Harassment and Academia: Old Battles and New Frontiers Organized by the Committee on Gender and Sexuality in the Profession
SCS Panel: Friday 1/5: 10:45 AM to 12:45 PM
Notes by Tori Lee
This panel set out to engage the discipline in a conversation concerning the different types of harassment, bullying, and discrimination that our members face today. Classics has traditionally (though decreasingly) been a field dominated by white men. Our academic world has historically been insufficiently willing to deal with discrimination, bullying and harassment. Today, because of recent changes in the political landscape, many members of federally protected classes feel even more vulnerable. This panel offered three perspectives from the front lines on these challenges facing us in the academic world today.
Rebecca Futo Kennedy (Denison University), organized the panel and gave an introduction. She was inspired to organize the panel after a roundtable on sexual harassment was rejected for the 2017 SCS (it was reincarnated as a workshop at the 2018 meeting). Having heard about the harassment of colleagues in the field, including one who left her home institution after facing retaliation there for reporting inappropriate behavior, Kennedy concluded that the field is not coming out in support of colleagues who receive gender-based and anti-Semitic threats. “#Metoo in academia has really just begun. I think our reckoning is coming.” What many people know but refuse to acknowledge publicly is that “being a woman in a grad program or early career stages often means enduring becoming a sexual target of our faculty.” She mentioned the survey by The Professor is In on harassment in broader academia, which has already gotten numerous disheartening, but not unexpected, responses.
There is a big black hole for grad students in particular, who often must rely upon themselves for monitoring behavior. Harassers dig up information on the internet — including published academic work, public scholarship, work emails, and even comments on social media — to target scholars. There are insufficient reporting mechanisms in place for such behaviors. The field needs to provide more support for colleagues for all individuals who face harassment and bias — not just women and LGBTQ, but those with disabilities and chronic illness, contingent faculty, people of color. Kennedy asserted, however, that “this panel is not about an airing of grievances,” but instead about what can we do to try to reduce harassment and discrimination and what protections our institutions and professional organizations can provide — especially for graduate students, contingent colleagues, and those scholars without an institution.
Fiona McHardy (University of Roehampton): Strategies for Creating Positive Work Environments in Classical Academia
McHardy presented an analysis of data from a survey administered by the WCC-UK in 2016 that garnered 400+ responses. A section on gendered bullying and sexual harassment revealed that 32% of respondents had experienced discrimination, mostly gender stereotyping, and 80% of these identified as female; 22% felt sex or gender discrimination affected their career progression, particularly as parents or caretakers; 50% had experienced mental health problems. McHardy noted that young women, women of color, and the LGBTQ population cited double or triple discrimination (see Bates 2014). She also described the prevalence of mobbing (see Westhues), when multiple coworkers act collectively to bully a colleague, often based on differences like foreign birth or upbringing, different race or sexual orientation, different research interests, or asserted incompetence in foreign or ancient language skills. McHardy advocated turning away from the “trial by fire” approach towards grad students and replacing it with a more supportive environment that should follow throughout one’s career.
She pointed out the difference in post-talk Q&A sessions between asking respectful, critical questions and making derogatory comments meant to shame the speaker or their knowledge (see Webster). As a response, McHardy stressed the importance of immediate action, training, and awareness. A first line of defense is to form a group of allies, especially if one witnesses an isolated person targeted by a group of scholars. She cited an example from another discipline of a young, black woman being bullied by an older male; when others ignored the bullying, it eventually caused the woman to withdraw on sick leave. She then appeared to lack in trust of her colleagues, which only exacerbated the problem more. As she was pushed out of the workplace, the bullying continued. Her university then took the view that she was unproductive, and she left her post. The bully moved onto different targets. McHardy emphasized that we need to avoid bystander apathy. If we find ourselves the victims of bullying, we must avoid blaming ourselves and seek a support network. We need to come together to rebuild and redefine workplace culture and to thus create a more productive environment (for tips, see Farley and Sprigg 2014, Bull 2017).
In the Q&A, McHardy elaborated more on the survey procedure, acknowledging that it may have been somewhat self-selecting, but noting that the survey covered issues outside of bullying and harassment as well. It was distributed online, not by hard copy, so it is hard to know the rate of response. One audience member asked about how to deal with the “generic asshole,” a colleague who is less sex-selective in his bullying and thus more difficult to pinpoint. McHardy discussed how group solidarity is important, since individuals don’t want to be targeted next. When an institution, rather than just a department, tolerates certain behaviors, often departments feel like they don’t have the grounds to reprimand an employee.
