The Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act
was intended to “strike at the whole spectrum of dis-
parate treatment of men and women.” It agreed with
the EEOC’s designation of two types of harassment,
comparing a hostile work environment based on
sex to a hostile environment for racial minorities.
“Surely a requirement that a man or woman run a
gauntlet of sexual abuse in return for the privilege of
being allowed to work and make a living can be as de-
meaning and disconcerting as the harshest of racial
epithets.” The Court defined a hostile environment
as one in which the harassment was severe or perva-
sive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
It left the issue of employer liability undefined, al-
though it did indicate that at a minimum, employers
should provide guidelines and grievance procedures
to address incidents of sexual harassment.
Widespread Harassment Feminist scholars and le-
gal experts argued that sexual harassment was incor-
porated into a social structure of unequal power be-
tween men and women. They contended that in a
patriarchal society, the behavior had more to do with
men asserting control over women than with sexual
attraction. In that sense, harassment could be seen
as part of a continuum of power and control that in-
volved other crimes against women. Just as domestic
violence and rape had often been ignored or dis-
torted by the legal system, so sexual harassment was,
until the 1980’s, treated as private conduct, “flirt-
ing,” or “romance on the job.” Some commentators
noted that sexual harassment helped keep women
subordinated in the workplace and that inappro-
priate sexual comments were designed to remind
women of their inferior status.
Numerous surveys showed that sexual harassment
was prevalent in many women’s experience. Studies
of women employed by the federal government con-
ducted in 1981 and 1987 reported that 42 percent of
women had experienced harassment on the job dur-
ing the previous two years. Likewise, reports showed
that 30 to 40 percent of women working in private
business had been harassed. The most dramatic re-
sults came from the military, where 64 percent had
been touched, pressured for sexual favors, or—in 5
percent of the cases—raped. Women in the military
who reported harassment stated that reporting made
their lives worse in every way.
Sexual harassment was an issue in educational
institutions, as well as in employment. Studies of
college campuses conducted by the National Associ-
ation for Women Deans, Administrators, and Coun-
selors in the 1980’s found that 7 percent of women
students said faculty members had made unwanted
advances; 14 percent had been asked on dates by
professors; 34 percent experienced leering; and 65
percent had been the target of sexual comments. Al-
though a considerable number of them avoided cer-
tain classes because of faculty members’ reputations,
none of the women had reported the offensive con-
duct to the administration.Impact Despite the legal protection against sexual
harassment, women only infrequently told their su-
pervisors or authorities about the behavior. Many
claimed they feared they would not be taken seri-
ously. Mandated corporate training in regard to
sexual harassment became widespread, but it was
not always taken seriously. Some comedians even
lampooned the perceived oversensitivity that re-
quired such training to be instituted.Subsequent Events The situation improved slowly
and unsteadily in the next decade, particularly after
high-profile harassment scandals in 1991 brought
further impetus to the national conversation. In
that year, Professor Anita Hill testified before a com-
mittee of the United States Senate that Clarence
Thomas, a nominee for the Supreme Court, had re-
peatedly sexually harassed her when they worked to-
gether a decade earlier. A scandal also resulted from
a 1991 convention of the Tailhook Association, an
organization composed of naval aviators. Eighty-
three women and seven men reported being sexu-
ally harassed or assaulted during the convention.Further Reading
Atwell, Mary Welek.Equal Protection of the Law? Gen-
der and Justice in the United States. New York: Peter
Lang, 2002. Examines how gendered perspec-
tives have been incorporated into the American
legal system.
Forrell, Caroline A., and Donna M. Matthews.A Law
of Her Own: The Reasonable Woman as a Measure of
Man. New York: New York University Press, 2000.
Study suggesting reforms that would take better
account of women’s experience in defining sex-
ual harassment and other such legal terms.
MacKinnon, Catherine. “Toward Feminist Jurispru-
dence.” InFeminist Jurisprudence, edited by Patri-
cia Smith. New York: Oxford University Press,The Eighties in America Sexual harassment 869