This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
By Commander K. A. Krohne, U.S. Navy (Retired)
The public testimony of Lieutenant Paula Coughlin, one of 26 women (more than half °f them naval officers) believed to have been sexually molested during the 1991 Tailhook Convention in Las Vegas, has spotlighted a serious but little-discussed problem within the armed forces. But the glare °f recent publicity should not blind us to Hie more subtle, yet pervasive forms of Sexual harassment that still occur each day.
and you wouldn’t be any more educated about sexual harassment than you are right now.
Sexual harassment is rapidly becoming the equal opportunity problem of the nineties. We don’t need to hear more about indecent acts, but we do need to learn more about the phenomenon itself. Only then can we begin to monitor our behaviors and modify our attitudes. Men and women will continue to serve together, and we need to work as a team if we hope to provide for the nation’s defense in an efficient, effective manner.
What It Is and What To Do About It
Sexual harassment offenses in the armed forces often are prosecuted under Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—conduct unbecoming an officer, ^nd there is no question that sexual harassment is unbecoming conduct. Mil- ltary personnel who ^ould demean and denigrate those with ^hom they are supposed to share a pro- essionally rewarding relationship paint an uS!y picture.
It would be easy ® recount stories of P v'°us and extreme arassment where naval officers or en- hsted personnel have Pfen disciplined for heir behavior. Sadly,
[pose stories are not hard to find. But ,nen you might De tempted to dis- jhtss them as iso- ated, outrageous incidents—after all,
[post people don’t ehave that way—
As the reactions to last year’s Thomas-Hill hearings attest, sexual harassment means different things to different people. The most common forms entail sexual teasing, joking, remarks, looks, gestures, touching, cornering, and brushing against. The least-documented forms include
patterson) actual or attempted rape and sexual assault. Other forms of sexual harassment make up a perceptual gray area, including uninvited letters or phone calls of a sexual nature, graphic commentaries, repeated pressure for dates, and displays of sexually oriented posters or magazines. Each of these forms of harassment has the potential to create a threatening working environment for employees.
Sexual harassment is defined as uninvited and unwelcome behavior that is sexually oriented. Of course, what is un-
1992 THE WASHINGTON POST REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION
During the Thomas-Hill hearings last October, neither Republicans nor Democrats seemed capable of understanding how a well-educated, professional woman could continue to work for a man who had sexually harassed her. Whether one believes Thomas or
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE STUDENTS INDICATING THEY EXPERIENCED HARASSMENT AT LEAST A COUPLE TIMES A MONTH
FORM Derogatory comments or jokes | 1 NAVAL | ACADEMY |
|
|
|
|
| |
28%_____ I | l«% | | 1 [63% | | |
Remarks that standards have been lowered | Is__________ 1 | fa | | [64 |
Remarks that women don't belong there |
|
| fa 1 |
Offensive posters, signs, graffiti, T-shirts | 28 1 | ^L_l | fa 1 |
Derogatory letters or messages | Qs | Q5 |
|
Mocking gestures | fal |
| Is________________ 1 |
Exclusion from social activities | Qio |
| fal |
Unwanted horseplay or high jinks |
| © | fa~) |
Unwanted pressure for dates | Q« | Q* | Q« |
Unwanted sexual advances | Q« | Q* | a |
SOURCE: Responses to GAO questionnaire
welcome to one may not be unwelcome to another, and this can cause confusion—for both victim and perpetrator. Should the victim risk being seen as hypersensitive— unable to take a joke—by objecting to behaviors that make him or her uncomfortable? If no objection is made, does the perpetrator have free rein to continue the behavior with impunity?
This definition puts the onus on the victim to ensure the perpetrator knows that his or her behavior is offensive, but it is not always easy. In the case of verbal peer harassment, recipients can make it clear that the behavior is not welcome simply by saying “I don’t appreciate those remarks” on the way out the door. Those who are told their behavior is offensive have an obligation to listen and try to understand another’s sensitivities without being judgmental. If the sexual attention is physically threatening, reporting it to a higher authority is the safer course.
The stakes increase when the perpetrator is also the victim’s boss. In this situation, an element of coercion has automatically been injected. A boss who harasses is abusing power in the most fundamental sense. If harassed by a senior in the chain of command, a report to the Navy Inspector General’s hot line may be the victim’s last line of defense.
To prosecute a harassment case successfully, witnesses and some sort of documentation are almost always necessary. Other victims of the same perpetrator can strengthen a case; an individual who engages in sexual harassment usually has more than one victim.
