Pleasenote:thisisapre-publicationdraftofthepaperthatcameitintheJournalofAppliedPhilosophy(2014).Refertothatversionforpagenumbersandfinaltext.StopThinking(SoMuch)About‘SexualHarassment’1AbstractThispaperexplorestworelatedwidespreadmistakesinthinkingaboutsexualharassment.Oneisamistakemadebyphilosophersdoingphilosophicalworkonthetopicofsexualharassment:anexcessivefocusonattemptingtodefinetheterm‘sexualharassment’.Thisisaperfectlylegitimatetopicfordiscussionandindeedanecessaryone,butitsdominanceoftheliteraturehastendedtopreventphilosophersfromadequatelyexploringothertopicsthatareofatleastequalimportance,particularlythatofbystanders’responsibilities.Theothermistakeisonemadenotjustbyphilosophersbutbymostpeopleattemptingtodealwithreal-worldbehaviourthatiseithersexualharassmentorcloselyrelatedtosexualharassment:anexcessivefocusonwhetherornotformalchargesofsexualharassmentarepossibleorappropriate.(Thisisclearlyrelatedtothefirstmistakeinthatapartofdecidingwhetherchargesareappropriateisdecidingwhetherthebehaviourmeetsthedefinitionofsexualharassment).Iarguethatthesearenotmerelyunfortunateerrorsinattemptingtoconceptualisecertainproblematicbehaviours;theyhaveextremelydamagingrealworldeffects.

1Iamverygratefultoanenormousnumberofpeopleforthediscussionsthathaveinformedthispaper.Inparticular,I’dliketothankLouiseAntony,DavidArchard,ElizabethBarnes,HelenBeebee,LauraBeeby,SamanthaBrennan,JosepCorbi,MichaelDePaul,PeggyDesAutels,RayDrainville,SallyHaslanger,JulesHolroyd,ChrisHookway,RaeLangton,HeidiLockwood,PaulLodge,JoseMedina,MariMikkola,KateNorlock,LindseyPorter,CristinaRoadevin,KomarineRomdenh-RomlucandJoeSaul.I’dalsoliketothankaudiencesatBirkbeck,Bristol,Oxford,Reading,Valencia,WesternOntarioandtheAPA’sDiversityConferenceinDayton.Finally,I’mgratefultotheanonymousrefereesforthisjournalwhomadeveryusefulsuggestionsabouthowtoimprovethispaper.I’malsogratefultomanypeopleIwon’t(andinmanycasescan’t)namewhohavetrustedmewiththeirstoriesinconfidence.

We’llbeginwithsomestories,allofwhicharefromWhatisitLiketobeaWomaninPhilosophy(www.beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com).

Story1“Earlyinmy1styeartherewasadepartmentmealout.Towardstheendofthemeal…Iwentovertothetableallthemalelecturersweresittingattochattothem.Westartedtalkingaboutpartytricksandoutoftheblue…theheadofthedepartmenttoldme“arealpartytrickwouldbeifIcoulddriphotwaxonyournipples”!Alltheotherlecturersatthetablelaughedloudly.Iwasabsolutelystunnedandutterlyhumiliated.Iwentbrightredanddidn’tsayanything.AssoonasIcould(withoutitbeingobviouswhy)Iwentbacktomyowntable.FromthatpointonwardsIavoidedhimasmuchasIcouldandwouldgoredandgetembarrassedeverytimeIsawhim.AsaresultthetwomandatorycoursesofhisItookweremylowestgrades…ever.”

Story2“Mydepartmenthousesadistinguishedsexualharasserwhoisrelentlessinhisretaliationifconfrontedabouthisbehavior.Ihavewitnessedandexperiencedhisharassmentfirst-handandhaveheardnumerousfemalegradatestudentstellofhishittingonthem,evenstickinghistonguedownone’sthroatataparty.Hisinappropriatebehaviorextendstostaffandundergraduatestudentsaswell.Thereexistsaclearuniversitypolicystatingthatsuchbehaviorwillnotbetoleratedandtherealsoexistthetrappingsofprocedureforreporting.However,becauseoftheprotectionthattenureandstatureinthefieldaffordhim,thereisnotruerecourseandanyonewholodgesacomplaintbecomesatargetforarelentlessandinsidiousdefamationcampaign.”

Story3“Freedom.Afterdealingwithdirectsexualharassment,rumorsspreadbyamalecolleaguethatIsleptwithhimtoreceiveattentionataconference–Iwasinadeeplycommittedrelationshipandratherdisgustedbythecolleague–thenhavingtodealwiththefalloutofothermalefiguresmakingsexualjokesaboutmeattheconference,listeningtocommentsaboutmybreasts,weight,faceand‘fuckability’,accusationsthatIreceivedscholarshipsbecauseIamawoman–notduetoanyskillonmypart–andthegeneralapathyofmygraduateadviseraswellasthemajorityofmyprofessors….Iamfree.Ihaveleftmydepartmentandamchangingmycareer(despitehavingtoearnanewbachelors/MAinmynewcareer).”

Philosophyhasasexualharassmentproblem.It’snotaproblemuniqueto

philosophy,andwedon’tevenknowforsurethatitisworseforphilosophythanfor

otherfields(suchisthedifficultyofgatheringaccuratestatisticsonthesubject).But

thestoriesonthe[nameofblogomitted]makeitabundantlyclearthatPhilosophy

hasaproblemwithsexualharassment,andonethatislikelytobeplayingarolein

perpetuatingthelowlevelsofwomeninthesubject.2Regardlessofwhethersexual

harassmentisworseinPhilosophythanotherssubjects,thoughandregardlessofits

roleinkeepingthenumbersofwomenphilosopherslow,sexualharassmentisa

seriouswrongwithseriousconsequences.Anditneedstobeaddressed.

Forthelastfewyears,IhavebeenrunningWhatisitLiketobeaWomanin

Philosophy,atfirstpseudonymouslyandmorerecentlywithwidespreadknowledge

ofmypseudonym.Asaresult,Iknowallthestoriesontheblogaswellasmany

more—thosepeopledon’tfeelcomfortablepostingbutcontactmeaboutanyway.

AsIreadthestories,andasItalktopeople,acommonthemeemerges.If,forone

reasonoranother,it’snotpossibletopressaformalsexualharassmentcomplaint,

people—genuinelywell-motivateddecentpeople3—feelthatnothingcanbedone.

