The Smithsonian’s sexual harassment prevention program is absolutely useless

In 2011, Miguel Pinto sexually assaulted me in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). Soon thereafter, my advisor sent a written memo to the the Smithsonian’s Office of Equal Employment and Minority Affairs, and Pinto admitted everything to his advisor, Kris Helgen. At the time, Pinto was a Ph.D. student in New York who only occasionally visited the Smithsonian.

In 2014, Pinto was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship that would bring him back to Helgen’s lab in the NMNH. I had a number of meetings with NMNH and SI administrators. One of my first meetings was with Mary Sangrey, Eric Woodard, and Wendy Wiswall. At that time, we all thought that there was an official report on file about Pinto sexually assaulting me. Sangrey, Woodard, and Wiswall lectured me on how Pinto and Helgen are great scientists. Woodard told me that the Office of Fellowships and Internships does not, and will not, consider internal reports of sexual misconduct when awarding academic appointments. He mentioned that there was no police report on file. Woodard also told me repeatedly that there was no way to ban Pinto from the NMNH. (There is a tape recording of this conversation; as noted by Congresswoman Jackie Speier, I requested a copy of this tape recording last summer and still have not received a copy.)

In other words, the Smithsonian’s system for reporting sexual misconduct is truly useless. Reports can be ignored for the purposes of awarding multi-year fellowships to known sexual predators. Victims are berated for not going to the police (though the policy does not require victims to contact the police, and it’s widely known that law enforcement does a terrible job of handling these matters).

A little bit later in 2014, when we all discovered that there was no report on file, the Smithsonian administrators’ excuses changed ever-so-slightly. The administrators still refused to help me, but instead of saying that they wouldn’t help me because I hadn’t gone to the police, they said they wouldn’t help me because I didn’t have a report on file.

Of course, soon after The Verge published an investigation into the Smithsonian’s horrendous mishandling of this situation, Pinto was banned from the museum (even though there still was no report on file against him). Which just goes to show that the Smithsonian can protect women from sexual predators, even if there is no report on file. The Smithsonian simply chooses not to protect us, and will not act unless publicly shamed into doing so.

In the months since The Verge published its investigation, the Smithsonian has demonstrated a continued inability to get its act together. I made some pretty simple suggestions: the many administrators who mishandled this situation should apologize, students should be informed that they may be protected by Title IX while at the Smithsonian, a meaningful new policy should be enacted. None of this has happened, etc. Not a single one of these suggestions has been implemented, and Kirk Johnson has not replied to my e-mail on this matter despite having claimed that he is “committed to dialogue on this important subject.”

Not long ago I received an e-mail about the requirement that Smithsonian researchers take Prevention of Workplace Harassment Training. That’s the only thing that’s happened in response to the revelations that the Smithsonian totally and completely does not have its act together.

The e-mail was sent out by Mary Sangrey. Sangrey lied to me, via e-mail, multiple times. She is demonstrably unfit to administer any program involving research appointees and sexual misconduct. (As a bonus, Sangrey is also friends with Miguel Pinto on Facebook. The two of them have been pals since Pinto came to the NMNH as an undergraduate intern. I sometimes wonder how differently my life would have turned out if one of the key people for harassment prevention at the NMNH weren’t a buddy of the scumbag who sexually assaulted me.)

Sangrey’s e-mail begins with: “As I’m sure you’re aware, the Smithsonian has a zero tolerance policy for workplace harassment.” This statement would be hilarious if it weren’t so very, very sad. The Smithsonian awards fellowships to known sexual assailants. The Smithsonian has zero tolerance for honesty, for fairness, and for basic rights in the workplace, but it’s got an endless amount of tolerance for harassment.

The training itself is pathetic. I learned that making fun of someone’s mullet does not count as harassment (“Generally, one’s taste in hairstyles is not protected by law”), which is nice to know? But their section on a “hostile environment” is a joke.

One slide says:

“Hostile environment harassment arises when unwanted conduct, directed at one or more members of a protected class or someone associated with a protected class, is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters working conditions and creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” [emphasis mine]

The very next slide says:

“In order for an unlawful hostile work environment to be found, the conduct in question must be severe and/or pervasive (i.e., it must be really bad or happen a lot).” [emphasis mine]

So, if misconduct is severe but not pervasive, does the Smithsonian have an obligation to do something about it? The Smithsonian itself appears not to know. (This is not a hypothetical question. When I raised my concerns about Pinto — an individual who admitted to an investigative reporter that he has sexually assaulted multiple women — administrators berated me, telling me repeatedly that Pinto’s assault of me had “only happened once.”)

And then there’s the million-dollar question: The next time a researcher commits sexual assault in the Smithsonian, will the assailant be banned from the institution without the victim having to go public? The training acknowledges that “[i]n general, physical conduct is considered more severe than verbal conduct,” and also claims that “corrective actions may range from a verbal reprimand to disciplinary action up to and including possible termination.” But all of the wording is so vague, I have no reason to believe that the Smithsonian will ever do the right thing unless publicly shamed.

A few other observations:

• According to the training, “Your manager should ensure that everyone understands SI Policy Statements including procedures for filing complaints.” The problem is that the person responsible for carrying out “SI Policy Statements including procedures for filing complaints” led my “manager” to believe we had a report on file, when in fact we didn’t. What good is this policy if it’s subject to the whims of a person who doesn’t want to see it implemented?
• One slide says, “What can you do to prevent harassment in your workplace? The most important thing is to show your coworkers respect.” Smithsonian administrators disrespected me more times than I could possibly count. They lectured me about how brilliant Pinto and Helgen are. I guess they had not yet received this training.
• One of the final quiz questions is, “Which of the following should you do if you are the victim of harassment?” The options include “Immediately hire a lawyer,” however this option is considered to be incorrect. As I have written previously, immediately contacting a lawyer is a very good idea for victims at the Smithsonian, because the administration will mishandle these situations for years if given the chance.

Last year, I learned that the Smithsonian will protect women from sexual predators only if publicly shamed into doing so. This year, I learned that the Smithsonian still has not learned its lesson, and has not taken meaningful action to prevent sexual misconduct.