THEY DON’T WANT HER THERE: FIGHTING SEXUAL AND RACIAL HARASSMENT IN THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, by Carolyn Chalmers. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2022. pp.250. Paper $23.00. ISBN-13: 9781609388195.
Reviewed by Sally J. Kenney. Department of Political Science. Tulane University. Email: skenney@tulane.edu.
There was a professor of anatomy
Whose colleagues all thought had a lobotomy
Apartments he had to rent
And his semen was all spent
On a colleague who did his microtomy
Someone scrawled that limerick over the urinal in the men’s bathroom in the University of Iowa Medical School’s Anatomy Department. After years of keeping her head down, suppressing her outrage and humiliation, and getting on with a successful career in science, Professor Jean Jew had had enough. She had exhausted internal complaint procedures and, knowing full well the costs, the low probability of justice, and the high probability of retaliation, she hired a lawyer and filed two lawsuits. Her lawyer Carolyn Chalmers’s riveting account of events goes far beyond a #MeToo description of wrongdoing, and reads more like a legal thriller. Chalmers’s description of the years of struggle to get the University and State of Iowa to act against Professor Jew’s tormentors and remedy its hostile work environment not only demonstrates that intellectual and professional elites alongside movie producers, mine workers, and fire fighters sexually harass, but also reveals sexual harassment to be a systemic problem of institutionalized sex and race discrimination not just the rogue behaviors of a few individuals. mobilization and law as a tool of social change by demonstrating what works when and how by offering those who seek to eradicate sexual harassment and end sex and race discrimination lessons and cautionary tales about the flukiness and precariousness of seeking justice through litigation.
The literature contains many fine examples of plaintiffs’ experiences, notably, Lily Ledbetter’s memoir GRACE AND GRIT (Ledbetter and Isom 2012), and excellent examinations of litigation as a strategy for social change, such as Rachel Devlin’s A GIRL STANDS AT THE DOOR (2018; Kenney 1996). In THEY DON’T WANT HER THERE: FIGHTING SEXUAL AND RACIAL HARASSMENT IN THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Jew’s lawyer narrates how she won both a Title VII case against the University of Iowa, as well as a defamation case against Jew’s lead harasser. Chalmers’s first-person account gives us a rare glimpse into the mind of the lawyer who has to persuade her law firm to invest in a sex discrimination case that would have to expand the doctrine, accept the risk of a contingency fee case, endure the sloppy kiss of an entitled businessman member of the Iowa Board of Regents during settlement negotiations, navigate the legal complexities of keeping multiple complaints going simultaneously in a different state, and boost the spirits and confidence of her client, while juggling marriage and parenthood.
This book has significance far beyond its contributions to law and politics; it is an exposé of how large institutions, like universities, perpetuate white male privilege. It reveals how wildly irrational and vindictive they are in exposing themselves to liability, rather than working to solve problems, how indifferent they are to the findings of internal proceedings, and how unwilling they are to protect and seek to retain high performing employees. Chalmers’s account complements law professor Martha Chamallas’s excellent doctrinal analysis (1994) to illustrate, in copious detail, the lengths the university and state would go to annihilate one of their most productive faculty members. As an observer, an assistant professor in political science and women’s studies, the university’s willingness to squander human capital and savage one of its own shocked me to my core. The university was no different from the judiciary (Lithwick 2022) the press (Carmon 2019) or sports like gymnastics (Denhollander 2019) and soccer (Draper 2022, Streeter 2022). We have long known that universities have colluded to protect college football players facing charges of rape (Krakauer 2015, Krouse 2022) but Chalmers books strikes at the university’s core, scientific research and medical education.