Sometimespeoplethinkacomplaintisn’tpossibleduetofalsebeliefsaboutthe

procedures:manypeoplefalselybelievethatonlyavictimcanfileacomplaint,but2Forstatisticsonthis,seeBeebeeandSaul;alsoseehere:http://www.apaonlinecsw.org/workshops-and-summer-institutes.3MyfocushereisexclusivelyonpeopleofgoodwillwhorecognizethatthebehavioursIdiscussarewrongandwouldliketoseethemstampedout,andwhoalsocareabouttheunderrepresentationofwomeninphilosophy.Forthatreason,Iwillnotbeprovidinganyargumentforthewrongnessofsexualharassmentorforcaringabouttheunderrepresentationofwomeninphilosophy.Thoseareprojectsforanotheroccasion(forthesecond,seeSaul2013).

witnessesgenerallymayalsodoso(andindeedsometimestheyarelegally

obligatedtodoso).Morecommonly,though,theproblemsaredifferent:everyone

withsufficientknowledgetofileacomplaintisfrightenedtospeakup;thereisnot

enoughcorroborationforacomplainttosucceed;thebehaviourisnotaclear

enoughcaseofsexualharassmentundertheinstitution’sregulations;orthe

behaviour,whileproblematic,doesnotseembestdealtwiththroughaformal

procedure.Somemightmaintainthatevenunderthesecircumstancesoneshould

pressaheadwithacomplaint,butIthinktheworriesinthesecasesarerealones

andthatitisfarfromclearthataformalcomplaintisthewaytogoinallcases

(thoughitsurelyisinsome).Theproceduresformakingsuchcomplaintsareoften

onerous,anduniversitiesvarygreatlywithregardtohowhelpfulorobstructive

theyare.Moreover,fearofretaliationisrealandsadlyjustified.But—andthisis

thecruxofthispaper—Ithinkitisagravemistaketosimplyaskwhetherone

shouldfilesexualharassmentcharges,andtogiveuponactingifanegativeanswer

isforthcoming.Thispaperexploresourresponsibilitiesasbystanderstosexual

harassmentandrelatedbehaviours,withparticularattentiontoresponsibilities

otherthantheformal.Thisisatopicwhichhasbeencuriouslyneglectedinthe

literatureonsexualharassment,whichhasfocussedlargelyonhowtodefine‘sexual

harassment’andondescribingwhatiswrongwithsexualharassment.Ithinkthis

neglectisanextremelydamagingone,whichunfortunatelyfitswellwithour

tendencytoneglectnon-formalsolutionswhenconfrontedwithreal-worldcasesof

thissort.

Importantly,thispaperwillmakeacaseformoreaction,notless.WhenIsaythat

formalmeasuresarenottheonlythingtoconsider,thisisnotbecauseIthinkwe

shoulddolessaboutsexualharassment.Weabsolutelyshouldtakeformalactionin

thosecaseswhereit’spossibleandappropriate.Butthat’snotall:weshouldalso

takeactioninmanycaseswhereformalactionisn’tpossibleorappropriate.My

focushereontheneedforinformalactionalsoleadstoafocusonindividual,not

institutionalaction.Institutionalaction,andinstitutionalchange,areobviously

extremelyimportant.Buttheyhavenotbeenneglectedintheliteratureintheway

thatinformalactionhasbeen.Myfocushereisonrectifyingthisneglect.

Inthispaper,IfocusonphilosophersinpartbecausetheblogIhavebeenrunningis

aphilosophyblog,andinpartbecauseIamveryconcernedtoimprovethesituation

ofwomeninphilosophy,whoaredramaticallyunderrepresented.Buttheclaims

thatIargueforapplynotjusttophilosophers,buttoothersaswell.

1 TheCurrentSituationAsthingscurrentlystand,anenormousnumberofwomeninphilosophyare

reportingextremelyproblematicbehaviorlikethosedescribedinthequotations

withwhichIbegan.Asaphilosophershockedandhorrifiedbythis,onemightvery

muchhopetofindenlightenmentinthephilosophicalliteratureonsexual

harassment.Andonedoes.Onefindsagreatdealofthoughtful,excellentworkon

whatexactlysexualharassmentisandwhat(givenwhatitis)iswrongwithit.But

whenweturntothetopicofwhatoneshoulddoaboutsexualharassment(other

thannotengaginginit,becauseit’swrong),thereisverylittleenlightenment.There

isagreatdealofdiscussionoflegalandinstitutionalremediesforsexual

harassment,however,leadingonetobelievethatthisisallthatonecanorshould

do.

2Problemswithexcessivefocusonformalmeasures

Themainargumentofthispaperisthatwehavefocusedtoomuchonformal

measuresagainstsexualharassment.Thissortoffocus,Ithink,preventsusfrom

fightingsexualharassmentinthemosteffectiveways.Also,relatedly,thefocuson

sexualharassment—andso,onwhethersomebehaviorissexualharassment,has

sometimesdistractedusfromthemoreimportantissueofhowtocreateabetter

environmentinphilosophy.Inthissection,Ilookatshortcomingsofanexcessive

focusonformalmeasuresandontheconceptofsexualharassment.Later,I’llturn

towhatelsecanbedone.4

4Forotherexcellentcriticismsofthewaysinwhichsexualharassmentisdealtwithbyuniversitybureaucracies,seeCrouch2012,Forbes2012,Schroer2012,Slagter2012.Akeythemeofthesepapersisthewaythatcorporate“auditculture”preventsuniversitiesfromdealingproperlywithsexualharassmentcases.Crouchalsodiscussesthewaythatimplicitbiasmaypreventuniversitiesfromtakingcomplaintsasseriouslyastheyshould.These,then,provideyetmorereasonforlookingbeyondsimplyformalmeasures.

2.1Criminalisationofminororinnocentbehavior—thoughnotasoftenasyou’dthink.

Theproblemthatmostpeopleprobablythinkoffirst,ratherunfortunately,isthata

legalisticapproachtosexualharassmentcanleadtothecriminalizationofminoror

eventotallyinnocentbehavior.5And,ofcourse,thisispossibleanditsurelydoes

happenoccasionally.However,itisfarlesscommonthanispopularlybelieved:

manyofthewidelypublicizedexamplesofoverreachhaveturnedouttobevery

poorlyandinaccuratelyreported(Clark2001,Schultz1998).Andit’sextremely

commonforevenhorrendouscasesnottobeconsideredserious(Schultz1998;

Zalesne1999)

Nevertheless,Ithinkthefearofcommittingsexualharassment(orofbeingseento

becommittingsexualharassment)canhaveachillingeffect.Ifoneisawareof

universityregulationsasbroadasthoseabove,andconcernedaboutnotfallingfoul

ofthem,onemightwellfeelveryhesitantinone’sdealingswithfemalestudents.

Andindeedtherearemanyanecdotalreportsofmenfeelinguncomfortableinjust

thisway,andthismayplaysomerole(thoughclearlynotallofit)inwomen’s

reportsofinadequatementoring.6

5It’simportanttonote,ofcourse,thatthisisnevergoingtobeliterallycriminalization,sincesexualharassmentisnotlegallyacriminalmatter.6Implicitbiasisalsolikelytoplayasignificantrole,assuggestedbyMoss-Racusin2012.

2.2Clearcasesnotdealtwith—whenretaliationisfeared,etc.

Alltoooften,eveninthemostextremeandclear-cutcases,formalcomplaints

proceduresforsexualharassmentfail.Veryoftenit’sbecauseeveryoneisafraidto

bringcharges.Sometimestherearenocorroboratingwitnesses.Sometimes,asin

Story2,it’sbecausetheharasserhassomuchinstitutionalpowerthatallofthosein

authoritypositionshaveaninterestinlookingtheotherway.Sometimes,

institutionshavepoorprocedures(e.g.institutionsIhaveheardofwherea

conversationbetweenvictimandharasserisanabsolutelyrequiredfirststep,or

whereanon-disclosureagreementmustbesignedbeforeanyinvestigationcantake

place).

Alltoooften,thereactiontosuchfailuresbygenuinelycaringbystandersisasad,

resignedsigh;asustainedboutofswearing;oragoodstiffdrink.Now,there’s

nothingwrongwithanyofthesereactionsofcourse.Butthere’ssomethingdeeply

wrongwithstoppingthere.AndinthenextsectionI’llbediscussingwhatonecan

doinsteadofstoppingthere.

