Vague sexual lines need definition

Like most of us starving college students, I am spending my
summer working. Being known as the notorious “temp” or
“intern” in an office throughout these summer months
has led me to think about an often debated topic during the Clinton
presidency: sexual harassment.

In my own experience, I’ve found that there’s a very
vague line to walk when it comes to sexual harassment, and
I’ve come to seriously question what it constitutes. To find
out what our society believes sexual harassment is, I turned to the
laws.

I discovered, however, that the very language of sexual
harassment’s definitions and laws are pretty confusing and
inconsistent in that the individual’s, or the victim’s,
reaction to harassment often determines if a particular situation
is illegal. 9to5, an organization that works toward the equal and
fair treatment of women in the workplace, defines sexual harassment
as “unwanted, repeated sexual attention at work.” Their
definition comes from the 1993 Harris v. Forklift Systems Supreme
Court decision, which goes on to explain that “(sexual)
harassment is illegal if: a) Your job depends on your going along
with this behavior, or b) The condition of your employment (such as
pay, promotion, vacation) depends on your going along with this
behavior, or c) The harassment creates a hostile or offensive work
environment which interferes with your ability to do your
job.”

I find this to be an ambiguous definition. The first crucial,
conditional words are “sexual harassment is illegal
if,” which I take to mean that not all sexual harassment is
illegal, even if the advances are unwanted. I’m immediately
confused by this condition, since I’ve read the poster in our
company’s lunchroom, my temp agency’s pamphlet, and
even UCLA’s sexual harassment policy, all of which that state
that all sexual harassment will not be tolerated.

What I’m left to believe is that the “legal”
sexual harassment that the court decision refers to is the kind
that comes in those borderline harassment moments, such as when a
male employee tells a female employee a mildly offensive joke
without the intention of harassing the woman or making her feel
uncomfortable.

In these situations, the people who may become victims of sexual
harassment have to make a choice: they may not take offense, or
they may decide to take action.

Based on what I read in this law, the attitude or reaction of
the person being harassed seems to affect what constitutes sexual
harassment in those extremely “vague” situations. (Let
me emphasize the importance of the phrase “vague
situations” here. I’m not talking about the obvious,
“Sleep with me or you lose your job,” or assault
situations, which are obviously illegal even if the victim
“cooperates.”)

I think many women can remember a “vague” moment in
their working experiences. I know I can. This summer, as I work at
a company of about fifty employees, I am one of six women (and the
youngest) working there.

During the short time I’ve been employed, many of my
several male coworkers have befriended me: they ask me about my
social life at college and tease me about my age. Many of them have
goofy nicknames for me, including “kiddo,”
“sweetheart,” or even “doll.” I choose not
to take it seriously when their teasing becomes inappropriate
because my reaction to those questionable moments determines
whether I’m being harassed. Thus, if I take a comment as a
joke, then it remains a joke.

No men have threatened me and I don’t feel uncomfortable
at work, so I don’t think these minor incidents merit a
one-on-one with my supervisor or action in a courtroom. I’ve
come to realize that these kind of moments are inevitable when men
and women work together, and that I must learn to handle such
incidents with a degree of maturity.

Maybe you think I’m crazy or complacent for not having a
more extreme reaction. Maybe I’m not, though. Our own
university’s policy on sexual harassment contains the
statement, “In determining whether the alleged conduct
constitutes sexual harassment, consideration shall be given to the
record of the incident as a whole and to the totality of the
circumstances, including the context in which the alleged incidents
occurred.”

Although phrased ambiguously, the university’s statement
seems to show the same reserve that the Supreme Court has in
determining what constitutes sexual harassment. I read a
conflicting message. The “no tolerance” stance of these
institutions seems to be tempered with an insistence on a
case-by-case judgment, based on the context of the situation, which
I take to include the reaction, receptivity, and sensitivity of the
victim. Basing the illegality of situation on the reaction of the
victim doesn’t seem like a very precise method of justice to
me.

Look at it this way: should a robbery be determined legal just
because the store’s owner didn’t really mind that he
was robbed? This system of analysis appears in the crucial wording
of the Supreme Court, which states that a “hostile or
offensive work environment” is illegal. But who determines if
an environment is hostile or offensive, particularly in those vague
situations? What should happen if one victim’s definition of
“hostile or offensive” differs from another
victim’s, or if one victim is particularly sensitive?

I don’t think there’s a simple answer, which makes
it hard for men and women alike to know where to draw the line. The
possibility of offending women must continually haunt men while at
work (not to say that women shouldn’t watch what they do and
say as well), and these confusing, conditional laws don’t
seem to offer much in the way of relief or guidelines apart from
the “obvious” sexual harassment cases.

Perhaps some women will be angry with me for questioning and
scrutinizing these laws. Considering that sexual harassment
lawsuits have taken on such a bad connotation in America,
particularly following the terms of Clinton.

I’m probably not doing much to ameliorate the situation,
at least not immediately. But I’d hate to think that a victim
might not receive the proper compensation simply because an
institution did not feel his or her reaction to a situation, or the
“context” of a situation, merits any action. The laws
need to be more specific in order to protect potential victims.