The first women and non-white scholars in science might have expected the workplace of the life of the mind to be different from working-class bastions of toxic masculinity, the oil rig (Ely and Myerson 2006), the firehouse (Chetkovich 1997), the tire plant (Ledbetter and Isom 2012), or the mine (Bingham and Gansler 2002). My parents revered education and during my tenure process, my mother struggled to let go of the deeply held conviction that people who were smarter were necessarily more ethical. It took many years after Congress forbade sex discrimination for courts to recognize sexual harassment under Title VII. Courts labeled early cases as “sex-plus.” Employers were not discriminating against women on the basis of sex, but because they were attractive and men in the workplace wanted to date them. The women of Eveleth mines knew, however, that the men who ejaculated in their lockers were not trying to win their hearts, but rather drive them from the workplace. Chalmers’s title says it all.
Once courts recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination in MERITOR V. VINSON judges would engage in what law professor Vicki Schultz labeled disaggregation (Schultz 1998), assessing each incident and concluding that individual episodes could not form a pattern that summed to a hostile environment. They shrugged their shoulders, as Justice Scalia did in ONCALE SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC. and President Trump did after the release of the ACCESS HOLLYWOOD tape, calling it just “locker room talk” as if that rendered such “boys will be boys” behavior harmless. Rather than protecting a strong grant getter, an educator medical students routinely voted teacher-of-the-year, a coveted recruit for Iowa, and one of its only Asian-American women faculty, the university would ultimately contemplate defending sexually harassing speech on appeal as protected under the rubric of academic freedom.
One need not participate in many faculty decisions, nor have a finely tuned antenna for discrimination to recognize a pattern of rampant double standards. When person A publishes with others, it is a sign of her stature; when person B does, it is evidence that she is coasting on the work of others and cannot do independent work. Candidate A is too inexperienced to handle the job; Candidate B is a star we must nab now before she has dazzled higher-rated and more affluent departments. A book must be out, not just in press or under contract, and have reviews before the voting for tenure or promotion to full of Professor A; Professor B gets tenure based on a likely contract. Professor A who finally publishes a book after many unproductive years is promoted to full professor, despite being under investigation as a serial sexual harasser; Professor B has several books, but are they impactful enough to show evidence of national reputation or compensate for a fallow period (fallow in the sense of academic production, she may have given birth to several children during that time)? In one case, placement is everything; in another, the impact factor is what matters. And so on.
Often, but not always, these mental gymnastics reflect gender double standards whereby mediocre men advance and women or minority men must be twice as good to do so. So, it will come as no surprise that when M.D. Ph.D. Jean Jew arrived at the University of Iowa, as her mentor took up the position as chair of the Anatomy Department, that colleagues in her male-dominated department, college, and field read her achievements through the lenses of race (she was the daughter of Chinese immigrants) and gender (she was an attractive young single woman). Social scientists such as Susan Fiske have well documented such stereotyping and even courts have recognized it since PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS (Chamallas 1990).
A second move to render harm invisible, or rather non-actionable, was to find what the doctrine labels “a legitimate non-discriminatory reason” i.e., an explanation for events that does not have race and gender as causes as if doing so can erase these explanations as contributing factors. (For an excellent summary of the law, see Beiner, 2021). Focusing on these joint causal factors is a form of gas lighting: denying the intersectional relevance of race and gender in highly male-dominated settings (Kanter 1977; Manne 2018). Longstanding members of the Anatomy Department resented their new chair, and therefore resented Professor Jew as another outsider. But, as I have argued extensively elsewhere, in examining the decision of California voters not to retain the first woman chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Rose Bird (Kenney 2013), finding multiple contributory factors does not eliminate the significance of discriminatory ones. Hillary Clinton could have made some campaigning errors AND been the object of widespread misogyny; causal explanations do not need to be all or nothing. In my own case of tenure in political science at the University of Iowa, for example, senior administrators would say, “it’s basically a balance of power issue,” thereby erasing the fact that the balance of power contest was being fought over the first woman to win tenure through the ranks and the first joint appointment with women’s studies. The former dean of liberal arts, himself a political scientist, said to me after his successor granted me tenure (a slim majority had voted in favor, but the chair recommended against) “you are proof the system works.” I replied, saying that’s like asking an innocent man strapped to the electric chair winning an eleventh-hour reprieve to conclude that we have a fair criminal justice system.
