Navigating sexual harassment

The spicier way to approach this article would be to directly reference events that have most recently sparked debate about sexual harassment.

Unfortunately, I feel that in this case, that would be a little too close to home and distract from some key arguments so I will opt for a drier approach.

Some will believe this and some will not but my motivation for this article is not based on my personal beliefs regarding the guilt or innocence of the recently accused but on my observations on the discussions in some circles that have followed these allegations.

In the emotionally charged issue of sexual harassment, one potential way to facilitate mature and objective discourse is to take a step back and identify some meta-goals and principles we should ultimately be looking to uphold.

First and foremost, the right of all individuals to be free of and protected from sexual harassment is a primary priority. I think for our purposes it is fair to take this as a given.

Defining the exact parameters of what does and does not constitute sexual harassment in a manner that satisfies all parties has traditionally been slightly more challenging but for the purpose of this article at least, it may suffice to say that any comments, actions or advances of a sexual nature that are unwanted and make the target feel uncomfortable constitute sexual harassment.

The other fact that I think is fair to take as a given is the manner in which individuals (especially women) who have suffered sexual harassment have been subjected to a culture where many accusations are unfairly dismissed, where people have tried to silence their voices and where recourse to justice has been painfully difficult.

The endemic prevalence of cases where no action has been taken against male perpetrators, where tactics of victim shaming and cover-ups are the norms and so on point to a serious systematic problem.

Sexual harassment, especially by men towards women, is a huge problem - and to ignore or dismiss it does indeed constitute sexism.

Burden of proof

All that said, I think I will risk going out on a limb and point out some potential problems some segments of society may be experiencing in dealing with sexual harassment accusations.

The burden of proof can be said to be particularly problematic in cases of sexual harassment.

In terms of evidence, the “worst” case scenario is if something either took place or is alleged to have taken place in a manner in which is impossible to independently verify - in a closed room with no witnesses or no recording devices, for instance.

This may end up in one person’s word against another’s situation, which is, of course, highly problematic. In other cases, however, there is often evidence. Today especially, among other things, we have text messages.

Screencaps and such are not foolproof and can be doctored or manipulated, but they generally constitute fairly convincing proof.

Innocent until proven guilty?

The burden of proof in cases of sexual harassment is sometimes treated a little differently than in other cases. Many people who generally subscribe to the concept of innocent until proven guilty do not always do so when it comes to sexual harassment.

To some extent, this is understandable, when taken in the context of how so many women who have genuinely experienced sexual harassment were not believed and instead subjected to more mistreatment. Again, victim shaming, accusations of being “crazy” or motivated by self-interest and so on.

Having this much injustice perpetrated for so long against women naturally creates a backlash of sorts, in which those who feel passionately about this cause or move in the circles of such people, rush to protect women who describe themselves as being in a similar situation. In the most extreme cases, there might be said to be an element of bandwagoning.

The concept of burden of proof is also sometimes treated a little differently given the nature of sexual harassment which can often be painfully embarrassing or considered compromising for the victim.

Needless to say, there is a pressing need for people who have experienced sexual harassment to feel that they have a safe, supportive space in which they can tell their stories and seek justice without fear or favour.

Impartial, transparent probes

Ultimately though, I think all investigations into sexual harassment must be held to the same standards we would expect of any free, fair, impartial and transparent investigation.

Such an investigation should not be prejudiced by already having some sort of preconceived inclination to believe one side of a story or another.

This would be akin to someone who feels strongly about stealing believing single every accusation made that someone was a thief. Investigations should instead always be based first and foremost on objective, verifiable facts.

As noted above, just because something cannot be proven (say, to the standards held in a functional court of law), it does not mean that something did not happen.

Any action or punishment that an institution decides on, however, must be proportional to objective, verifiable facts.

It is unfair to dismiss allegations completely simply because the allegations cannot be proven (but it is fair to dismiss allegations that can be disproved with objective, verifiable facts).

For similar reasons, it would be unfair to take institutional action against someone based on allegations that cannot be proven.

Right to personal opinions

These arguments relate to actions that should or should not be taken by an institution in light of allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct.

They do not relate to public opinion. If an individual reads an allegation and forms an opinion of the people involved in the allegation based on things like how the allegation is worded, some impressions they already have of the people involved and so on, then that is something in the realm of a private individual’s opinion.

Everyone obviously has a right to such an opinion and I personally would not be very interested in trying to influence that opinion one way or another in the absence of objective, verifiable facts.

When it comes to actions taken by an institution, however, individual or public opinion should not be the ultimate deciding factor; this would ultimately lead to some form of mob rule.

The deciding factor should be a free, fair, impartial and (importantly) transparent investigations, carried out based on - you guessed it - objective, verifiable facts.

Back to the facts

All too often, we form our opinions based on pre-existing worldviews. It may be wiser, in the long run, to treat each case as its own incident.

Past cases or experiences can serve as guides regarding what to look for, what questions to ask, and what patterns to identify but ultimately, we should look to the facts in each individual case.

If the facts ultimately exonerate the accused, then let us not think less of them. If the facts ultimately implicate the accused, then let the full weight of the hammer of justice fall on them.

In the long term, we should perhaps focus once again on providing safe spaces for victims to speak out, as well as crystal clear guidelines as to what does or does not constitute sexual harassment.

In the short term, what would most likely serve public interest are prompt and transparent investigations in which evidence is made public in an ethical a manner as possible.

---

NATHANIEL TAN seems to recall that in Cardassia, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. He wonders if his article will be dismissed as being too cis male. - Mkini