Frequency of Occurrence
Each of two surveys conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board in 1980 and 1987 made a random sample of more than 20,000 federal employees; both found that 42% of the women who responded and approximately 14% of the men (15% in 1980) had experienced some form of uninvited or unwanted sexual attention.1
The first large-scale survey of military personnel was conducted in 1988 by the Defense Manpower Data Center, which surveyed 38,000 men and women on active duty.2 It found that 64% of active- duty women and 17% of active- duty men felt they had been harassed during the previous year—a significantly higher rate of sexual harassment than that recorded by the federal government.
Responses to Harassment
Hill, it is important to understand that Hill’s alleged actions were very consistent with the documented responses of other managerial women who report having been harassed. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board estimated that less than 5% of all women who experience sexual harassment take formal action toward redress.3 Men who are harassed, particularly those who are sexually approached by other men, are likely to be equally reluctant to report the behavior.
Reporting the behavior is the single most difficult action to take in a sexual harassment case. Reasons for this reluctance include embarrassment, fear of ridicule or reprisal, self-blame, intimidation, feelings of powerlessness, and fear of not being believed. Typically, sexual harassment victims keep silent and try to ignore the objectionable behavior. This can be perceived by the perpetrator as tacit approval, and often the behavior continues.
Another common response is for the victim to pretend to enjoy or to actively participate in sexually oriented commentary, even while feeling harassed and uncomfortable. Such a contradictory response can be understood if you consider the victim’s position in the organization. Sexual harassment victims may already stand out simply by being an easily recognizable minority. This is an uncomfortable role for many who want to fit in and become full-fledged members of the team.
Under these circumstances, sexual-harassment victims might choose to go along with behaviors that seem to be demanded by the majority. Raising an objection to offcolor comments or suggestions might cause further isolation from the work group and may even increase the unwanted attention. In this vein, no one should ever assume that such behaviors are welcome.
Causal Theories
Researchers in the field of sexual harassment have developed several theories of causation.
► The Natural-Biological Model assumes that harassment is merely a function of the natural attraction between the sexes; men are biologically predisposed to be aggressive toward women.4 Under this model, women are expected to feel flattered by sexual attention, not harassed. If harassment occurs, it is thought to be the woman’s fault, since her less intense sexual drive makes her the responsible party in any sexually charged situation.
The problem with this model is that it assumes that sexual harassment is somehow preordained and that little can be done to prevent it. It also assumes that only men harass. Policies that evolve from this theory are punitive in nature. Education is viewed with suspicion and may even be deemed pointless.
► The Organizational Model main-
tains that the structure of the organization can encourage sexual harassment. Power differentials between supervisors and subordinates and the makeup of the work force with regard to gender tend to promote harassment.
This model assumes that newcomers, trainees, token oien and women, and junior personnel are more likely targets of harassment. Workplace norms—such as the prevalence of pornographic materials and sexually oriented commentary—combine with job requirements—such as overtime or business trips—to further encourage sexual harassment. This model assumes that both men and women Can perpetrate sexual harassment and that abuse of power ls at the root of the problem.
^ The Socio-Cultural Model is predicated on the belief that sexual harassment is a function of how men and "'omen have been socialized. Male dominance has developed and is maintained through historical, cultural, economic, and political traditions. Society—which praises and rewards aggressiveness in men and passivity in Women—may be unintentionally fostering sexual harassment. This model assumes that harassment increases in male-dominated environments and that a single harasser apt to have multiple victims.
The Sex-Role Spillover Model theorizes that the carryover of gender-based roles into the work setting tends to Promote sexual harassment. Women and men in nontra- itional occupations run the risk of being seen as role deviants. When men are automatically assigned any work mvolving lifting and women are expected to push papers aad fix coffee without regard to their other capabilities, mis model is at work.
Each of these theories has something to add to our un- erstanding of why harassment occurs. An important added factor to consider is the role that abuse of alco- °' plays. Many rituals in the Navy promote alcohol use e g-, wetting-down parties and chief petty officer initiations). To the extent that alcohol lowers inhibitions, its use contributes to sexual harassment, particularly in a eployment environment where service members are away r°m home base. When inhibitions are lowered, discre- °n often falters. Drinking and sexual harassment go hand in hand.'
Interestingly, the military is likely to draw men who ew themselves stereotypically and women who have
taken a significant personal risk by entering a nontraditional field. Military traditions focus on war-fighting capabilities, producing images of men aggressively confronting the nation’s enemies while ensuring the safety of the nation’s women and children. Men who envision themselves in such stereotypical roles also may tend to view women in stereotypical fashion—beliefs that can result in sexual exploitation.
