I haven’t been able to express my thoughts about Linda Wang and Andrea Widener’s cover article in this week's C&EN on sexual harassment in academia. (I should note here that Linda is my editor for the Bench and Cubicle columns that I write for C&EN.)
While we're doing full disclosure here, I should note my opinions on the issue: I don't have any doubt that sexual harassment has and does happen in academia. For any particular case of academic sexual harassment that is brought to light in the public, I am much more inclined to believe the accuser who comes forward.
I thought it was a well-researched, comprehensive and gripping article that forced the reader to confront the reality of sexual harassment in the chemical sciences. Each story demonstrated the impact of sexual harassment: a woman student who is harassed by an male adviser will find themselves isolated, confused, doubting themselves, unable to communicate these issues easily with confidants, potentially ashamed to go their family and they will face a departmental structure that is incentivized to have that student disappear.
What I am most struck by in the article is the pervasive sense that academic departments and universities will continue to self-police. In my humble opinion, no academic process outside of a court of law can deliver a just outcome. After watching the UC system defend Professor Patrick Harran against the Los Angeles District Attorney to the tune of millions of dollars, does anyone think that universities will step up for those at the bottom of the academic hierarchy? I am not really one that is inclined to legislative solutions to problems, but I am certainly tempted by the article's mention of Rep. Speier's bill that would require substantiated cases of harassers to be reported to the funding agencies. If it's a bad idea, it's a useful one that will introduce some threat of accountability into the system.
Something that I was surprised at was this statement from "Elizabeth":
I am certainly skeptical as well, but I think that it depends on what she meant by "industry." For the 40% of Americans who work at companies with more than 1000 employees, I have no doubt that HR departments (and the lawyers that birthed them) fundamentally expect and enforce a zero-tolerance perspective on issues of sexual harassment. For smaller companies? I also have no doubt that there are well-run shops where sexual harassment is not welcome, and there are some (many?) that probably have terrible cultures.
So I am inviting industrial readers: do you think sexual harassment happens less in industry? If so, why? (My guess: the power differential between employer and employee is never quite the gulf that it is between PI and student.)
While we're doing full disclosure here, I should note my opinions on the issue: I don't have any doubt that sexual harassment has and does happen in academia. For any particular case of academic sexual harassment that is brought to light in the public, I am much more inclined to believe the accuser who comes forward.
I thought it was a well-researched, comprehensive and gripping article that forced the reader to confront the reality of sexual harassment in the chemical sciences. Each story demonstrated the impact of sexual harassment: a woman student who is harassed by an male adviser will find themselves isolated, confused, doubting themselves, unable to communicate these issues easily with confidants, potentially ashamed to go their family and they will face a departmental structure that is incentivized to have that student disappear.
What I am most struck by in the article is the pervasive sense that academic departments and universities will continue to self-police. In my humble opinion, no academic process outside of a court of law can deliver a just outcome. After watching the UC system defend Professor Patrick Harran against the Los Angeles District Attorney to the tune of millions of dollars, does anyone think that universities will step up for those at the bottom of the academic hierarchy? I am not really one that is inclined to legislative solutions to problems, but I am certainly tempted by the article's mention of Rep. Speier's bill that would require substantiated cases of harassers to be reported to the funding agencies. If it's a bad idea, it's a useful one that will introduce some threat of accountability into the system.
Something that I was surprised at was this statement from "Elizabeth":
"Some people think industry is where the harassment happens,” Elizabeth says. “But in industry, creeps get fired."On Twitter, there were a number of people who found this statement worthy of some skepticism.
I am certainly skeptical as well, but I think that it depends on what she meant by "industry." For the 40% of Americans who work at companies with more than 1000 employees, I have no doubt that HR departments (and the lawyers that birthed them) fundamentally expect and enforce a zero-tolerance perspective on issues of sexual harassment. For smaller companies? I also have no doubt that there are well-run shops where sexual harassment is not welcome, and there are some (many?) that probably have terrible cultures.
So I am inviting industrial readers: do you think sexual harassment happens less in industry? If so, why? (My guess: the power differential between employer and employee is never quite the gulf that it is between PI and student.)
