Hundreds of thousands of parents are tightening their belts
to write out huge tuition checks for a son or daughter going to
university this September. Others are taking money out of every
paycheck for their younger children's education. Part of what
they are paying for is the fiasco of sexual harassment policies
in academia that act as a hidden tax on everyone's
pocketbook.
How?
Sandra Banack was recently awarded $75,000 in damages and her
attorney was awarded an additional $236,804 in fees for a sexual
harassment suit brought against Cal State University at
Fullerton (CSUF).
No sexual touching or language was alleged: no one lost a job
or salary. Rather, the university was found guilty of
reprimanding Banack about a possible trespass upon private
property and violation of a permit from the Department of Fish
and Game during a class field trip. The reprimand was judged to
have been both unfounded and directed at Banack because she is a
woman. Thus, CSUF has been ordered to pay approximately
$312,000. The figure does not include such costs as CSUF's own
legal fees.
The University is appealing. According to the Los Angeles
Times (August 13, 2001), "while Cal State Fullerton appeals
the Banack verdict, her award is earning interest at 7% a year."
If CSUF loses, Banack's attorney will seek additional fees that
could rise as high as $100,000. The Banack case is the third
time in one year that CSUF has been ordered to pay a six-figure
award in a sexual harassment suit. The other two awards combined
come to over $500,000 -- not counting any legal expenses.
CSUF is just one school. Sexual harassment policies,
procedures, complaints, and lawsuits are ongoing at virtually
every university and college in America. No figure exists on how
much money harassment suits have collectively cost academia
within the last twelve months. Nor is there an estimate on how
much tuitions have risen in response.
Even if the figures did exist, they would indicate only a
fraction of how much the average person is paying for the
crusade against sexual harassment in academia. The cost is not
merely in tuition but in tax dollars because federal funds have
been pumped for almost two decades into what the iconoclastic
feminist Daphne Patai calls the Sexual Harassment Industry
(SHI). The SHI includes the researchers, scholars,
sensitivity/diversity trainers, university officials,
psychologists, bureaucrats (such as those in the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission) and all others whose pocket
books are enriched by tax money to fight sexual harassment.
Again, no reliable figures exist on how much tax money the
SHI collectively sops up each year. It can only be estimated.
Patai reported that her employer, the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, paid $1,250 to $1,800 per day (each)
to sexual harassment prevention trainers, $180 per hour for
consultation, and over $10,000 for expenses such as hotel rooms
and meals. This was merely one training course at one
university, which was part of a much larger sexual harassment
program. Multiply this by almost every university or college of
any size.
The SHI has a financial interest in expanding both the
definition of sexual harassment and the application of policies
against it. Thus, the definition of harassment has come to
include behavior that seems trivial or unconnected to sexuality.
The influential book Sexual Harassment on Campus: a Guide
for Administrators, Faculty, and Students (1997) was
co-authored by Bernice Sandler who may well be the most
prominent figure in the SHI. According to the Guide,
sexual harassment includes sexual bantering, humor about females
or sex, laughing at someone or not taking her seriously when she
speaks of experiencing sexual harassment, leering or having what
it calls "elevator eyes", as well as attempted or actual sexual
assault.
The Guide's description of sexual harassment equates
having "elevator eyes" with sexual assault. It places trivial
behavior under the same heading as a brutally criminal attack
and, so, converts something that is inconsequential into
something that is legally actionable.
In doing so, the law invites abuse by "victims" whose
discomfort over trivial behavior is often used as the litmus
test of whether sexual harassment happened. In her book
Heterophobia, Patai describes several cases typifying the
abuse that occurs. For example, Susan Hippensteele won a suit
against the University of Hawaii because a professor once
"grabbed her" and kissed her on the forehead. Describing the
experience as so traumatic as to be "life changing,"
Hippensteele received her Ph.D. in psychology and accepted a job
on the same campus as a "sexual harassment counselor/victim's
advocate." In an essay in the Guide, Hippensteele says
she looks forward to the day when the "inevitable expansion of
the common definition of sexual harassment" in order to improve
the effectiveness of "tools for intervention and prevention." In
short, she wants sexual harassment to include even more
territory.
Lawsuits and university policies that broaden "sexual
harassment" ensure that money will keep flowing from public
coffers into the pockets of the SHI. It will keep hiking up the
amount on tuition checks written by parents who care enough for
their children to pay the price.