U15289%uicvm.uic.edu@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.EDU (06/21/91)
In article <91168.164210U23700@uicvm.uic.edu>, U23700%uicvm.uic.edu@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.EDU says: > > Officially, our workplace policy is that display of sexual material >in the work place constitutes sexual harassment. This, to me, connotes the kind of vague and/or overbroad definition of sexual harassment that can only undermine the fight against genuine harass- ment. To define the "display of 'sexual material'" as harassment **per se**, without reference either to the specific content of the material, or the intent of the displayer, is treading on thin ice with respect to individual liberties--particularly when there is a significant risk of punitive sanctions being imposed on the displayer. Granted, almost anything with sexual content will be considered erotica by some, and pornography by others. But can a classic Edward Weston nude photograph, on display in an office, seriously be considered to be on the same level as a cutout from Hustler, from the standpoint of determining the presence or absence of a harassment situation? What is more, it is essential to determine both the actual effect of the erotic image in question on the complainant, and whether there is demonstrable **mens rea** on the part of the person on whose walls the image appears. The various postings to this newsgroup on this topic have posited a number of reasons why people display, or merely view, "erotic images" in their places of employment. It is implausible that any and all of these images will serve to make the working environment "hostile, lewd and intimidating," or otherwise truly untenable emotionally, to a person of ordinary sensibilities. (The latter two words, I think, are crucial to a viable definition of sexual harassment, but are all too often overlooked). It should be emphasized that this is a much higher threshold of actionability, as it were, than mere "offensiveness," deviation from individual definitions of political correct- ness, etc.; Jim Mason's insightful essay on this aspect of the problem (article <1991Jun14.190752.209@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>) is hereby recommended to the reader. Nor is there necessarily either an intent to harass (by either the broader or narrower definition), or an indifference to possible effects, on the part of every displayer; this too must be considered in formulating and administering a just policy on harassment. (I would venture to say that there is some correlation between content and intent; pictures on the Hustler end of the continuum alluded to above are far more likely to reflect a truly harassing intent than those on the Weston end, or even the Playboy point). All this represents a separate issue, of course, from the norms on "businesslike" or "unbusinesslike" decor (as well as dress, etc.) that may be prevalent in particular occupational groups. Particular displays (erotic and otherwise) may be impolitic in the context of particular work settings, without falling within any defensible definition of environmental sexual harassment. And it should never be forgotten that an overinclusive definition of harassment, by the display of visual images or otherwise, risks functioning at cross purposes with itself. If every picture of an erotic or sexual nature is actionable in principle, the standard will eventually become so watered down that communications and actions that really do make the workplace emotionally untenable for some people may be less likely to be acted against in practice. Mitch Pravatiner BITNET U15289 at UICVM