2.3Problematicbutnotextremesexualbehaviornotdealtwith—leering,innuendos,comments.Infact,manyofthebehaviourslistedinthethirdexample—thestoryofwhatmade

awomanquitphilosophyaltogether—areofthesortoftenconsideredminor—a

joke,acrudecommentaboutappearance,arumour,anaccusationofnotmeritinga

scholarship.Althougheachoftheseisverylikelytocountaspotentiallyharassing

undersexualharassmentcodes,eachonitsownwouldprobablyfailtorisetothe

levelofseveritywhereacomplaintwouldbeupheld.Moreover,anindividual

behaviourofthissortisnotthekindofthingmostofuswouldwanttofileaformal

complaintabout—eitherbecausewethinkthateventhoughthebehaviouriswrong

aformalcomplaintwouldbeinappropriate,orbecausewedon’tthinkit’sworththe

enormouseffortoffilingacomplaint.Butindividualbehavioursofthissortaddup.

Andinthiscasetheyadduptoanenvironmentthatmadeawomandecideshehad

togetoutofphilosophy.Something,then,shouldbedone.

Nowthereisinfactplentyofroomformakinganexcellentsexualharassmentcase

outofacollectionofbehaviourslikethis:iftheyalltakeplacewithinthesame

department,astrongcasecanbemadethatthedepartmentiscreatingahostile

environmentforwomenbylettingbehaviourlikethisflourish—hostile

environmentsareoftenmadeupofcollectionsofbehaviours,eachofwhichonits

ownmaynotbethatsevere.Butthecollectionofbehavioursmightwellbespread

acrossdifferentdepartments(takingplacesatconferences,forexample),making

thissortofcomplaintunworkable.Moreover,I’dliketoarguethatweshouldbe

thinkingabouthowtotakeactionbeforewegetacollectionofbehavioursthat

constitutesaformallyactionablehostileenvironment.

Onereasonfortakingactionofsomesortregardingtheindividualbehavioursthat

makeupthehostileenvironmentinStory3isverysimplebutneedstobestated

nonetheless:thesebehavioursarewrong,andwhenbehaviourthatiswrongis

takingplaceweshouldceterisparibusdowhatwecantostopit.Anotherreasonis

morespeculative,butIhavebecomeincreasinglyconvincedofitthroughmywork

onsexualharassment:thereseemtobesomeplaceswhereharassmentofthemost

serioussortflourishes,andwehavecaseaftercaselikethosedescribedinStory2.

Theseplacesalwaysturnouttobeonesinwhichsexistcommentsandjokes,and

remarksaboutstudents’appearance,alsoflourish.Thishasmademesuspectthata

cultureofpermissivenesswithrespecttothemoreminorsortsofsexual

harassmenthelpstocreateanenvironmentinwhichthemoremajorsortof

harassmentisseenasacceptable.EmpiricalworkbyO’HareandO’Donohue(1998)

confirmsthissuspicion:theyfindthattwokeyriskfactorsforsexualharassmentare

widespreadsexistattitudesandanunprofessionalatmosphere.Aphilosophy

departmentthatisrifewithsexualcommentsandjokessurelyqualifies.Ifthisis

right,thenthereisfurtherreasontostrivetoeliminatetheseseeminglyminor

behaviours.

2.4Problematicbehaviorthatdoesn’tmeetdefinition:consensualyetproblematicrelationshipswithstudentsThestartingpointforthispaperwasactuallyacaseofjustthissort.Afriendin

anothercountrysoughtmyadviceregardingsomeoneinhisdepartmentwhohad

manyapparentlyconsensualaffairswithwomenstudentsandbraggedpublicly

aboutthem.Thiswasnotagainsthisuniversity’sregulations,butawoman

student—notoneofthoseinvolvedintheaffairs—hadtoldhimthatitmadeherand

othersuncomfortable.Hecouldseewhytheywereuncomfortable,andthatthere

wassomethingproblematic,buthedidn’tknowwhattodo.Initially,myresponse

wasthattherewasnothingtobedonesincenouniversityruleshadbeenviolated.

ButasItalkedtohim,webothbegantorealizethatourmoralrepertoireextended

beyondtheresourcesofferedbyuniversityregulations.Myfriendrealizedthat

therewereseveralthingshecoulddo,rangingfromexpressingdisapprovalwhen

hiscolleaguebraggedtoactuallygoingtohiscolleagueprivatelyandtellinghimwhy

hisbehaviorwassoproblematic.Thisisthemomentthatbothmyfriend,andI,

realizedthatasking“isthissexualharassmentaccordingtouniversityguidelines?”

isnottheonlyquestiontobeasked.

Thereisnoconsensusoverhowtodealwithconsensualrelationshipsbetweenstaff

andstudents.Someuniversitiesforbiditcompletely;someforbiditwhenthestaff

memberisinapositionofdirectauthorityoverthestudent;someallowsuch

relationshipsbutrequirethattheybeofficiallyreportedandthatthestaffmember

shouldnotbeinvolvedine.g.assessingthestudent’swork;others,likemyfriend’s

university,havenoregulationsatallagainstsuchrelationships.7

Thereislittledisagreement,eitherlegallyortheoretically,thatnonconsensual

relationships(includingbutnotlimitedtothosebetweenstaffandstudents)are

impermissible.Andthereisagreatdealofpotentialforstaff-studentrelationships

tofailtobegenuinelyconsensual.Theremaybe,andalltoooftenare,implicitor7Foranargumentthatstaff-studentrelationshipsarealwaysmorallywrongandconstituteaformofdiscrimination,seeSuperson2001.

explicitthreatsthatcoerceastudentintoanappearanceofconsent.DavidArchard

(1994)hasarguedthatwealsoneedtorecognizethecategoryofexploitedconsent,

inwhichtheconsentisdueeitherwhollyorpartlytothepowerrelationsbetween

theparties.Inthesecases,Archardargues,studentstendtoendupworseoff

becausethepowerimbalanceinfectstherelationship,leadingtoalackofcontrol

overitstermsonthepartofthestudent.

Thereisalsoverylittledisagreementthatsexuallypredatorybehavior—thesort

displayedbythevisitingprofessorwhosays“ShowmeagradstudentIcanfuck”

(http://beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/show-me-a-grad-

student-i-can-fck/)ismorallybad.Evenifwegrant—asmaynormaynotbethe

case—thatthesearetrulyconsensual,theredoesseemtobeaproblem.Apartof

theproblemistheatmospherecreated:womeninthedepartmentcanreasonably,

andinfactdoreasonably,worrythattheywillbeexpectedtohavesexual

relationshipswiththestaffmemberinquestion.Ihaveheardmanyreportsof

womenavoidingtheclassesofsuchserialpredatorsbecausetheyworrythatthey

willdopoorlyiftheyturndownthepredator’sadvances.Andsomeofthewomen

whoconsentmaydosooutofpreciselysuchfear—renderingtheirconsentrather

problematicaswell,evenifitwasnotdeliberatelycoerced(andeveniftheperson

theyconsenttoisnotawarethattheconsentwasduetofear).Moreover,

environmentswheresexualpredatorsflourishareoneswherewomenfeelthatthey

arenotbeingvaluedfortheirminds,butfortheirbodies.