I attended the defamation trial Jean Jew brought against her tormentor, Tomanek, as a young assistant professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Iowa (Kenney and Sterett 1999). When I moved to the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, I became acquainted with her lawyer, Carolyn Chalmers as part of a community of feminist legal scholars. As the director of the Newcomb Institute at Tulane University, I came to know Professor Jew better, as she was an alumna of Newcomb College and Tulane Medical School.
Chalmers is not a political science colleague who will rely on my positive review in this prestigious outlet to get a pay raise or promotion, but a retired lawyer. The proceeds from the book (minimal as they are likely to be) are donated. I commend to you this book as a public law scholar and expert in sex discrimination and social movements because I urgently believe it contributes to our understanding of law and politics, but also because I think it so effectively captures the problem of sexual harassment in the academy that has plagued our discipline. The book is, and I use this word carefully and deliberately, triggering. I had thought I knew nearly everything about the case but, nevertheless, I had to put the book down repeatedly and read it over several days. The ultimate picture it paints is far worse than we had previously let ourselves believe. Another reviewer, former clinical law professor and associate law dean Lois Cox, also a highly knowledgeable and informed reviewer, had the same reaction (2022). I was saddened to realize that despite having attended the defamation trial, lived through it, and read Chamallas’s article, I was overwhelmed by how much worse it was than I had realized. I wish I had been a better ally and colleague to Jew.
The ubiquitous nature of sexual harassment in academia has been well documented by the National Academies of Science (2018), Cantalupo and Kidder (2018), Gray-Rosendale (2020), Vettese (2019), recognized by the National Institute of Health (Heidt 2021), and the National Science Foundation who has designated political science as especially problematic (Brown 2019; Brown 2020; Kenney 1995). Each of the four political science departments I worked in over the last 35 years (the University of Illinois, the University of Iowa, the University of Minnesota, and Tulane University) has had a serial sexual harasser who had been adjudicated and found to be one that everyone knew about. The second provost I served under at Tulane and I disagreed vociferously about his decision to promote a serial sexual harasser in the political science department. As in Jew’s case, despite an internal faculty panel finding of responsibility, only after the victims hired a lawyer who put pressure on the university did the process move forward. In addition to the five women who complained, many more victims exist, and he continues to perpetrate harm (Lay 2019). Ultimately, the university issued some sanctions. Possibly a modest pay cut. They moved his office to another building. As is often the case, members of the department do not know what those conditions are, nor can we ensure he honors them because the sanctions are secret—a common institutional policy that desperately needs changing (Jaschik 2022).
For five years, I chaired a faculty sexual harassment committee that made a few modest incremental policy changes, such as passing a university senate resolution that sexual harassment constitutes gross misconduct for purposes of the faculty handbook, creating a single university review committee for all schools, and enacting a policy that faculty cannot have sexual relationships with undergraduates. The provost promised that in the future, he would put promotions on hold if a university grievance process against a faculty member were underway (with back pay if they are found not responsible). Unfortunately, the committee did not establish that serial sexual misconduct can be grounds for the denial of promotion. (The previous woman dean of liberal arts and others argued forcefully that the two things had nothing to do with each other). In addition, the university is doing some background checks at previous institutions, or at least, getting permission from applicants to do so. Ongoing cases of sexual misconduct may be aborted if the person under investigation chooses to resign, thereby clearing their record. When Tulane’s climate survey showed widespread sexual harassment of undergraduates, and the alarmingly high rates of sexual assault on campus (2018), the provost instituted mandatory education despite strong scientific evidence that, in the absence of confidence in the administration and a history of holding abusers accountable, such education makes things worse (Feldblum and Lepnic 2016; McGregor 2017). Those who do not believe sexual harassment is a serious problem are outraged at having to sit through mandatory education; others recognize the action as a cynical substitute for acting against predators.
To paraphrase Justice Blackmun, I will no longer tinker with the internal machinery of holding perpetrators accountable institutional betrayal after institutional betrayal (Ahmed 2021, Smith and Freyd 2013, 2014). These internal procedures are worse than useless. Tulane’s own data shows that only about 1% of cases end up with ANY sanctions. Research by legal scholar Debbie Brake shows that sexual harassment plaintiffs have the lowest success rate of anyone in federal court worse than incarcerated persons (2019).
