Today we will hear from a local lawyer on the topic:
Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer. But I’m not this kind of lawyer. I’ve never taken on a sexual harassment claim nor defended one. While I think it’s useful to refer to the law in issues like these, I’m no more a legal expert in this area than the average reader.
When I think about the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace (as so many of us are right now), I’m seeing it from the employer’s perspective and from the male perspective. I think the recent happenings in Hollywood, in American politics and in universities around the globe are forcing those of us with those perspectives to look at the issue of workplace harassment with a broader perspective than we may have previously.
The Community Legal Assistance Society of BC (CLAS) has an excellent breakdown of the legal definition of sexual harassment in the workplace here. The key elements given to us by the case law are:
a. Conduct of a sexual nature which is gender based,
b. Conduct that is unwelcome, and
c. Conduct that detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse job- related consequences.
From an employer’s perspective, I have tended to see these things in pretty black and white terms for myself. I’m the boss. Marital status notwithstanding, it’s clearly inappropriate for me to engage with any of my staff in any of the conduct that has elements “a” and “b” above, because doing so carries far too high a risk of also becoming “c”. And I feel the same way about the responsibilities of employees down the chain. However, I’ve never had to consider whether sexual advances between peers in the workplace are acceptable and though it’s never become an issue for me, I’ve failed to recognize some important issues in defining workplace sexual harassment.
The CLAS page notes that “consensual conversations about sex are not prohibited in the workplace” but I’ve always been extremely uncomfortable when that sort of talk is engaged in in the office, even when it seems clearly consensual. The law appears to support the idea that in such situations, if everyone is “participating” the onus is on the person who feels uncomfortable to raise an objection. I think for a very long time, this seemed fine to me. It’s all in good fun right?
Recent famous events have me thinking a little harder about this. As I said I’m often uncomfortable in these situations. I’m the boss. If anyone has comfort in the power to say “this is inappropriate and I don’t want to hear it here” it’s me – and I’m still reluctant to do so, simply out of a desire not to “spoil everyone’s fun”. If I feel this way, what is the likelihood that the men and women working at the lowest positions feel completely unable to express their discomfort? Even if they are joining in the “banter” they may be doing so out of what they believe to be necessity. I feel now that it is ethically unfair to place the onus on them. No, I think the boss needs to be responsible. As an employer, I need to take responsibility for fostering a work environment that is free, as much as possible, of the sort of sexual talk or innuendo that may not only make feel people uncomfortable, but worse, obligated to participate.
The other thing I think I’ve never paid particular attention to is what exactly we mean by “workplace” when we talk about “sexual harassment in the workplace”. Obviously, things that occur at our physical place of work count. Meetings to conduct business, travelling in a vehicle with other staff for work, these are easy cases, few would act as if they are not “in the workplace” when they are actively engaging something “for work”. But the line begins to blur astonishingly quickly – the television and movie trope about the “office Christmas party” is a trope for a reason (there may be a chicken and egg debate to be had here, but nevertheless) and all sorts of behavior that would clearly be inappropriate at work seems to be treated, again, as all in good fun. Drinks after work may seem like an innocent invitation but may be opening the door for more intimate advances. At what point can someone safely say “we are no longer in the workplace” so these standards don’t apply?
Free will is such a great idea. I would totally choose it if it existed. Believing we are in control of our destiny, becoming who we want to be, taking (and giving) credit for our successes and knowing who to blame for failures. Everyone loves free will. Religion loves it so much it made room for where there is none.
But isn’t the problem obvious? Free will hinges on being able to choose, and I just don’t see how it can be possibly true that we ever have a choice. That’s the illusion. We think we are making our own choices among the available alternatives, but really, we couldn’t have chosen otherwise.
The moment before you make any decision is the last stop in a casual chain of events spanning from the beginning of time. Whichever way you could think to interfere is just another necessary part of the chain that will inevitably lead to the decision you can’t avoid. This is because every cause has one – and only one – effect. We observe that to be true.
So the way something is at any given moment is the only way it could have been. If it were anything else, then the moment that came before has to be different to have caused it, and the moment before that, before that… so unless our past is constantly rewriting itself, we have no choice. For free will to be true, we need to have been able to act otherwise. But there is no way to avoid acting the way you do.
It does seem like sort of a cop-out, I know. Maybe whatever’s going on in our brains before we make the choice that we couldn’t have made otherwise is free will in action? But that doesn’t make it any less true that there is only one choice we do make, and it was the only choice we can make. Doesn’t that negate free will?
And the other thing – how do you know it’s your conscious self that accounts for any decision you ever make, anyway? Our actions are our choices, but what drives our actions? The unseen forces of desire. And what accounts for desire but a whole bunch of stuff that’s out of our control? Hormones, genes, and the effect of a lifetime of experiences that happen to us. We are the sum of all of this, and more. This is what decides what choice to make – this is the programming we’re stuck with.
Maybe we can define freedom as being able to do what we want, if we wanted. But often it turns out that we didn’t really want what we chose after all./ And how often do we have desires we don’t approve? Ones we wish we had? If we could choose how to feel we’d be a lot happier with our choices because they’re the only ones we would have wanted. But apparently we can’t choose how to feel, so how can we take responsibility for what comes of it?
We’re just automatons living in a mechanistic universe – I can’t see it any other way. Now excuse me, it’s time for my kill-crazy rampage.
There is a very timely two-part lecture series coming up at the Institute of Practical Philosophy at Vancouver Island University in April:
For more information, see the Institute of Practical Philosophy Events page.
“Join our journey through a classic short story, ‘A Jury of Her Peers,’ by Susan Glaspell. Along the way, you’ll solve the mystery of whether Minnie Wright killed her husband and explore the story’s literary elements. You will also encounter rest stops where you can read more about the structure of story and take part in activities related to ‘A Jury of Her Peers’. “
We used this story once in a moral philosophy class. Worth a read or a re-read!
Exciting news today, dear readers! Below find links to a classic short story by Susan Glaspell that will ask you to consider some important questions about law and literature, relationships, obligations, women and the law, responsibility.
Read it here.
Listen to it here.
Read about the story and its source here.
Read the newspaper articles about the case here.
Please join the discussion!
Discrimination law raises interesting questions in legal and moral philosophy. Most countries have discrimination laws, but what exactly should discrimination laws forbid? And what makes discrimination laws justified in the first place? Despite the fact that discrimination is a hot topic in a wider political context and the fact that more and more complaints about unfair treatment are articulated as complaints about discrimination, currently there is only a surprisingly small, but growing, literature on philosophical issues related to discrimination in general and discrimination law in particular. For that reason, among others, Deborah Hellman and Sophia Moreau’s contribution is welcome and much needed. Their book contains contributions by thirteen theorists, all with different takes on the philosophical foundations of discrimination law. So, not surprisingly, it provides an overview of an emerging field but makes no underlying core claims about it. Indeed, the editors stress that one aim of their volume is “to demonstrate that certain questions are worth investigation” (blurb). The book does so in an exemplary manner, and, invariably, the chapters provide interesting arguments for the conclusions their authors advocate. I suspect the volume will become a standard reference in philosophical discussions of discrimination and discrimination law.