Sothereisverygoodreasontowanttodosomethingaboutpredatorybehavior.But

manyuniversitysexualharassmentcodesstruggletodealwithit.Obviously,codes

whichforbidallsexualrelationshipsbetweenstaffandstudentsdoforbidit,but

manyfeelthatsuchcodesgotoofar.Thereareavarietyofverydifferentreasons

onemightthinkthis:Sometimesastaffmemberandastudentdosimplyfallinlove,

anditseemswrongtoforbidtheirrelationship.Somesuchrelationshipsareinany

caseinevitable,andtheharmsthatcomefromforbiddenrelationshipswilloftenbe

greaterduetotheirundergroundstatus.Alternatively,onemightsimplythinkthat

itisexcessiveregulationofone’sprivatelife(thoughthisistrickytomaintaingiven

thattherelationshipisobviouslynotpurelyprivate.)Ihaveyettoseeauniversity

(orother)codeofbehaviorthatsucceedsindrawingapermissibilitylinebetween

sexuallypredatoryconsensualrelationshipsandotherconsensualsexual

relationships.Itisaverydifficultborderlinetocodify.

Thedifficultyofcodifyingthisboundarymeansthatitisdifficultifnotimpossibleto

formallyrecognizethedistinctionbetweenpredatoryandotherconsensualsexual

behavior.Anditbecomesevenmoredifficultwhenwerealizethatevenserial

relationshipswithstudentsmightnotbepredatory.Take,forexample,thecaseofa

youngsociallyunskilledfacultymemberwhoisunsuccessfulatdatingnon-

philosophersandwho(perhapsduetodemographics)doesn’tmeetanysinglenon-

studentwomeninphilosophy.Ashemovesfromonefailedrelationshipwitha

studenttoanother,hemaybegenuinelyseekingloveratherthanexploitinghis

positionofpower.Itseemsrighttosaythatthisman’sbehaviorisn’tpredatory;he’s

verydifferentfromthemanwhosays“showmeagradstudentIcanfuck”.(Though

hisbehaviormaystillhaveseriouslyproblematicunintendedeffectsonthe

environmentforwomen—sincewhateverhisintentionsitmaybeperceivedas

predatoryandhavesomeoftheeffectsofpredatorybehavior.)Itwouldbealmost

impossibletoformulateapractical,useable,definitionof‘predator’thatdoesn’t

includesomeonelikethis.

Inanyinstitutionthatdoesnotbanstaff-studentrelationships,then,therewill

inevitablybethepossibilityofserialsexualbehaviorthatcreatesaproblematic

environmentforwomenstudents,whetherthisbehaviorisofthepredatorysort

firstdiscussedorthesortengagedinbythesociallyunskilledmanabove.Andthere

islittlehopeofformulatingregulationsthatwilldistinguishthesefromeachother

orfromlessproblematicconsensualrelationships.But—importantly—itdoesnot

followthatoneshoulddonothing.Whenonerecognizesthatsomethinglikethisis

happeninginone’sdepartment,oneacquiresanobligationtoatleasttrytoact.Not

everyonewillhaveaneffectivewayofacting.Butthosewhodo—suchascolleagues

orsuperiorsofthepredator,orevenofthesociallyunskilledman—canandshould

act.Possibleactionsarenotconfinedtoformalones;theyspanthefullrangeof

humanbehavior,includingeverythingfromsubtleexpressionsofdisapprovalto

confrontationswiththepredator,toconversationswithwomenstudentsinvolved

intherelationships.Inthecaseofthesociallyunskilledman,obviouslyadifferent

approachiscalledfor—gentlyalertinghimtotheconsequencesofhisbehavior,and

perhapssomeadviceonhowtomeetwomenoutsidephilosophy.Whatoneshould

dowillalsodependagreatdealonwhooneis.Inpartthisisamatterofone’s

institutionalpower,butinpartitisalsoamatterofone’sownpersonalskills.In

differentways,conversationswithpredators,theirvictims,andthesocially

unskilledmanarealldifficult,andallrequirebothcarefulthoughtandparticular

humanskills.Thisisnoreasontoavoidthem,butitisareasonthatnogeneral

prescriptioncanbegivenaboutwhatoneshoulddo.

2.5Problematicbehaviorthatdoesn’tmeetdefinitions

2.5.1Patternsresultinginobjectification

Verycommonly,Ihearaboutdepartmentsinwhichmalegraduatestudentsshowno

interestindiscussingphilosophywithfemalegraduatestudents,butgreatinterest

inhavingsexwiththem.Atdepartmentsocialoccasions,themenhitonthewomen

agreatdealbutnevershowanyinclinationtodiscusstheirwork(whiletheydo

discussworkwithothermen).Inatleastsomecases,noneoftheindividual

behavioursareproblematic—we’llassumethatthesexualinvitationsarenon-

coercive,andthattheyarenotrepeatedafterbeingrebuffed,forexample.And

there’snothingwrongwithchoosingnottodiscussphilosophywithsomeoneata

socialevent.Butthepatterncreatedisoneinwhichwomenendupwithouta

friendlyphilosophicalgraduatecommunity.They(quitereasonably)feelobjectified

andnottakenseriouslyintellectually,andtheyarealikelytobeuncomfortable

aboutattendingsuchsocialevents.Yetthebehaviorviolatesnorules.

2.5.2ImplicitbiasandmicroinequitiesJustasWhatisitLiketobeaWomaninPhilosophyhasalertedtheprofessionto

sometrulyegregiousinstancesofextremesexualharassment,ithasalsomadeclear

thepowerofsmallthings—microbehavioursormicroinequities—tocreatean

unwelcomingenvironment.Someofthesebehavioursarethemselvessexual,some

ofthemnot.Andindividualswilldifferintheirjudgmentsofhowseriousthe

behavioursare.Thesortsofsexualbehavioursthataregenerallythoughtofas

relativelysmallareoneslikeleering,lecherouscommentslessextremethanthehot

waxexample,andinnuendos.Suchbehavioursare,infact,consideredsexual

harassmentundermostinstitutionalcodes,butformalcomplaintsareonlyrarely

broughtonthebasisofthem,andtheyarenotterriblylikelytosucceed.

Othersmallbehavioursincludemakingeyecontactwithmenbutnotwomen,not

noticingthequalityofanideauntilit’sexpressedbyaman,notcallingonwomen,

andsoon.

I have been ignored, talked over, and talked down to on many occasions.

When I gave an objection to a view in a philosophy seminar, just ten

minutes later, the teacher credited and praised a male student for having

come up with the objection. The male student had not even spoken. After

conference talks and elsewhere, I have had speakers talk to the other

men in a group, but ignore my comments and questions or give cursory,

dumbed-down responses.

(http://beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-life-of-

a-woman-in-philosophy/)

Thesearenotsexualbehaviours,buttheyareproblematicbehavioursandtheyhave

seriousconsequencesregardingtheclimateforwomeninphilosophy.Itwouldbe

verydifficultifnotimpossibletomakeformalcomplaintsonthebasisofthem,

however.