Where are the bystanders and what Kaufman calls upstanders, the Swedes, for example, who stumbled upon Brock Turner sexually assaulting Chanel Miller while she was unconscious and intervened (2019; Monroe 2019, 144-5)? Faculty members, postdocs, and staff saw the limerick and could have erased it. They could have reined in their colleagues by declaring and enforcing norms. Lithwick wonders why the other judges on the Ninth Circuit as well as former clerks in close relationship with Kozinski, such as Justice Kavanaugh, said or did nothing (2022, 182). No one who watched Anita Hill or Christine Blasey-Ford or survivors of sexual violence such Rachel Denhollander (2019) or Andrea Constand (2021) has any illusions about the costs or the prospect of justice. Lithwick labels the keeping of these open secrets a gargantuan collective action problem (see also Lise Olsen, CODE OF SILENCE).
The one bright spot on the horizon is that professional associations are starting to sanction sexual misconduct. For example, in political science, the Midwest Political Science Association ultimately prevented serial sexual harasser William Jacoby from assuming the powerful position as editor of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE (Hollingsworth, 2018; Sulfaro and Gill, 2019). Geologists, with lots of assaults reported during field work, are leading the way (Geological Society of America; Mervis 2022). The highest profile case in Political Science, so far, has been Jorge Dominguez at Harvard, who continued to be promoted until he was Dean of International Studies despite being found responsible for sexual harassment (Bartlett and Gluckman 2018). An internal departmental analysis demonstrated that a particular chair could make him stop, but as soon as those chairs stepped down, he started harassing again. Harvard provided no deterrent. The National Science Foundation has funded a political science Advance Grant, and another generation will try its hand at prevention and holding perpetrators accountable (Centennial Center 2019). Meanwhile, students and faculty year after year are lambs to the slaughter.
Two powerful documentaries, PICTURE A SCIENTIST and THIRTY-SEVEN WORDS, eloquently capture the problem and its corrosive effects. The former explores three harrowing cases like Jew’s. The latter has a rare and compelling interview with the woman who sued then Yale political scientist Raymond (Bud) Duvall. That case established that sexual harassment did constitute a violation of Title IX, although the judge did not find Duvall responsible. Except for having my bottom pinched by the chair of my department at the first departmental Christmas party as an endowed chair, aged 50, I have not personally experienced that much sexual harassment during 35 years as a political scientist. But, the broader issue of THEY DON’T WANT HER HERE does capture my experience. No matter what you do, or who you are, you will never belong and be a valued member of the group, no matter your stature or accomplishments. The more you distinguish yourself, the more they hate you.
The most powerful lesson of the book is not so much that the men of the anatomy department would stop at nothing to drive Jew out and that, as with so many cases, sexual harassment is a cruel mechanism of sexism, racism, and exclusion, but the story of the intransigence of the university administration and the state attorney general’s office whose reckless and irrational responses ultimately appear no different from Jew’s colleagues. Chalmers then adds the most soul crushing revelation of all: the institutional and structural headwinds Jew encounters are led by middle-aged women who do the harassers’ and institution’s dirty work for them. The two senior administrators blunted Jew’s ability to garner early support by sharing with key opinion leaders (like me) that Jew had been observed having sex with Williams on a table in the Health Science Library. That telephone tree of a whispered smear campaign did not include the information that came out in both trials, that a young woman on Tomanek’s staff had claimed to see Williams having sex on the sofa in his office. How did she know it was Jew? She did not see Jew’s face, but knew it to be her by the color of her legs “consistent with Jew’s” and “darker than Caucasian legs” (2022, 144). Contrary to racist stereotypes, however, Chalmers disarmed the smoking gun of “yellow legs” at the defamation trial by showing the jury her and Jew’s naked legs that were indistinguishable in color. Criminal behavioral analyst formerly of New Scotland Yard, Laura Richards, on her REAL CRIME PODCAST about the documentary about Michael Jackson LEAVING NEVERLAND, describes how women enable men’s predatory behavior, whether it be that of Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein, R. Kelly, or Keith Raniere. As I have argued elsewhere (Kenney 1996, 2013), feminists need a nuanced understanding of the role of women in institutions; women judges, prosecutors, senior administrators, or presidents are no simple panacea for institutional sexism and racism.
