.png){kind=icon}
In “Sexual Harassment in the University,” N. Ann Davis discusses some of the factors that have contributed to the persistent problem of sexual harassment on college campuses. Such a discussion is of crucial importance in Davis’s view because formulating effective policies to curtail sexual harassment depends on understanding why sexual harassment has been so prevalent on college campuses in the first place.
The factors Davis discusses fall into two categories, with the first having to do with how sexual harassment is defined. Providing a satisfactory definition of sexual harassment is challenging in several ways according to Davis. On the one hand, the definition needs to be broad enough to cover the variety of inappropriate behaviors—ranging from blatant quid pro quo cases and actual sexual assault to inappropriate sexual remarks—that sexual harassment is understood to include. But broad definitions also obscure the important distinctions that exist between the various behaviors they include. For although the included behaviors may all be wrong, they are wrong for different reasons and to different degrees, and these differences matter to how we morally assess them as well as how we craft policies to prevent them.
The second factor Davis examines is widespread ignorance of the actual extent of on-campus sexual harassment due to under-reporting. Davis discusses several reasons why sexual harassment incidents go unreported, beginning with the unequal power between professors and students. Because of the power and social standing of professors on campus, students will often fear being disbelieved, punished, or ridiculed for reporting faculty misconduct. These fears are magnified by sexist social attitudes and beliefs about gender that excuse male misconduct as either unserious or the fault of the victim. Davis also notes how the structural organization and administrative bureaucracy of universities, which students often experience as confusing, intimidating, and impersonal, do not help to make reporting any more likely. Finally, Davis describes how many faculty members are reluctant to get involved and take action against colleagues accused of misconduct. Davis discusses several reasons for this including loyalty to colleagues, indifference, and fear of retaliation.