3.Howtorespond:AskingnewquestionsTheoverarchingpointIwanttomakeinthissectionisthatwearemakingamistake

ifweconsiderthesortsofcasesunderdiscussiononlybyaskingwhethertheyare

sexualharassment,andwhetherformalchargescanandshouldbebrought.These

areindeedquestionswemustask.Buttheyarenottheonlyquestions,andwe

mustn’tjustgiveupifwegetnegativeanswerstothem.Instead,weneedtoalsoask

whatelsewecanandshoulddo.Onewayofemphasizingthispointistothinkabit

abouthowstrangeitisthatsomanyofhavetendedtoassumethatweshouldstop

afteraskingthequestionsaboutsexualharassmentandformalcharges.Afterall,in

otherareasoflife,whenconfrontedwithaproblem,wedon’tjustaskaboutour

formalresponsibilities.

3.1Ourresponsibilities

3.1.1OurprofessionalobligationsApointIhaveemphasizedrepeatedlyisthathumanbeingshaveawiderangeof

moralbehavioursopentothem.Institutionalorlegalproceedingsareonlyoneof

manyoptions,andwemaybeprofessionallyobligatedtopursueotheroptions.To

seethispointmoreclearly,let’sconsidersomecasesofverydifferentsortswhere

thisisobvious.

• Supposethatyou’reHeadofDepartmentanditcomestoyourattentionthat

acolleagueisteachingextremelypoorly—mumblingsothathecan’tbe

heard,takingfartoolongtoreturnhisstudents’work,andnotallowing

studentstoaskclarificatoryquestions.There’snoquestion,reallythatyou

don’tsimplysighwithresignationonceyoulearnthatnostudentswantto

fileaformalcomplaint,orevenputthisintheirwrittenevaluations.Painful

anddifficultasitis,yougotoyourcolleagueandhaveachatwithhimabout

histeaching.Oryouputinplaceasystemofmentoringandobservation.Or

yousendhimonatrainingcourse.Andthere’snoquestionthatyouhavean

obligationtodothis,evenifnouniversityorlegalregulationsarebroken.8

8OnemightsuggestthataHeadofDepartmentdoeshaveadutytointervenewhensomeoneisteachingpoorly,sinceensuringadecentqualityofteachingissurelyapartoftheHeadofDepartment’sjob.ButarguablyaHeadofDepartment’sjobalsoincludesadutyofcarefortheacademicwell-beingofstudents,andfortheprofessionalityofthewaytheyaretreated,whichwouldsupportinterveningincasesofsexuallypredatorybehavior.

• Supposeyoucomeuponaconfusedlookingstudentinthehallwayfrantically

turningamaproundandround.Thereisclearlya(defeasible,obviously)

obligationtoofferdirectionstothisstudent.Andthisissoeventhoughthere

isnouniversityregulationstatingthatyoumustdoso,andnoprocedureby

whichastudentcouldfileacomplaintagainstyouifyoufailtodoso.

3.1.2OurmoregeneralresponsibilitiesJustaswedon’ttakeourprofessionalobligationstobelimitedtothoselaidoutin

universityregulationsandcomplaintsprocedures,orlaws,wedon’ttakeourmoral

obligationstobecircumscribedinthiswayeither.Therearenolawsagainst

deceivingourlovedonesonimportantmatters(exceptinalimitedsetofcases),but

wenonethelessthinkwehaveanobligationnottodoso.Therearenolaws

requiringustohelpclosefriendsthroughbereavement,butagainwehaveno

difficultyrecognisingtheobligation.Andsoon.

Butofcourse,itisonethingtosaythisandanothertodoit,especiallywhenit

comestoourresponsibilitiesasbystanders.Peopleofgoodwillwhoarewitnessesto

thebadbehaviorofothersarenotoriouslyreluctanttointervene.Ihavefound

particularlyilluminatingdiscussionsofbystanderresponsibilitiesinHoward

McGary(2008)andThomasHill(2010).HillusesKantiantheorytoarguethat

bystanderstooppressionhavetheresponsibility“toexerciseduecarein

deliberation,toscrutinizeone’smotivesforpassivity,andtotrytodevelop

virtueconceivedasstrengthofwilltodowhatisrightdespiteobstacles”

(2010:28).McGaryarguesthat“decentpeoplehaveamoralresponsibilityto

takejustandviableavenuesthatareavailabletothemtoreduceoreliminate

actsofracism”(2008:300).Inbothcases,thefocusisonthesystematic

mistreatmentofagroupofpeople(victimsofoppressioninHill’scase,

victimsofracisminMcGary’scase).Inthecaseofsexualharassment,the

primaryvictimswhoaremyfocusarewomen,andwomenareindeed

systematicallymistreatedviasexualharassment-relatedbehaviours.Indeed,

theoristslikeCatharineMacKinnon(1979)havearguedthatthisisakeyway

inwhichwomenareoppressed.Inparticular,sexualharassmentoften

functionsinmale-dominatedworkplacesasawayofmaintainingmale

dominance—andtheanecdotalevidenceofwomenleavingphilosophydueto

harassmentcertainlyfitswellwiththisidea.Itseemsquitereasonable,then,

tosupposethatbystandershavethesortofobligationMcGaryandHill

discusswhenitcomestosexualharassmentofwomen.Butwhatabout

sexualharassmentofthosewhoarenotwomen?Inmanycases,thesexual

harassmentofnon-womenactuallyfunctionsasasortofgender-policing—

e.g.whenitisdirectedatmenwhoareviewedasinsufficientlymasculine.

This,too,caneasilybeseenasthesortofsystematicmistreatmentthatHillis

concernedwith.Sometimes,however,theremaybecaseswhichdon’tfitthis

paradigmeither.Myviewisthatthereisstillaresponsibilitytointervenein

thesecases,astheyarecasesofmistreatment.Butthenatureofthe

responsibilitymaybesomewhatdifferent.

Thedifficultiesforbystandersareheightenedwhenwearetalkingaboutbystanders

tosexualharassment.Intheir(2005),socialscientistsBowes-SperryandO’Leary-

Kellyprovideahelpfultaxonomyofthefactorsthatcanencourageordiscourage

bystanders’interventionincasesofsexualharassment.Theyofferoneofthefew

discussionsIhavefoundofinterventionstrategiesbeyondtheformalones,

includingat-the-timeconfrontation,distraction,andafter-the-factdiscussion.(They

alsonotethatthepotentialforsuchinterventionshasbeenlargelyoverlookedinthe

sexualharassmentliterature.)Buttheynotethatsuchinterventiononlytakesplace

ifobservers(a)identifythesituationasrequiringanintervention;(b)take

themselvestohavearesponsibilitytoact;and(c)decideonanaction(2005:293).

Althoughitistruethatobserversofsexualharassmentoftenexperienceuncertainty

aboutwhattheyarewitnessing,myfocusinthispaperislargelyonthetendencyof

observerstodeny(b),andtobeconfusedabout(c).Mycontentionisthatan

excessivefocusonformalmeasurescontributestothisbyleadingthoseobservers

withoutanofficialresponsibilityforsexualharassmentcomplaintstoconcludethat

theydonotpersonallyhavearesponsibilitytointervene.9Thisalsoleadstoa

problemwith(c).Aslongasitiswidelybelievedthatformalmeasuresaretheonly

options,therewillinalltoomanycasesseemtobenoappropriateactiontotake.

9ThisfitswellwiththefindingsofBowes-SperryandO’Leary-Kelly.

