You went to the holiday work party. You drank there.

 In my own narrative, a work colleague who I deeply respected and trusted told me I should not have reported the harassment to my supervisor as I had “joked” with him. This comment was one of the earliest traumatic memories for me as I considered her one of my closest work friends. I also knew people were gossiping about me as I had not told her about either the harassment or my filing of an informal report. Yet now she was scolding me, signaling I should accept a work culture where any laughter, from any employee, at any sexual joke meant the comedic employee could now advance themselves sexually. If any “entertained” employee was uncomfortable with it (to say the least), they should remain silent and remember they deserved it because they had, after all, laughed at their jokes. 

She failed to recognize that people can laugh at crude sexual statements for a variety of reasons. Some people laugh out of discomfort or shock. Others may not understand the joke and laugh to hide their social ineptitude.  Laughter does not always mean approval then. When it does, it certainly does not mean permission to invade someone sexually. To do that, one needs clear, consistent consent throughout the sexual exchange, which should occur outside the workplace. This is true always, for any employee, every time, in any situation. Also my experience was sex discrimination. It was not funny.  It was sexual harassment.

Victim blaming statements like “This would not have happened, if you…” send the message that “in this building, you will only be treated with respect ‘if you’…(did or did not).” There is no “if you” to human dignity. Someone’s perceived imperfections or poor choices does not mean another person can disrespect them. Feeling safe in the workplace is a right, not a privilege earned through compliance, social networking, or loyalty, Every human being has the right to work in a safe environment, regardless of their behavior, race, beliefs, age, ability, gender, sexual identity, performance, or other personal trait. 

It took me years to recognize this truth. I got lost in layers of shame and guilt. I thought I should not have laughed at his jokes and had, as she suggested, signaled to him I was open sexually. Close to four months prior, she also told me I was not a team player and was self-centered; I regrettably internalized these two comments as well, believing I was who she said I was. I know my acceptance of her “feedback” will seem foolish to some readers. Contextually though, she was someone I respected. She had more teaching experience than me, was older than me, and was in a position of authority. I took her thoughts and opinions serious, especially since my principal knew about her bullying remarks yet did nothing about it. I still had to work with her and my perpetrator, whom both retained their position and (to my knowledge) faced no negative consequence from either my retaliation or sexual harassment report. I certainly did not want to face more gossip and shame. So, I forfeited one of the most powerful tools: my voice. And this is exactly what the “you asked for it” argument seeks to achieve. The victim is dismissed, discredited, and disempowered.

Companies must communicate clearly and regularly that sexual harassment is not the victim’s fault but caused by a variety of sociocultural factors like sexist gender expectations, the sexual objectification of people, approval of violence, indifferent group norms, and power inequities in the workplace. Companies should discuss these causes with employees as well as the types and effects of victim blaming statements. Such professional development will ensure employees question their own gender biases and have a common understanding of what a gender equitable workplace looks like, sounds like, and feels like.  Employees enter the workforce with different ideas about gender and discrimination as well as a variety of different approaches to conflict. In-services regarding sex discrimination will ensure every employee is on the same page cognitively. The company should also train employees how to respond as bystanders to sexual harassment, retaliation, victim-blaming statements, and workplace bullying. These trainings should be done in-depth at least once a year. Employees should complete checking for understanding activities to ensure comprehension. Those who do poorly on these assessment should receive additional training to ensure mastery.

In an ideal world, companies would tell those who report sexual harassment and retaliation that sex discrimination is never their fault, that nothing they could have done or said entitled them to endure harassment. Companies could empower survivors by stating this message throughout the investigative process (i.e. initial written report, subsequent interview, and company report finding) and during follow-up interactions where administrators reviewed their performance (i.e. formal and informal evaluations, professional development conversations, and human resources trainings). Realistically, many companies will reject this suggestion as doing so would place more liability on their shoulders. As a legal and public relations practice, it disempowers their case as they are no longer are able to shame the victim publicly or blame the victim in court.  

There are ways companies can support victims without increasing their liability, however. Employees who say the victim is responsible because they said a certain thing or acted a certain way should be punished. In other words, the company should tell employees not to make judgements about the conflict as it is a matter left for administrators to investigate. Employees who ignore this directive by offering verbal lashings to either the accused or the accuser should face negative professional consequences. In my 2018 report, I describe my principal’s victim blaming statement yet the report shows the district never investigated it. They never asked him if he dismissed my concern for students my perpetrator taught. The company can also train  employees to come forward if they have information about harassment they observe or if they are uncomfortable with how an investigation they learn about has been handled. Finally, the company should also thank employees who come forward with sexual harassment complaints as well as those who cooperate with the subsequent investigation. Expressing their gratitude would signal appreciation that those involved affirmed the company’s belief that all workers deserve respect, regardless of any personal trait or performance capacity. 

Finally, the company could consider outsourcing all sexual harassment investigations. The outsourced provider would represent the survivor while the company’s lawyer would represent the company. This outsourced provider could also lead the company’s professional development trainings as well mentor support groups who help process the trauma connected with sexual harassment. The outsourced provider’s mentoring services would take care of the survivor’s psychological needs while protecting the company’s privacy.  They could directly tell survivors that the sex discrimination was not their fault and break the isolation that surrounds workplace discrimination.  The company could facilitate group recovery meetings and conversations with other survivors in a setting that offered anonymity.

Companies who adopt these practices will signal to the public they understand the dangers of the “you wanted it” victim blaming statement and have mindfully implemented policies to decimate it.