Whether it is President Bill Clinton, who enlists women cabinet members Donna Shalala and Madeleine Albright to discredit his victim, or Diane Keaton, who defends Woody Allen, or directors of gender equity institutes, sexual harassers often cultivate feminists who will provide cover. Professor of English Literature Donna Potts has coined the term “feminist beard” for this phenomenon, one that nearly all of us will instantly recognize and which allows predators to hide in plain sight and continue hurting people. Hirschman, in SISTERS IN LAW, powerfully argues that feminists must stop defending sexual harassers who do good things, like funding feminist candidates or defending abortion rights (2015). (Amy Brittain’s brilliant podcast CANARY reveals a progressive judge to be a sexual abuser who issued lenient and non-custodial sentences to other perpetrators [2022]).
Also infuriating is the university’s insinuation during the trial that Jew, like a battered woman, should have left her mentor and co-investigator, her home, and her lab to escape the harassment, as if a magical place existed in academia free of gender and race discrimination. Chalmers contrasts Jew’s choices to those of Hope Jahren, author of LAB GIRL (2016):
Women scientists facing sex discrimination may be better served by leaving the offending institution. The offending university, and the women in it, may be better served when one of their own stays and fights (Chalmers 2022, 101).How many suffer because we are determined not to let them drive us out?
Chalmers’ account is a vivid illustration of the phenomenon Sociologist Dana Britton documented after interviewing successful senior women scientists (2017), many of whom were the first and only women members of their departments (as was Jean Jew). Most of her subjects rejected the metaphor of the “chilly climate”—the idea that discrimination shapes their environment in multiple gendered interactions or microaggressions—and sought to downplay their gender identity, distancing themselves from associating with feminist collective action. Rather than seeing gender as a pervasive force that shapes interactions, they saw it as an unwelcome intrusion—a punctuated equilibrium. The women moved through three career stages. When they encountered routine sexism, they brushed it aside as the bad behavior of an atypical individual—a nuisance. My sister, a molecular biologist, reported attending her first academic conferences in the 1980s where presenters would regularly insert a PLAYBOY or PENTHOUSE centerfold slide. The men in the audience would laugh, while the presenter feigned sheepishness, asking, “how did that slide get in there?” Women eager to cut the crap and do science would ignore it, striving for a gender-neutral ideal of science where they would contribute according to their gifts, rather than be shunned, discounted, excluded, devalued, and prevented from securing funding for their work or publication of their results. In the harrowing documentary, PICTURE A SCIENTIST, MIT Professor of Biology Nancy Thompkins recounts her excitement as a postdoc anticipating meeting Professor Crick, who, along with Watson, was credited with discovering DNA, only to have him come up behind her at her lab desk and grab both of her breasts (Zernike 2023). Phase one, Britton notes, is for women to say, “what a Neanderthal,” and get on with their work. Complaining only made matters worse and got them labeled. Better to distance themselves from those feminists always making a fuss and just get on with the work of science. (Garmus’s 2020 novel LESSONS IN CHEMISTRY beautifully captures these dynamics.)
In phase two, Britton argues, these women are more willing to describe the significant structural factors at work in their organizations. For example, how expectations about emotional labor and femininity lead universities to burden women with disproportionate service. In phase three, however, when women ascend to leadership positions and face intransigence to their deployment of positional power, many rethink the relevance of gender. Women then experience a punctuated equilibrium that is not so easy to dismiss, but instead shatters their illusion that the academy will ultimately recognize and reward hard work and merit. They describe painful interactions that reveal gender at work, such as a dean’s refusal to match the pay of a more junior man, saying “it would turn my stomach to see that woman making that much money” (Britton 2017, 67). The limerick above the urinal proved to be the punctuated equilibrium for Professor Jew.