3.2ThePowertoInterveneIhavearguedthusfarforaprimafaciedutytodosomethingwhenbehaviourslike

thosediscussedhereareoccurring.Buthowoftenwilloneactuallybeabletoact

onthisprimafacieduty?Domanypeoplehavethepowertodoanything?The

answeris‘yes’inmanyifnotmostcases.First,moststraightforwardly,thosein

positionsofauthorityhaveapowertointervene.AHeadofDepartmentcanand

shouldintervenewhenstudentsarebeingmistreated,includingintheways

discussedhere.Theycandothisthroughofficialchannels(universitycomplaints

procedures),buttheycanalsodothisbyinformingstaffmemberswhentheir

behaviourisunacceptable.Thiscanbedonethispubliclyorprivately,individually

orcollectively.Althoughmuchofmyfocushereisonmoreinformalsituations,one

shouldnotunderestimatethepowerofpublicdeclarationsregardingacceptableand

unacceptablebehaviour,frompeopleinpositionsofauthority.

Insituationswhereauniversityharassmentcodeisviolated,itisveryimportantto

recognisethatmanypeoplehavetheability,andsometimesobligation,tocomplain.

Anyonewhohaswitnessedbehaviourthatviolatesuniversityharassmentcodes

alsohasthepowertointervenebyfilingacomplaint—afactthatisalltoolittle

known.Dependingonthecountry,theorganisationalstructuresandthenatureof

theharassment,certainpeopleinpositionsofauthority(e.g.HeadofDepartment,

DirectorofGraduateStudies)mayalsohavealegalobligationtofileacomplaint.10

Butthepowertodosomethingextendsveryfarbeyondthesepeople.11AsI’ve

notedabove,manypeoplehavethepowertoindicateunacceptabilityinother

ways.12Thosewhoknow,forexample,thatacolleagueistreatingstudentsinan

inappropriatewaycantellthatcolleaguesoexplicitly.Buttheycanalsoconveyit

non-explicitly.We’llbediscussingthisoptioninmoredetailinthenextsection.

Non-explicitexpressionsofdisapprovalareoneofthemostinterestingavenuesto

pursue.Aswesawabove,microbehaviourscandoagreatdealtocreatean

unwelcomingenvironmentforthosewhoweshouldbewelcoming.Importantly,

though,theycanalsocreateanunwelcomingenvironmentforbehavioursofthesort

we’dliketostampout.ThisissomethingthatChrisBennettcallsattentiontoinhis

paper“VarietiesofRetributiveExperience”(2002).Therehedescribesindetailthe

waythathumanbeingscanpowerfullysignaldisapprovalbyakindofsocial

withdrawal—notgreeting,notmakingeyecontact,andsoon—notingthe

transformativeeffectthiscanhaveonwrongdoersastheyrealisewhytheirfriends

andcolleaguesarewithdrawing.Bennettdescribesthisformofsocialwithdrawal10Itisaverygoodideatocheckontheseobligations,whichdifferenormouslyfromcountrytocountryandevensometimesinstitutiontoinstitution.11Infact,theformalreportingobligationsofthoseinauthoritymaymeanthatpeoplearereluctanttobringcomplaintstothem,thusplacingmoreoftheburdenofrespondingonthosewithouttheformalpositionofauthority.12Manyofthesemethodsarediscussedintheemergingliteratureon“activebystandertraining”.Seeforexamplehere:http://web.mit.edu/bystanders/strategies/index.html.

asacentralcaseofretribution,anddefendsitagainsttraditionalcriticismsof

retribution,arguingthatitisakeywayinhumans,associalanimals,expressour

disapproval.Andbeingthetargetofsuchexpressionsisanimportantwaythatwe

cometoimproveourselvesandourbehaviour.

Allofusashumanbeingshavethepowertoengageinthesekindsofsocial

withdrawals,inmajororminorways.Itisimportanttonote,though,thatit’snot

necessarilyadvisableforallofustodothis.Thosewhoareinparticularly

precariouspositionsmayfeel—quitelegitimatelyandcorrectly—thatit’ssimplytoo

riskyforthemtodothis.Andit’sabsolutelyvitalthatwerecognisethelegitimacyof

this.Peopleinprecariouspositionsmustnotbeblamedforfailingtoactinthese

ways.However,peopleinsecurepositions—andthiswillmeandifferentthingsfor

differentpeople—canbeblamedfornotacting.Aresignedsighisreallynotenough

whentherearethingsonecansafelydo.Moreover,asmorepeopletakeaction,

eveninsmallways,thesocialcostoftakingactionisreduced.13

43.3CasesWithallthisinmind,let’stalkaboutwhattoactuallydo.

3.3.1Story1:ThedepartmentheadandthehotwaxFirstwe’lltakeStory1above.It’sashockinganecdote.I’veneverseenjawsfailto

dropwhenItellit,especiallywhenInotethatithappenedinthelastfewyears.And

13Formorediscussionofthepossibilityandimportanceofsuchinterventions,SeeScullyandRowe2009.

yet,itisintheendjustasinglecomment.It’sashockingcomment,withwitnesses,

andit’ssoobviouslyinappropriatethatIwouldhopethere’dbenoquestionasto

whetherit’sacaseofsexualharassment.Presumablyacomplaintwouldbeupheld

quiteeasily.Butasitisjustacomment,manypeoplewouldnotfileaformal

complaint.Moreover,theposition(HeadofDepartment)ofthepersonmakingthe

appallingcommentmightwellmakeothershesitatetoact.Nowofcourseoneway

torespondistoinsistthataformalresponseisappropriate,andthatpeopleshould

bebraveenoughtodoit.Inparticular,it’simportanttonotethatitdoesn’thaveto

bethevictimmakingtheformalcomplaintandtherearemanywitnessesina

positiontodoso.ButwhatIwanttonotehereisthatthisisn’ttheonlyusefulor

legitimateresponse.

Inthinkingaboutthis,Iwanttothinkaboutthebystandersinthepub—allthose

lecturerswho“laughedloudly”.MaybeI’moverlycharitable,butmystrong

suspicionisthatsomeofthis(atleast)wasnervousandappalledlaughterbypeople

whowereactuallyshocked.Onethingwecanalldoistodosomethinkingabout

howtoreactifwefindourselvesinasituationlikethis,startingwiththefactthat

laughingisreallyoneoftheworstthingstodo—itlookstobothvictimandharasser

likeendorsementoftheharassment.Sonotlaughingwouldbeagoodstart.

Moreover,it’sanespeciallyeffectivewayofexpressingdisapprovaland

discouragingsuchjokesinthefuture.Ifyoudoubtthis,reflectforamomentona

timewhenyoutoldajokeandnobodylaughed,andrecallhowitfelt.

Thereareofcourseothermoresociallydifficult(butperhapsevenmoreeffective)

options.Clearly,itwouldbegreattosimplyconfronttheHeadofDepartmentonthe

spotbysaying,forexample,“that’sanappallingthingtosay”.Noteveryone,

however,isinapositiontodothis,eitherbecauseoftheirstatusinahierarchyor

becauseoftheirpsychologicalmakeup.Andit’snottheonlyusefulthingtodo.A

separateconversationwiththeheadabouttheincidentcouldalsobeeffective.As

couldaseparateconversationwiththevictim—it’sclearfrommyconversations

withherthatitwouldhavemeantagreatdealtoknowthatothersdisapproved.

