexual harassment “consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other conduct of a sexual nature.” It applies to faculty, staff, and students. Curiously, there is no mention of administrators and no policy or procedure regarding administrators accused of sexual harassment by faculty or students. Nonetheless, administrators may sit in judge of faculty, while no such role is permitted for faculty over administrators. Cosmetic language revisions, such as changing “faculty” to “employee” may seem adequate but the pervasive intent of the policy leaves no doubt who the culprits may be. The double standard remains. It is the faculty that is the target here.
The current sexual harassment policy assumes the possibility of wrong doing only on the part of faculty. This is subject to interpretation, especially if the accused faculty is merely enforcing discipline, maintaining an established grading standard or performing a scheduled learning activity. But what of administrative or managerial wrong doing? For instance, when the employees are all women, does managerial behavior that includes vulgar vocabulary, loud in-your-face confrontations, and the dumping of files and tossing of furniture constitute sexual harassment? Similarly, is it racism, when the employees are all minorities? Sexual harassment, pedagogy and classroom management appears seamless when it comes to faculty, while a “that’s different” comment is offered when sexual harassment is perceived by faculty under the guise of managerial style by certain administrators, directors and managers.
Under such working conditions it is not surprising that faculty and staff are intimidated to the point of silence. How can we be certain that what passes as managerial style is none other than sexual harassment?
Then there is that other issue: the rights of the accused? When faculty are investigated what rights do they have when faced with a clearly outlandish charge, say from students desiring grade changes, or just wanting to get even? The current policy treats the accused as guilty until proven innocent. Students and other witnesses are interviewed, while the accused is instructed to sit in silence, and to do nothing in his/her defense. Just wait, which often means three to four weeks or more. What about defamation of character issues if it is discovered that the allegations were false? Should the complainant be penalized? Will the class, staff or department be informed that the allegations against the instructor were false? Well, the answer is no. Nothing is done. Not even an apology is offered.*
Who monitors the investigator to ensure that they are following the language of the law or that Byzantine policy? Answer: the administration. Is there an oversight committee composed of faculty/staff to review all this under shared governance? No. Nothing of the kind exists! It should be clear by now that there are infinitely more questions than answers, and that is the problem.
In the meantime the witch hunt goes on. Accusations of sexual harassment have resulted in faculty dismissals and reassignments. Part-time faculty are particularly vulnerable. Administrative and managerial style goes unchecked. This is discouraging and scary stuff especially when you consider those falsely accused stand helpless before their accusers, amid rumor mongering, whispering campaigns, and finger-pointing. As an historian, the District’s approach to “sexual harassment” reminds me of the Salem Witch hunt. Could it be, as Mary Beth North contends in her book, In the Devil’s Snare, that the real motive lied elsewhere. North suggests Salem’s civic leaders, the administrators of their time, had a deep fear of the Indians. Perhaps what is needed at SMC is greater faculty participation, which could be achieved by extending the purview of the Academic Senate Personnel Policies Committee or Diversity Committee, to actively participate at some level in the sexual harassment policy process. Clearly the faculty ought to play a major role when it comes to developing and enforcing sexual harassment policies. Surely the District would see the reasoning in such a recommendation. That is, unless of course, the faculty are the feared Indians.
“The fundamental issue”, as Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum asserted in their classic Salem Possessed, “was not who was to control the village but what its essential character was to be.” My point being, will shared governance became a reality at SMC? And if so, how will the District support such an effort? It goes without saying that sexual harassment exists at all levels, and among those of the same gender. The complainants, be they students, faculty or staff, should be permitted a greater role in ensuring that a fair policy is implemented. The current policy does not permit this. Shared governance perhaps would.
In closing, I dare to inform the reader that Boyer and Nissenbaum raised another analogy: “…none of these persons of quality [ civic leaders] was ever brought to trial…” Perhaps fear existed among the “persons of quality” as well. Could it just be that if correct and fair modifications to the sexual harassment policy were instituted the accusations would begin to point in another direction?
* See article “What Happens If You Are Called In” in the Faculty Association Bulletin, April, 2002, listed on the Faculty Association website. www.smcfa.org
|
|
|
|