As Angela Ondatche-Willig does in her alternative rendering of MERITOR for the U.S. FEMINIST JUDGMENTS PROJECT (2016), Chalmers recognizes the relevance of not just gender but race, and the particularity of tropes of Asian women, although her treatment of these issues is rather superficial. Dayle Chung’s undergraduate history thesis on the case invites us to look more carefully at race (2021).
In the documentary about women and film entitled THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING, women directors recount how a feature film directed by a woman winning an award or women lead characters like Thelma and Louise, being box office successes, would lead commentators to say, once again, “this changes everything.” But, the work would then continue to go to the men, and scripts with strong women would not be made no matter how often women directors, producers, writers, actors, proved their mettle.
The University of Iowa created a Jean Jew Justice award to honor Jew. I remember on one occasion, the provost proclaiming that what happened to Jew could never happen again at the University of Iowa while Martha Chamallas, then chair of Women’s Studies, thought to herself “liar liar pants on fire.” Chalmers’s excellent, harrowing, and insightful account does not conclude that “these changes everything,” but instead ends with a recognition of ongoing complaints of sex discrimination in pay and sexual harassment at both the Universities of Iowa and Minnesota (2022, 194). But for Carolyn Chalmers and Jean Jew, nevertheless, they persisted, and we have much to learn from their story.
CASES:
MERITOR V. VINSON, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 52 U.S. 75 (1998).
PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
REFERENCES:
Ahmed, Sarah. 2021. COMPLAINT! Durham: Duke University Press.
Bartlett, Tom, and Nell Gluckman. 2018. “She Left Harvard. He Got to Stay. Did the University’s Handling of One Professor’s Sexual-Harassment Complaint Keep Other Women from Coming Forward for Decades?” CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION. https://www.chronicle.com/article/she-left-harvard-he-got-to-stay/?cid=trend_right&cid2=gen_login_refresh
Beiner, Theresa (Terri). 2021. “Sexual Harassment: The Promise & Limits of a Feminist Cause of Action.” THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF FEMINISM AND LAW IN THE UNITED STATES.
Bingham, Clara, and Laura Leedy Gansler. 2002. CLASS ACTION: THE STORY OF LOIS JENSON AND THE LANDMARK CASE THAT CHANGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday.
Brake, Deborah L. 2019. “Coworker Retaliation in the #MeToo Era.” UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW 49(1): 1–58.
Brittain, Amy. CANARY. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/canary-the-washington-post-investigates/id1532219705
Britton, Dana M. 2017. “Beyond the Chilly Climate: The Salience of Gender in Women’s Academic Careers.” GENDER & SOCIETY 31:16.
Brown, Nadia. 2019. “How the #MeTooPoliSci Collective Is Making a Difference in Political Science.” WASHINGTON POST. August, 30. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/30/how-metoopolisci-collective-is-making-difference-political-science
Brown, Nadia E. 2020. “Me Too Political Science: An Introduction.” JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY 40(1): 1–6.
Cantalupo, Nancy Chi, and William C. Kidder. 2018. “A Systematic Look at a Serial Problem: Sexual Harassment of Students by University Faculty.” UTAH LAW REVIEW 2018(3): 671–786.
Carmon, Irin. 2019. “What was the WASHINGTON POST Afraid of? INTELLIGENCER. April 1.
Grigg, Amanda. 2019. “Four Political Scientists Awarded $1 Million by National Science Foundation to Address Sexual Harassment in the Discipline.” Centennial Center for Political Science and Public Affairs [blog]. August, 23. https://connect.apsanet.org/centennialcenter/2019/08/23/metoopolisci/
Chamallas, Martha. 1990. “Listening to Dr. Fiske: The Easy Case of PRICE WATERHOUSE V. HOPKINS.” VERMONT LAW REVIEW 15(1): 89–124.
———. 1994. “Jean Jew’s Case: Resisting Sexual Harassment in the Academy.” YALE JOURNAL OF LAW AND FEMINISM 6(1): 71–90.
