Recently I had the opportunity, I say opportunity but I really mean coercive chance, to attend a class titled "Sexual Harassment Prevention." At the prospect of sitting through a course like this, I was understandably upset. Not because I was afraid of feeling convicted, but rather because I knew what was coming. There isn't much I wouldn't have given to have a legitimate excuse to skip this course, but alas, I was without a hall pass.
So, our building staff assembled on the fateful Tuesday in our conference room and we were all introduced to our Instructor. I'll name her Rita for my purposes here. Rita really wasn't all that bad. In fact, I could see her being a friend of mine if I had frequent contact with her. The class was introduced and then we were requested to do the obligatory around the table self-introductions. I've always disliked this routine.
After the introductions we were asked a very "simple" question. What is the definition of Harassment? It turns out that Harassment is defined as anything that makes a person feel uncomfortable. So, using that logic, you would assume that Sexual Harassment is anything sexual that makes a person feel uncomfortable. Thats part of it, but not nearly all of it.
Washington State, being the liberal bastion that it is, has a very lengthy and detailed list of interactions that can fall under one of two general distinctions. The first and most heinous being Quid Pro Quo Harassment. This is where promotions are offered in straight trade for sexual favors. And there is an implied negative impact on the junior member if they refuse to play nicely. The second is just run of the mill Harassment. It can include jokes about a member of the opposite sexes height, shape, strength...you name it. It doesn't have to just be jokes, it can be comments, copping a feel, and etc. I do believe that these activities are wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated. But do I think that they are crimes? I don't know.
One horrible consequence of these laws being so detailed and people so willing to charge someone by them, is the affect on the work place. An example of this is that if a fellow male coworker comes to you, as a supervisor, with concerns about the amount of work he's been given; you can no longer tell him to suck it up and be a man. This is an example of sexual harassment if you do. Also another hazard is the one of women in the workplace. You can't treat them like women, but you also can't treat them like men. An idea that was brought up in this class is that women are the same as men, in status, but you better treat them differently. What do you do? Thankfully, the world isn't consistent and you have to take each person individually, for the most part.
One thing I was struck by was the difference between treating someone with respect because it is in your heart to want to do so, and treating someone with respect because you're afraid of the consequences if you don't. For instance, I was glad to find that I didn't trangress any of the rules on sexual harassment in my daily work life. I don't trangress them because I have a high view of women due to Christ's redeeming presence in my life. Others that I know, don't transgress them because they don't want to prosecuted. Which would you rather be around?
I am glad that these laws have made women safer from the misconduct of a very few men, but I do think that in a lot ways we are making laws that cripple office environments because a few guys never learned that it's not right to put your hands on women or require them to pleasure you for advancement. Keep in mind, in a very few instances, women are now sexually harassing men too. This I find hard to believe, but there it is. And in some small instances, men have been shown to sexually harass other men, and women have harassed women. I'd hate to try and track some of the more strange sexual preferences and how they could possibly harass a coworker.
In addition to wreaking havoc on the offices within our nation, sexual harassment has turned more people into entitlement mentality junkies. More often than not, it isn't lucrative to charge a person with this offense, but the hope is always there, and this is because when a person is sexually harassed, it is always the responsibility of the supervisor to have seen it and stopped it. Supervisors are direct representatives of the company or organization, so now the organization or company is directly responsible for the harassment incident. So there is money to be had if the claim is proved.
And then there is the ever growing list of possible ways to harass a coworker. One of the worst, in terms of how it makes me feel to think about, is the so called "bystander harassment." This is where actions or interactions of two or more other people are offensive to another person. An example of this comes in the form of a surgical wing, in a hospital in California. A nurse joined the sugery unit in this particular hospital and found upon arrival a very relaxed environment where, and I don't condone this, male doctors routinely patted, smacked, or otherwise engaged, the rear ends of the female nurses. Now, I want to be careful to note that they did not engage the new arrival in this activity, but being the sensitive soul she was; she became mortally offended and brought suit over the issue and took it all the way to the supreme court where her view that she was sexually harassed the second person was upheld.
Now, like I said, I would not have partaken in, nor do I condone, the activities of the doctors in this surgical wing. But I have to take issue with someone who isn't included in the action saying it makes the workplace somewhere they can't operate. You can't live on behalf of other people in something like this where they don't even have a problem with the activity.
In all, I think that this issue is just another issue that points out a failing in men. We have failed to be Godly men in the workplace, and in a lot of ways we are suffering for it. That's probably the loudest message that I received from this class. Second to that was the idea that I need to be really careful here at work and not allow myself or the ladies that work with me to be around any situation with even a hint of impropriety.
I've been through training course like that too. As if being able to file charge for someone else's offense isn't bad enough, the offender is almost always guilty until proven innocent. A coworker of mine in the Chick-fil-A days was accused and the employed said he was required by company policy to suspend his employment until the matter was resolved. There was no proof that the event took place; even the employer felt it was a bogus charge, but his hands were tied.
Posted by: the booth at October 12, 2004 06:57 AMIt is sad how paralyzing liberalism is, isn't?
Posted by: Aman at October 12, 2004 08:42 PM