At a 27 February House Science Committee hearing, Democrats and Republicans alike were united in calling for changes necessary to ensure institutions of research and higher education are free of sexual harassment. The four witnesses on an all-woman panel called for changes within a culture they say remains permissive of harassment and other misconduct.
The hearing’s focus on sexual harassment in the sciences takes place against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement, which has spurred national momentum over the last year to demonstrate the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and assault. Most notably, NSF recently announced plans to require all grantee institutions to report to the agency any harassment investigations and associated disciplinary actions.
This is not the first time sexual harassment in the sciences has risen to the attention of federal policymakers. The issue first gained widespread media attention in 2015 after several prominent astronomers were accused of sexual harassment. In 2017, five science funding agencies and three private organizations launched a National Academies study to examine the impacts of sexual harassment in academia and potential interventions to prevent and address it. And earlier this year, House Science Committee leaders sent a bipartisan letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting a review of how federal science agencies handle harassment claims against researchers.
Representative Barbara Comstock (R-VA), who chairs the research and technology subcommittee, opened the hearing by declaring that “sexual harassment, abuse of power, and intimidation in the workplace, classroom, or research field site is unacceptable in any situation.” She also cast sexual harassment as an issue “that is costing our economy if we don’t get this right.”
Those sentiments were echoed by members on both sides of the aisle, including Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), who pointed out that addressing the issue will remove barriers to scientific innovation. “A working environment that is free from harassment and abuse and power abuse will mean that researchers can focus their full attention on finding the next great scientific achievements,” she said.
Identifying harassment
Panelist Kathryn Clancy is an anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who studies sexual harassment in academia. She said that although “come ons”—unwanted sexual advances and coercions—tend to be the focus of discussion of forms of harassment, it is “put downs”—offensive remarks, small exclusions, coffee-making requests, and other denigrating activities—that are more prevalent and are the main reason why women leave science.
Attorney Kristina Larsen said those types of gender-based transgressions are “nearly impossible to prove” due to their “incremental” nature and that many are not considered illegal under discrimination laws. Furthermore, she said that limitations in policing individual academic faculty actions make it easy for faculty to abuse their authority.
Clancy said sexual harassment has certain telltale signs, including “women having less access to their advisers [and] to the materials they need to conduct their research, and withstanding constant questioning of their intelligence and worth.” During the course of her research, Clancy received anecdotes from women scientists “of sabotaged lab equipment, of intentional safety violations, or rumor mongering, and yes, sometimes of sexual assault and rape.”
Clancy argued that science suffers from the loss of perspectives from women and other underrepresented groups, and alluded to a case of harassment by an Antarctic researcher:
I’m thinking of the victims and the science we’ve lost. We’ve lost their ideas, we’ve lost their perspectives. We scientists do this work because we want to give the best of ourselves to the advancement of science. Women keep trying to give us their best, and we blow ash in their faces and push them down mountains.
Sexual harassment occurs more frequently in workplaces that are male-dominated or have a male-oriented culture, Clancy told lawmakers. Within the sciences, she said the prevalence of harassment may also stem from a culture that regards it as bound up with “intellectual rigor and meritocracy.”
Fixing the problem
Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments protects individuals at all federally funded education programs or activities from gender-based discrimination, including sexual harassment and sexual violence. It requires federal grant-awarding agencies to enforce institutional compliance with the law, which typically entails investigating complaints and conducting compliance reviews. If the agencies find an institution has not remedied discrimination, Title IX gives them the discretion to terminate funding or refer the institution for judicial action. However, the GAO has found that agency enforcement of Title IX compliance varies, a situation that House Science Committee leaders called “troubling” in their letter.
Larsen added that there are still problems with how institutions report and adjudicate complaints under laws like Title IX. She said victims are often confused about where to get help, and once they do come forward there is risk of detrimental professional and personal consequences.
To achieve real progress, Clancy said the scientific enterprise needs to “move away from a culture of compliance and toward a culture of change.” She and Larsen emphasized the importance of workplace climate surveys in identifying the underlying problems. Clancy stressed that scientific institutions “need to do a lot more of the hard work, not just slapping on a policy.” Larsen similarly advised against a stand-alone policy, saying, “I often tell people don’t write a zero-tolerance policy until you’re really clear on what you’re not tolerating.”
Comstock asked the panel whether checklists of appropriate conduct could help. “It’s on the PI or the boss or the director of the field site to be the one creating that checklist and the one responsible for it,” Clancy replied, adding that “it really has to be the person in charge demonstrating leadership and making clear what’s acceptable and not acceptable in both implicit and explicit codes of conduct.”
Federal and society efforts ramp up
Rhonda Davis, head of NSF’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion, testified that the agency’s new grantee reporting requirements will go into effect in early May, following a 60-day public comment period. NSF also instituted a foundation-wide special task force to examine and collect “promising practices and model codes of conduct.”
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), the subcommittee’s ranking member, stressed that NSF needs to ensure that the new reporting requirements do not “chill the investigations of assault for fear of making a finding that jeopardizes grant money.” Davis said that institutions shying away from investigations do so “at their own peril,” noting that NSF is launching a web portal that will allow any individual to report misconduct directly to the agency. Panelist Christine McEntee, executive director of the American Geophysical Union, said that bystanders should be trained to recognize and report harassment and misconduct.
Policymakers are also exploring ways to update how sexual harassment is addressed through Title IX. The Higher Education Act reauthorization legislation approved by the House Education and Workforce Committee in December would require institutions to conduct confidential workplace climate surveys periodically. It would also provide institutions the discretion to suspend or delay proceedings that are being investigated by local law enforcement and to ensure that investigations are “prompt, impartial, and fair to both the accuser and the accused.” Meanwhile, Politico reports that there is growing support for the establishment of independent regional centers that would examine allegations independently of institutions’ own investigations.
McEntee encouraged lawmakers to pass legislation that “holds harassers accountable and encourages a safer, more inclusive environment for all scientists.”
Scientific societies have also taken steps to address sexual harassment. McEntee explained how the American Geophysical Union has updated its ethics policy to define harassment, bullying, and discrimination as scientific misconduct and has revised its norms of acceptable scientific behavior. She said violations of the new policy could lead to revocation of awards or membership. Several other scientific societies, including the American Astronomical Society and the American Geosciences Institute, have implemented similar guidelines and policies.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) asked whether the impact of the #MeToo movement could generate fear and backlash against women in the sciences. “That fear already exists,” McEntee responded. “We can’t allow fear of backlash to stop us from trying to address and create the kind of positive work environment we need for science.”
This article is adapted from a 6 March post on FYI, which reports on federal science policy with a focus on the physical sciences. Both FYI and Physics Today are published by the American Institute of Physics.