Chetkovich, Carol. 1997. REAL HEAT: GENDER AND RACE IN THE URBAN FIRE SERVICE. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.
Chung, Dayle. 2021a. “JEW V. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Confronting Racialized Sexual Harassment in the Courts and the Academy, 1979-1990.” Yale University.
Cox, Lois. 2022. “Prairie Dog’s Summer Reading List.” THE PRAIRIE PROGRESSIVE: 7.
Denhollander, Rachael. 2019. WHAT IS A GIRL WORTH? MY STORY BREAKING THE SILENCE AND EXPOSING THE TRUTH ABOUT LARRY NASSAR AND USA GYMNASTICS. Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale.
Devlin, Rachel. 2018. A GIRL STANDS AT THE DOOR: THE GENERATION OF YOUNG WOMEN WHO DESEGREGATED AMERICA’S SCHOOLS. New York: Basic Books.
Draper, Kevin. 2022. “Report details ‘systematic abuse’ of players in women’s soccer.” NEW YORK TIMES. October, 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/sports/soccer/us-soccer-abuse-nwsl.html
Ely, Robin J., and Debra E. Meyerson. 2006. “Unmasking Manly Men: The Organizational Reconstruction of Men’s Identity.” In ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNUAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS, Academy of Management, J1–6. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=bth&AN=27161322&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s897882
Feldblum Chai R. and Victoria A. Lipnic. 2016. SELECT TASK FORCE ON THE STUDY OF HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/select-task-force-study-harassment-workplace.
Garmus, Bonnie. 2022. LESSONS IN CHEMISTRY. New York: Doubleday.
Geological Society of America. “Removing Barriers to Career Progression for Women in the Geosciences.” https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Science_Policy/Position_Statements/Current_Statements/gsa/positions/position26.aspx
Gray-Rosendale, Laura, and editor. 2020. ME TOO, FEMINIST THEORY, AND SURVIVING SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THE ACADEMY. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Heidt, Amanda. 2021b. “Sexual Harassment Complaints in Academia Are Up Since 2018.” THE SCIENTIST.
Hirshman, Linda R. 2015. HOW SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR AND RUTH BADER GINSBURG WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND CHANGED THE WORLD. New York, NY: Harper.
Hollingsworth, Karyn S. 2018. “Political Scientist Empowers Others with Her #MeToo Moment Rebecca Gill’s Experience Is Informing Gender Inequality Research and Inspiring Other Women to Share Their Stories.”University of Nevada, Las Vegas [blog], October 23. https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/political-scientist-empowers-others-her-metoo-moment
Jahren, Hope. 2016. LAB GIRL. New York: Knopf.
Jaschik, Scott. 2022. “Cal State Kept Harassment Findings Against 2 Professors Secret,” INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION [blog]. July, 28. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/07/28/cal-state-kept-harassment-findings-against-2-professors-secret#
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. MEN AND WOMEN OF THE CORPORATION. New York: Basic Books.
Kaufman, Zachary D. 2019. “Protectors of Predators or Prey: Bystanders and Upstanders Amid Sexual Crimes,” SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW. 92(6): 1317-1406. https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/2019/09/01/protectors-of-predators-or-prey-bystanders-and-upstanders-amid-sexual-crimes-article-by-zachary-d-kaufman/
Kenney, Sally J. 1995. “Women, Feminism, Gender, and Law in Political Science: Ruminations of a Feminist Academic.” WOMEN & POLITICS 15(3): 43-67.
———. 1996. “New Research on Gendered Political Institutions.” POLITICAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY 49(2): 445-466.
Kenney, Sally J and Susan Sterett. 1999. “Tenure in a Chilly Climate.” P/S: POLITICAL SCIENCE AND POLITICS 32(1): 91–99.
Kenney, Sally Jane. 2013. GENDER AND JUSTICE: WHY WOMEN IN THE JUDICIARY REALLY MATTER. New York: Routledge.
