Sexual Harassment In William Shaw's The Organization And The People In It

In Chapter 11 of William Shaw’s The Organization and the People in It goes over issue of sexual harassment in the workplace and its effects. Sexual harassment is defined as the “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”, most reports of sexual harassment are from women accusing men however men accusing women is becoming more prevalent in todays society (Shaw, p.444). Sexual harassment is a moral issues because a person becomes a victim by means of verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual nature and not being able to refuse them without fear that something worse will happen.
Shaw describes two types of sexual harassment, “quid pro quo” and “hostile work environment” in both cases the victim can be a man or a woman and in both cases sexual harassment is illegal.
The “quid pro quo” harassment culprit is a boss or supervisor that gives certain employees below them benefits if they enter into a sexual relationship, or grant sexual favors to the boss/supervisor (Shaw, p.444). This form of sexual harassment is hard to argue, the suppressor is clearly taking advantage of the subordinate, because the subordinate is at risk for losing their job if they don’t participate.
The second type of

sexual harassment, a hostile work environment is broader than quid pro quo because it includes each person in the work place and includes a range of acts that can be classified as sexual harassment. In this case we will use a woman as a victim, a hostile work environment impedes on her ability to work at her full capacity because men are sexually harassing her through comments, emails, jokes and remarks.

Sadly I think sexual harassment is a norm in the present day workplace and has been for decades. Although it is more common than we like to think many incidents go unrecorded because the victim is too afraid to come forward because of the fear they will be rejected, fired, and looked down on.
The pressure to please superiors and the rewards, like the promise of promotions, should not come at the cost of sexual harassment. The Kantian perspective would be that victims are being treated as means, not as ends—and therefore is unmoral. A person and their bodies should not be used to negotiate promotions. The intention behind the culprit’s acts is to take advantage since the intention is negative under Kant’s theory the act of sexual harassment is unethical.

In Peter Schmidt’s article in the Chronicle of Higher Education journal describes a case where a university professor for sexual harassment in regards to a former student.

According to the article, the professor was punished because “officials declared that he had violated "the spirit of" a university rule barring romantic relationships between instructors and their students”(Schmidt). At the time of the relationship, which was voluntary, the student was no longer in the class so she was not his student so the reason for which the professor is punished is invalid. Also, this case does not meet the criteria for sexual harassment because it was a voluntary relationship and neither pressed any

charges.

Implicitly, I think the accusers used a virtue perspective because they did not consider the intentions or consequences- both of which were good in terms of the student didn’t ‘get ahead’ and there wasn’t a conflict of interest. The committee that punished the professor looked at his character and deemed him unethical because he was in a relationship with a former student. Ultimately the professor resigned due to the public scrutiny that unfolded as a result of the universities decision.

I think this case should have been looked at in a Kantian perspective because the intentions of the relationship were pure. He had a voluntary relationship with a former student; neither of them was coerced into the relationship. Part of the definition of sexual harassment is one person being coerced into something they don’t want by someone, and this isn’t the case for the professor and student.
At the time of the relationship the student was no longer in the class the professor taught so the rule, which the university claimed he broke, he didn’t.

I think sexual harassment and misconduct is wrong, however I believe it is wrong because someone or multiple people become victims because they are subject to treatment they don’t want or ask for. Sexual harassment is a parasitic relationship, one-person benefits at the expense of the other. In the case of the professor and student the relationship is mutualistic, both being treated in a good way. I do not think that the professor and student case fits the criteria of sexual harassment and therefore I think it was wrong or the school to punish they teacher which lead to him leaving the university.