Failingthat,evenadisapprovingglancecanberemarkablyeffective,asresearchon

microaffirmationsandmicroaggressionsshows.Thesearethewaysthat

communitiessetstandardsofappropriateness,creatingeitherapermissiveor

forbiddingenvironmentforsexualharassment.

3.3.2Story2:ThedistinguishedsexualharasserThisstoryisofamanwhosefame,tenureandvindictivenessseemtoprotecthim

againstanyrepercussionsforhisseriallyharassingbehaviour,whichincludes

“stickinghistonguedownthethroat”ofanunwillingvictimataparty.14Theauthor

ofthepostclaimsthatnobodycandoanythingaboutit.Buttheyare,infact,wrong.

Itmaywellbethatthismanpicksonlyonthosewhoaretoojuniortosafelytake

action.Butotherswitnesshisbehaviourorhearaboutit,andsomeofthemhave

theprotectionoftenureandperhapseventheirownfame.Thefirstthingsuch

peoplecoulddoisinfacttofileaformalcomplaint,anditwouldseemverymuch

14Thequotationdoesnotactuallyspecifythattherecipientofthetonguewasunwilling.Iamassumingthis,basedoncontext.EvenifIamwrongaboutthiscase,though,thereareplentyofothersinwhichtherecipientwasunwilling.

warrantedinthiscase.It’svitaltorememberthatthevictimneednotbetheone

whocomplains.Otherscanalsospeakup,regularlyandloudly—eitherinpublicor

inprivate.Theycanprovidesupporttovictims.Andsoon.Oncemore,thesense

thatnobodyisinapositiontoactismistaken.Andtheacceptanceofthisclaimis

whatallowsappallingbehaviourtocontinue.Ifenoughbystandersspeakupand

takeaction,evenauniversitythatwishestolooktheotherwaywon’tbeableto.(It

isvital,however,thatmeasuresbetakentoprotectbothvictimsandcomplainants

fromretaliation—andimportanttoknowthatsuchretaliationisillegal.)

3.3.3Manysmallproblemsforceawomanout

Inourthirdstory,awomanleftphilosophyafterexperiencingfortoomanyinsults,

sexualcomments,rumoursandlackofrespect.Togetheralloftheseundoubtedly

adduptoaclearlyhostileenvironment,andthissortofenvironmentisrecognised

assexualharassmentlegally.However,shewritesofsomeoftheseexperiences

beinginherdepartmentandothersatconferences.Itisentirelypossiblethatthey

arescatteredenoughthatnooneinstitutionorindividualcouldbethesubjectofa

formalcomplaint.Butonceagain,formalcomplaintsarenottheonlymechanism.

Fellowconference-goerswhoarepartytotheevaluationsof“fuckability”,orwho

hearthesexualcomments,are—atleastsomeofthem—perfectlycapableof

speakingup.Orifnotspeakingup,atleastplacingadisapprovingexpressionon

theirface.Orifnotthat,atfailingtolaughorsmile.Andtheyarealsocapableof

showingsolidarityinprivatetothewomanwhowrotethepost.Enoughofthese

relativelysmallactscanchangetheenvironmentinsignificantways.Atamore

institutionallevel,educatingbothstudentsandstaffaboutacceptableand

unacceptablebehaviourwillalsohopefullyhelptoreducethefrequencyofthissort

ofthing.Finally,itmaybeworthwhileforconference-organiserstolaydown

guidelinesregardingbehaviour.Thisdoesn’trequireconferencestogetintothe

businessofbringingformalcharges,soittoocanbeviewedasa(relatively)

informalmeasure.15

4.Objections

4.1Dowitnessestothesebehavioursreallyhaveadutytoact,evenifnorulesarebroken?ItmayseemthatIhavearguedforquiteastrongclaim:thatevenwhennorulesare

broken,witnessestothesortofbehaviorIamdiscussinghaveadutytoact.Butthis

isactuallynotquiteright,andinaveryimportantway.WhatIhavearguedisthatin

suchcaseswehaveadutytoconsiderwhatactionswecanorshouldtake.We

shouldn’tsimplyacceptthatthere’snothingwecanorshoulddobecausenorules

arebroken.Nor,however,shouldwethinkthatwehaveanobligationtospeakup

everytimethatwe—forexample—seeacolleaguestaringatanothercolleague’s

breasts:itmightmakethesituationworsebydrawingattentiontoit;itmightputus

inanuntenableposition;itmightbebettertosaveourfireforsomethingelse;and

soon.Thenagain,itmightbeaverygoodideatospeakup,ortospeaktooneorthe

otherofthesecolleagueslater.Inadditiontobalancingpracticalities,wemayalso

15Althoughsuchguidelinesarerareforacademicconferences,theyhavebecomewidespreadincertainothercommunities.Foranexample,seehere:<https://www.ucon-gaming.org/convention-details/policies/>.

havetobalanceconflictingduties—theprimafaciedutytotakeactionmightwell

conflictwithadutytoprotectastudentfromretaliation.16Ourobligationissimply

tocarefullyconsiderwhatactionsarepossibleandwhatwouldbebesttodo.This

seems,perhaps,whollyuncontroversialoncestated.Butmyexperiencehasbeen

thatthisobligationisonealmostcompletelyignoredbothinreallifeandinthe

literatureonsexualharassment.

OneimportantfeatureofmanyofthecasesIhavediscussedisthatthebehaviours

maynotonlybenotbreakinganyrules,butalsorelativelysmall.Anditmayseem

strangeformetosuggestthatwehaveanobligationeventothinkaboutwhattodo

insuchcases.However,AsSamanthaBrennanhasargued: “Ifitturnsoutthat

someratherlargedifferencesintermsofwomen’sparticipationinthedisciplineof

Philosophycanbeexplainedastheaccumulatedeffectsofmany,manyactionswith

smallresults,mostofwhichwereunintentionalharms,thenweoughttopaymore

attentiontomicro-inequitiesbothintermsofunderstandingthemasamoral

phenomenaandintermsofpracticalsolutions.”17

4.2Butaren’tsocialoccasionsaverydifferentmatter?Someofthecasesthatconcernushereinvolvebehaviorthat’sactuallyoutsidethe

philosophydepartment—atapub,oraparty,orareceptionataconference.One

worryaboutthelineatI’vetakenhereisthatpeopleshouldbefreetodoastheylike

intheirsociallives,aslongastheydon’tbreakanylaws:whathappensintheir

personallivesisnotthebusinessofanyoneelse.

16Dependingonwhereoneis,legaldutiesmaybeveryclearlylaidout.Butdutiestotakeinformalactionwillbelessclear.17Exactlyhowtohandleobligationsrelatedtosmallwrongsisathornyissue.(For

moreonthis,seeBrennan2012.)

Oneresponsetothisbeginsbynoting,withseveralgenerationsoffeministscholars,

thefuzzinessofthepublic/privateboundary.Ifnetworkingisanimportantpartof

professionalsuccess(asnearlyeveryonetakesittobe,forbetterorforworse),then

thedepartmentalparty,thepubaftertheseminarpaperandthereceptionata

conferencearenotreallywhollypersonalaffairs.Itis,infact,apartofprofessional

life.It’snotgovernedbyexactlythesamerules,andindeedthepreciserulesmaybe

difficulttostate.ButadistinctadvantageofmyapproachisthatIamnotinthe

businessofsettingdownrulesandmandatingwhattodowhentheyareviolated.

