The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released a report in the last week on the Climate, Culture and Consequences of Sexual Harassment of Women. In this blog post, Karen Fleming, Professor of Biophysics in the TC Jenkins Department of Biophysics at Johns Hopkins University and member of the Biophysical Society's Committee for Professional Opportunities for Women, discusses the report.
Fully discussing this report is beyond the scope of a single blog post, but the findings will come as no surprise to most women in STEM. In fact, the NASEM cites literature suggesting that 58% of women in academics experience some kind of harassment. Fifty-eight percent! Although many of us have been quietly sharing stories with each other that are typical of the ones described in this report, 58% is still an astoundingly high number. Simply as a validation of women’s experiences, this comprehensive, nearly 300-page document is already highly impactful because it sends an important message: if you have been a target, you are not alone. Still, we cannot stop here with acknowledgement of the problem. We must do better.
The NASEM report makes progress with this mandate by digging deeper into the structural nature of this hostile environment. One of the key points to this effect is that “the most potent predictor of sexual harassment is organizational climate – the degree to which those in the organization perceive that sexual harassment is or is not tolerated.” Given the high incidence of harassment, this finding alone is a call to action for institutions to be intentional about creating and nurturing an inclusive community. Yet, institutions have gravitated towards what the NASEM calls “symbolic compliance with the law,” which can often result in isolation of the victim and minimal if any consequences to the perpetrator. We saw this pattern play out with the case of Inder Verma as reported by Science magazine, in which reports of harassing behavior over a span of 30 years resulted, until recently, in minimal consequences to this prominent scientist.
What does intentional institutional transformation look like?
The NASEM report cites data suggesting that as a first step – no surprise – diversity matters. Historically and currently, most leadership positions are held by men. This includes university presidents, provosts, deans and chairs. Most full professors are also men. Because diversity is largely “countable,” we can ask: are we making progress? Unfortunately, data from the NSF shows that the percentage of tenured female professors at R1 institutions is increasing by a dismal 0.73% per year. At this rate, it will take not one, but two generations before there is gender parity in the professoriate. Furthermore, the NASEM cites a study indicating that number of black women in STEM is actually decreasing. Together this maintains the status quo and “…this situation of majority male leadership can, and has, resulted in minimization, limited response, and failure to take the issue of sexual harassment or specific incidents seriously.”
To wit, a serious consideration of complaints is identified as a second critical area of opportunity for institutional transformation. The NASEM report agrees with many of our opinions from the trenches in that “symbolic compliance with the law” is clearly inadequate and not working. Rather, there needs to be evidence-based best practices that actually prevent harassment and retaliation and that support women, scientists with intersectional identities, and scientists who are members of racial, sexual, or gender minorities.
What is also useful about the report are the chapters that define characteristic types of harassment and hostility in the STEM workplace. This provides our community with a clear vocabulary for discussing these issues going forward. Studies show that it matters how incidences of harassment are perceived and described, and solutions to the problematic climate will require that harassment is accurately identified. Chapters 2 and 3 of the NASEM report covers the different forms of harassment. The distinction between unwanted sexual attention and gender harassment is particularly important. Meredith Wadman summarized this in Science as “Sexual Harassment isn’t just about Sex”. Unwanted sexual attention includes verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances and is certainly a definition we all think of, however gender harassment is the most prevalent type and is defined as verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second class status about one gender. This report chapter also includes a discussion of microaggression, incivility, and distinguishes between harassment that is ambient (e.g. part of the climate) and direct (targeted towards an individual).
Chapter 4 concerns how women respond to harassment and considers the negative psychological and professional outcomes in a hostile environment, including decreased job satisfaction, a sense they do not belong, and organizational withdrawal. Even one or two incidences of harassment can instigate long-term negative effects. Women are reluctant to formally report incidences because of the huge personal and professional costs, the very real damage to one’s career and reputation, and the disappointing responses of institutions. Instead, the NASEM report states that women step down from leadership or collaborative projects to avoid a perpetrator, they leave the institution, or they leave the field. This effective isolation and withdrawal represents a loss of talent in the science, engineering, and medical fields and is a huge cost to the STEM enterprise. These actions of self-preservation directly compete with all of the efforts that institutions might be taking to increase diversity.
Chapters 6 and 7 include tools and recommendations for changing the culture. These include addressing unconscious bias, bystander intervention training, the importance of diversity, especially in the professoriate, and of particular interest for this blog, the role played by professional societies. It is worth noting that the Biophysical Society adopted a Code of Conduct and Anti-Harassment Policy a few years ago. This code of conduct contains a definition of harassment, a description of the investigative process and procedure, and the possible disciplinary actions.
In drawing this post to a close, we should all familiarize ourselves with this important report’s findings and at a minimum read its first few pages where you will find the major themes summarized. And in finishing, I take the liberty to rephrase the final recommendation (No. 15 in the summary) by noting that we - the current practitioners – are the so-called STEM pipeline. We are the core structural elements of academia. We are the lives and souls of universities and research centers. The institutional transformation we so urgently need is not the metamorphosis of a nameless, faceless entity that is someone else’s problem. Rather, our institutions are composed of people: presidents, provosts, deans, faculty, staff, and students. We the people must develop the resolve to solve this problem. Any change must come from within us. We all need to plug the leaks in our STEM pipeline through our actions and words each and every day. All of us at all levels, collectively and individually, have a responsibility to create and nurture inclusion throughout the scientific enterprise.
Let’s do this work. Inclusive excellence depends on it. The next generation is counting on us.
#WeMustDoBetter #WeMustBeBetter #WeCanAllBeAllies