Krakauer, Jon. 2015. MISSOULA: RAPE AND JUSTICE IN A COLLEGE TOWN. New York: Doubleday.
Krouse, Erika. 2022. TELL ME EVERYTHING: THE STORY OF A PRIVATE INVESTIGATION. New York: Flatiron.
Lay, J. Celeste. 2019. “Policy Learning and Transformational Change: University Policies on Sexual Harassment.” JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY 40(1): 156–65.
Ledbetter, Lilly M., and Lanier Scott Isom. 2012. GRACE AND GRIT: MY FIGHT FOR EQUAL PAY AND FAIRNESS AT GOODYEAR AND BEYOND. New York: Crown.
Lithwick, Dahlia. 2022. LADY JUSTICE: WOMEN, THE LAW, AND THE BATTLE TO SAVE AMERICA. New York: Penguin.
Manne, Kate. 2018. DOWN GIRL: THE LOGIC OF MISOGYNY. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McGregor, Jena. 2017. “Why Sexual Harassment Training doesn’t stop sexual harassment.” THE WASHINGTON POST. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/11/17/why-sexual-harassment-training-doesnt-stop-harassment/
Mervis, Jeffrey. 2022. “Sexual Harassment Ignored by U.S. Antarctic Research Program, Employees Say Ice Allies Group Has Pushed for Reforms despite Fear of Retaliation.” SCIENCE 377(1612): 1246-1247.
Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 2019. “Ending Sexual Harassment: Protecting the Progress of #MeToo.” JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY. 40(1): 131-147.
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN: CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND CONSEQUENCES IN ACADEMIC SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE. Washington, D.C. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/24994/chapter/1#ii
Olsen, Lise. 2021. CODE OF SILENCE: INSIDE THE CASE THAT LED TO THE FIRST FEDERAL JUDGE TO BE IMPEACHED FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. Boston, Beacon.
Ondatche-Willig, Angela. 2016. “Rewrite of MERITOR V. VINSON, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).” In FEMINIST JUDGMENTS: REWRITTEN OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, eds. Kathryn M. Stanchi and Linda L. Berger, and Bridget A. Crawford). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
PICTURE A SCIENTIST. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11906032/
Schultz, Vicki. 1997. “Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment.” YALE LAW JOURNAL 107(6): 1683–1806.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN: CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND CONSEQUENCES IN ACADEMIC SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE. 2018. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/24994/chapter/1#ii
Smith, Carly Parnitzke, and Jennifer J. Freyd. 2013. “Dangerous Safe Havens: Institutional Betrayal Exacerbates Sexual Trauma.” JOURNAL OF TRAUMATIC STRESS 26(1): 119–24.
———. 2014. “Institutional Betrayal.” AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST 69(6): 575–87.
Streeter, Kurt. 2022. “Soccer let’s women down whether they play or not.” NEW YORK TIMES. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/sports/soccer/soccer-abuse-power.html.
Sulfaro, Valerie A. and Rebecca Gill. 2019. “Title IX: Help or Hindrance?” JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS, & POLICY. (40)1: 204-227.
37 WORDS. 2022. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21348848/
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. 2018. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5795282/.
US EEOC. SELECT TASK FORCE ON THE STUDY OF HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE. https://www.eeoc.gov/select-task-force-study-harassment-workplace.
Vettese, Troy. 2019. “Sexism in the Academy: Women’s narrowing path to tenure,” HEAD CASE, 34. https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-34/essays/sexism-in-the-academy/.
WAVE OF CHANGE: REPORT OF TULANE CLIMATE SURVEY. 2018. https://tulane.edu/sites/tulane/files/WaveofChangeExecutiveReportActionPlan.pdf
“Why Sexual Harassment Training Doesn’t Stop Harassment.” WASHINGTON POST. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/11/17/why-sexual-harassment-training-doesnt-stop-harassment
Zernike, Kate. 2023. THE EXCEPTIONS: NANCY HOPKINS, MIT, AND THE FIGHT FOR WOMEN IN SCIENCE. New York: Scribner.
© Copyright 2023 by author, Sally J. Kenney.