Prevention
The best means of prevention is a three-pronged effort that includes a well-publicized policy statement outlining unacceptable behaviors; an employee-centered educational program; and an effective means of reporting offenses when they do occur.6 The Navy has implemented each of these recommendations, yet sexual harassment persists. This is a clear indication that prevention is less a matter of policy than it is of beliefs and attitudes. Educational programs that help overcome sex-role stereotyping are key ingredients in prevention, since a large part of the solution involves a change of attitude. Until sexually oriented behaviors are elevated to the same level of concern as racially motivated behaviors, sexist attitudes will persist.
Raising awareness and holding people accountable for their actions are partial solutions. The rest of the solution must come from leadership. The sincere involvement of naval leaders must be accompanied by role-modeling that is respectful of diversity in the workplace.
Costs to the Organization
Victims who report sexual harassment nearly always do so reluctantly. Emotional and physical reactions to sexual harassment often include nervousness, fear, frustration, anxiety, anger, shock, depression, and headaches. Beyond
the emotional, physical, and professional impact on the victim and perpetrator, the command also will pay a price when sexual harassment occurs.
Absenteeism, unexpected turnover, and reduced productivity can cripple a command, as unit members choose sides and attempt to play judge and jury. This can be precluded by strong leadership and by swift responses to harassment cases. Investigations should be conducted immediately and sensitively—without trivializing the experience of the victim. Initially, it is extremely important to trust the victim and treat the charges as legitimate. In the rare case of false charges, thorough investigation is still the command’s best way to discover the truth.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Getting organizations to accept diversity in the work force is a sound goal, both ethically and economically. Policies can be rewritten, training programs can be overhauled, and sanctions can be strengthened, but the greatest challenge will be altering attitudes and perceptions.
Changing an embedded culture with more than 200 years of tradition will not be easy. It must begin with organizational awareness and acceptance of the need for change. Learning new ways will require more and better training and will have to go beyond the usual approach of applying sanctions now with the hope that attitudes eventually will follow.
Recommendations
- Review and modify those traditions and ceremonies that no longer serve the organization. In particular, discourage customs that promote the abuse of alcohol.
- Pay attention to language in the workplace. Listen for and discourage sexist language. Ensure sexist jokes and innuendo are viewed as unacceptable. Raise sexism to the same level of concern as racism.
- Monitor personal behaviors to ensure that there is no discrepancy between what is said and what is done. Be sensitive to workplace behaviors that are sexually oriented.
- When sexual harassment occurs, avoid re-victimization by keeping organizational members, particularly the victim and perpetrator, as informed as possible. Both victim and perpetrator have a right to information concerning the status of an investigation and its outcome.
- Track all incidents from a central location so that trend data can be developed and studied. Require that all incidents be reported directly to the head of the organizational unit as soon as they occur.
>■ Provide training sessions that use trained facilitators, role playing, and participant analysis of actual case studies. Convey the importance of the subject and the need for change. Develop orientation programs that teach new members of the organization its policies and its sanctions for ignoring those policies.
- Issue clear and unambiguous policy statements addressing specific behaviors that will not be tolerated. Support the organization’s policy and act quickly and decisively when the policy has been violated.
>■ Ensure sanctions are applied consistently. Publicize the results without using names.
- Conduct thorough, prompt, unbiased investigations. Use an investigator from outside the organization, if possible. Listen to the victim and respond to charges in a serious, no-nonsense manner. Permit the perpetrator to face the accuser(s) in the presence of neutral parties. Obtain the assistance of a trained counselor to address the emotional concerns of the victim.
- Publicize a grievance process that permits confidential reporting of incidents to a neutral source outside the normal hierarchical chain of command. The Inspector General’s hotline, 202-433-6743, is one avenue; another might make use of equal opportunity personnel.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1988), Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update, Office of the Merit Systems Review and Studies.
2M. Martindale, Sexual Harassment in the Military: 1988, (Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center) 1990.
'op. cit., p. 22.
4S. Tangri, M. R. Burt, & L. B. Johnson, "Sexual Harassment at Work: Three Explanatory Models,” Journal of Social Issues 38 (4), 1982, pp. 55-74. The first three causative models were described by these researchers.
K. A. Krohne, The Effect of Sexual Harassment on Female Naval Officers: A Phenomenological Study, University of San Diego, 1991. Complete dissertation can be obtained from University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106, Publication Number 9211446
P. M. Popovich, Sexual Harassment in Organizations,” Employee ResponsibiH' ties and Rights Journal 1 (4), 1988, pp. 273-282.
1
(
1
I
t
1
| 1
t
I
I
f
(
(
5
1
l C
c i r r
c
l
c