Donna Zuckerberg (Eidolon): How to Be the Perfect Victim of Internet Harassment
Zuckerberg began by providing a content warning for her talk and an explanation of the title. After writing an editorial on Eidolon about the alt-right appropriation of Classics, she began receiving harassment and death threats, primarily via email and social media. At first, she responded by sharing screenshots, penning another editorial, and writing about gaslighting for The Establishment. This led to criticism for her “performance of victimhood,” and to loss of friendships and professional relationships. She was forced to arrange for security at talks.
Three months in, online harassment had become a big part of her professional and non-professional life. She used humor as a coping mechanism to deal with what felt like a surreal experience; however, it was difficult to know how seriously to take online harassment, and how to be serious about it or what to take seriously. Online harassment directly impacts relationships with colleagues, and it is a struggle many classicists will face. Incorrect performances of victimhood negatively affect collegial relationships. Zuckerberg described being asked to provide “proof” that her harassment was serious enough to warrant sympathy. But seriousness is hard to pin down. Trolls disguise their attacks on gender/race as attacks on one’s credibility as a scholar — yet, when even figures like Mary Beard are victims of abuse, it becomes clear that no level of scholarly achievement is enough.
Zuckerberg’s colleagues encouraged her to delete her Twitter, but for those in public scholarship and independent scholars, this cuts off an important avenue for self-promotion and connection with an audience. Zuckerberg cited Mary Beard’s idea that the “put up and shut up” encouragement towards women leaves the bullies in charge of the playground. Zuckerberg concluded that we need to stop policing how victims of harassment behave, and rather work as a community to prevent them from being silenced.
In the Q&A, Zuckerberg addressed actions people can take when they see their colleagues being harassed. She advocated for contacting them, verbally expressing support and sympathy, and telling them they’re sorry about what happening to them. Ask if the person wants a public statement of support. It helps also to focus on the person’s work. Zuckerberg added that it is important to educate students on the risks and rewards of public scholarship and let them decide if they want to participate.
Patrice Rankine (University of Richmond): Harassment in the Workplace: An Administrator’s Perspective
Rankine, the Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of Richmond, shared his experiences from 10+ years working in administration. Unfortunately, sexual harassment doesn’t get reported to HR as much as one might think. “There is a fallacy from silence.” He provided a number of definitions of terms, identifying that a harassment claim might not meet a legal standard, but we should still try to reform the behavior from an ethical standpoint. He read aloud the University of Richmond’s policy, which classifies harassment as verbal, written, or physical. The jurisdiction of the university covers affiliates, contractors, and even guest lecturers receiving honoraria. Employees are compelled to report harassment, and the university must investigate if a claim is brought up.
Rankine posed two case studies. In the first, he described a consensual relationship with a mismatched power dynamic, in which a senior woman professor is dating a junior male professor in the department, and a bystander witnesses public displays of affection both on and outside of campus. Audience members raised concerns of favoritism, unfair power dynamics, spousal hires, consent, conflicts of interest, and openness with colleagues. There may be an issue on the level of professional decorum, even if the behavior is not contrary to law or policy. It is important to keep a record, even if there are no legal findings. If a harasser has tenure, recourse is limited. Rankine returned to the idea from a previous talk about the “general asshole” who bullies multiple colleagues. “I think the asshole needs to evolve now…this behavior is no longer going to be tolerated.”
The second case study described a new supervisor who schedules a meeting during Rosh Hashanah when an employee, with whom the supervisor has a rivalry, is Jewish. The audience felt there might be plausible deniability, but does that have bearing? The employee should speak directly with the supervisor and could take this as an opportunity to educate. This, unfortunately, calls on us to be the educators. An audience member related this scenario to one in which childcare schedules are ignored in meeting plans. “Sometimes what we have is a range of more and less sucky alternatives.”
Final Q&A
Rankine’s talk led directly into a final discussion. Documentation is important, people agreed, but it takes time and energy. There was disagreement over how to deal with microaggressions. Some expressed concern that they be lumped together with more serious harassment behaviors, such as assault and rape, while others advocated that we need to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, approach. Zuckerberg emphasized the importance of microaffirmations, an idea championed by Helen Morales, “in response to the little stings and barbs that push you out.”
Set up a support system of people to remind you why you’re in the field. We should be careful not to minoritize these questions as “a women’s problem,” but affirm that they are the responsibility of the institutions and everyone in the field. “Those of us in positions need to use our positions.” Policies should not be the end — it is useful, noted Rankine, to bring in outside training, because our expertise is in Classics, not harassment. This will be beneficial “for the purpose of productivity, but happiness matters as well.”