Instead,myviewisthatweallneedtoreflectonhowbehavioursthatwewitnessor

engageinareaffecting,forexample,women’sabilitytoflourish;andtothinkabout

howtoimprove.Sowhenweseethevisitingspeakerhavingonedrinktoomany

andstartingtogropethefemalestudentsatthepub,weshouldrealizethismay

createaproblematicenvironmentforthem—evenifthebehaviorofavisiting

speakerdoesn’tfallunderourinstitution’ssexualharassmentcodes.Andweshould

dosomethingaboutit—attheveryleastbundlethespeakeroutthedoorintoacab

byhimself.Becausemyapproachdemandsonlyattentiontoandconsiderationof

theseissues,itcanaccommodatethemessinessofthepersonal/professional

boundary.

Aniceillustrationofthiscomesfromwhatmayseemlikeoneofthetrickiestcases:

themalegraduatestudentswhohitontheirfemalecolleaguesonsocialoccasions

butdon’ttalkphilosophywiththem.Noneofthisbehaviorisagainsttherules,and

ittakesplaceatsocialevents.Soitmightseemthatthisisapurelypersonalmatter.

Yetanimportantpartofwhatweareteachingourgraduatestudentsishowtobe

professionalsinourfield.Thisprettyobviouslyincludesnetworking,anditshould

alsoincludehowtoconductoneselfatthesortofsocialoccasionsthatareinfact

alsoprofessional.Andthisshouldincludecallingattentionto,andeducatingabout,

thedestructiveeffectsofpatternslikethis.

Similarly,thisapproachiswell-suitedtoaddressingconcernsaboutfreedomof

speech.Sexualharassmentregulationsareoftencricitisedasrestrictingfreedomof

speech.Ithinkthiscriticismislargelymisguided,butIcan’tandwon’targuethis

here.NordoIneedto:thefocusonthispaperhasemphaticallynotbeenon

regulationsrestrictingspeech,butonhowweshouldrespondinformallytocertain

sortsofharmfulspeechandbehaviour.Andnoadvocateoffreespeechhasever

beeninthebusinessofsuggestingthatweshouldn’te.g.tellsomeonethatwedon’t

likewhatthey’resaying.(Iftheydidsuggestthat,they’dbesuggestingarestriction

onspeech.)

Inshort,then,Iamarguingthatweneedtothinkagreatdeallessaboutthe

definitionofsexualharassmentandtheformalmeasuresavailableforcombattingit,

andagreatdealmoreabouthowtocreateenvironmentsinwhichpeopleofallsorts

canflourish.

References

Anderson,E.2006.“RecentThinkingAboutSexualHarassment:AReviewEssay”,

PhilosophyandPublicAffairs34:3,284-311.

Archard,D.1994.“ExploitedConsent”,JournalofSocialPhilosophy,25:3,92-101.

Baer,S.2004.“DignityorEquality?ResponsestoWorkplaceHarassmentin

European,GermanandUSLaw”,inMacKinnonandSiegel(eds.).

Beebee,H.andSaul,J.2011.“WomeninPhilosophyintheUK:AReportbythe

BritishPhilosophicalAssociationandtheSocietyforWomeninPhilosophyinthe

UK”.

Bennett,C.2002.“TheVarietiesofRetributiveExperience”,52:207,145-163.

Brennan,S.Forthcoming."RethinkingtheMoralSignificanceofMicro-Inequities:

TheCaseofWomenInPhilosophy,”inJenkins,F.andHutchison,F.Womenin

Philosophy:WhatNeedstoChange?,OxfordUniversityPress.

Clark,M.M.2001.“TheSilvaCaseattheUniversityofNewHampshire”,in

Moncheck,L.andSterba,J.,SexualHarassment:IssuesandAnswers(Oxford

UniversityPress).

Cornell,D.1995.TheImaginaryDomain.NewYork:Routledge.

Crossthwaite,J.andPriest,G.2001.“TheDefinitionofSexualHarassment”,inLe

Moncheck,L.andSterba,J.,SexualHarassment:IssuesandAnswers(Oxford

UniversityPress).

Crouch,M.2012.“BenevolentSexism,ImplicitBiasandSexualHarassmentinthe

Academy”,APANewsletteronFeminismandPhilosophy11:2.

Forbes,K.2012.“GrowingTheirProfession,InterpretingtheLaw”,APANewsletter

onFeminismandPhilosophy11:2.

Fricker,M.2007.EpistemicInjustice,OxfordUniversityPress.

Hajdin,M.andLeMoncheck,L.1997.SexualHarassment:ADebate.(Lanham,MD:

RowmanandLittlefield.)

Hill,T.2010.“MoralResponsibilitiesofBystanders”,JournalofSocialPhilosophy41:

1,28-39.

MacKinnon,C.1979.SexualHarassmentofWorkingWomen.NewHaven:Yale

UniversityPress.

MacKinnon,C.andSiegel,R.(eds.).2004.DirectionsinSexualHarassmentLaw,New

Haven:YaleUniversityPress.

McGary,H.2008.“PsychologicalViolenceandInstitutionalRacism:TheMoral

ResponsibilityofBystanders”,inThomas,L.,ContemporaryDebatesinSocial

Philosophy,Oxford:Blackwell,299-311.

Monin,B.andMiller,D.T.(2001).“MoralCredentialsandtheExpressionof

Prejudice,”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology82:33-43.

Moss-Racusin,C.et.al.2012.“ScienceFaculty’sSubtleGenderBiasesFavourMale

Students”,ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesof

America,publishedaheadofprintSeptember17:

doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109.

O’Hare,E.andO’Donahue,W.1998.“SexualHarassment:IdentifyingRiskFactors”,

ArchivesofSexualBehavior27:6,561-580.

Saul,J.2003.Feminism:IssuesandArguments,OxfordUniversityPress.

Saul,J.2013.“ImplicitBias,StereotypeThreat,andWomeninPhilosophy”,inK.

HutchisonandF.Jenkins,WomeninPhilosophy:WhatNeedstoChange?,Oxford

UniversityPress:39-60.

Schroer,J.“CampusasCommunity”,APANewsletteronFeminismandPhilosophy11:

2.

Scully, Maureen and Mary Rowe. 2009. “Bystander Training within Organizations”,

Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, (1).

Slagter,J.“TrackingAuditCulture”,APANewsletteronFeminismandPhilosophy11:

2.

Soble,A.andPower,N.2007.ThePhilosophyofSex5thEdition.Rowmanand

Littlefield.

Superson,A.2001.“AmorousRelationshipsBetweenFacultyandStudents”,

SouthernJournalofPhilosophy23:419-440.

Fricker,M.2007.EpistemicInjustice.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Schultz,V.1998.“ReconceptualisingSexualHarassment”,YaleLawJournal107:

1683-1805.

Schultz,V.2001.“SexistheLeastofIt”,inLeMoncheck,L.andSterba,J.,Sexual

Harassment:IssuesandAnswers(OxfordUniversityPress).

Zalesne,D.1999.“SexualHarassmentLaw:HasitGoneTooFar,orHastheMedia?”,

TemplePoliticalandCivilRightsLawReview8(2):351-376.