You exagerrated this story for money and revenge.

These statements are a byproduct of other victim blaming thoughts. It is difficult considering someone you trust or an administration you work for has a dark side. “Oh, they would never do that” or “Hmmm, they seemed okay after it happened” easily come to mind. Rather than carefully look at the evidence or thoughtfully educate themselves on the trauma of sexual harassment, many observers conclude something else must be going on: Greed. Revenge. Anger. A political move to further their ideological agenda. A mental inclination of perpetual victimhood or an inability to trust authority. 

After reading my narrative, someone might assume I am a Democrat as I am arguing for stronger legislation to protect workers. Others might read my beliefs about the Bible, the Church, and God and assume I am a Republican. Should I be arguing the opposite of what they believe, some will tune me out, refusing to consider my claims actually took place and the reform I am suggesting is needed. Their approach to conflict is not one of mutual dialogue and building understanding about workplace discrimination but rather about fulfilling the desire to sit comfortably with their current perceptions. When their position is carefully examined, however, one quickly discovers it is subjective, foolish, illogical, dangerous, and disempowering for the survivor. 

Those who express this statement get to describe subjectively when someone can fight for justice and when someone cannot. The speaker gets to say how much money someone needs in their bank account before they can file a report. They get to look into someone’s heart and determine what motivated them to come forward. They get to proclaim what circumstances require people to fight for equality and equity and what situations require quiet submission to the status quo.  They get to determine the conditions of civic engagement, not the survivor.

This position is also grounded in the assumption that all people, by nature, are greedy, vindictive, and self-interested. It foolishly reasons that those without money desperately crave wealth. Yet plenty of people in American history have fought for justice while displaying impressive philanthropy amid great financial opportunity. Rosa Parks, for example, emerged in the civil rights movement from modest means yet afterwards gave most of the wealth she acquired away. Colonel Robert Gould Shaw and the all-black 54thMassachusetts Regiment courageously fought in the Civil War yet refused, as a form of protest, monetary compensation for their services. Not everyone desires a luxurious lifestyle or is motivated by the need to fulfill materialistic desires. Fighting for freedom, justice, and one’s religious ideals also motivate people.  

The position is illogical as well. It argues all people are motivated by self-interest, which includes the harasser and allies who protect them, yet then contends the victim is the one exaggerating or fabricating what happened. Suddenly an administrator has absolutely no desire to cover up a case of sex discrimination they know they mishandled. Magically, the perpetrator has lost the urge to lie about a charge they know they committed. Only the victim is inclined to make up a story, not the company. Nevermind the survivor knows coming forward demands evidence, a public profile, and strength to endure victim blaming statements. Nevermind they know they risk retaliation in and outside the workplace, now and in the future. The survivor has much to lose by coming forward and lying; the perpetrator and their allies, meanwhile, have much to gain by acting deceptively and dismissively. 

These victim blaming statements also disempower survivors as it puts them in a defensive mode. Suddenly, they have to prove they are not angry, power hungry, politically motivated, distrustful, or hurt by the discrimination. This perception encourages a fawning response where the survivor is overly cooperative, trusting the very people who harmed them and ignoring their civic duty to demand a safer workplace for themselves and their colleagues. Other survivors may have a flight response. Hearing they do not have the “right” amount of money, political membership, or mental health history to present their case, they will accept the public will not believe them and simply abandon the cause of justice. Civic engagement is reduced and, with it, gender equity. 

Finally, these statements illogically reason a survivor cannot fight for justice if they profit from it. Obtaining justice, by definition, benefits the survivor, as it acknowledges one’s experience was wrong and attempts to “right the wrong” by delivering some sort of consequence. This is not selfish vengeance but selfless leadership as the survivor agrees to walk through a painful legal process to ensure the public at large is protected from a dangerous predator. Their political service in the courtroom, press, or government educates Americans on how our institutional systems failed. Laws, cultural norms, and company practices are consequently reformed. In other words, the survivor is not the only one who benefits from holding their predator(s) and company responsible. We all do. 

To eliminate the “you just want” statements, companies must discover what happened in a way that maintains employer-employee trust. Companies must understand that their goal is determine what happened and to report it in a way that is conciliatory with the employee. Their goal is not to offer a defense on why the environment they offered is legally “right” and why the employee’s complaint is legally “wrong.”  They are not trying to protect the company from liability in the past but rather acting objectively to avoid being liable in the future. As a result, their objective in their internal investigation is to remain neutral as they collect evidence and write a report. 

Indeed, there is a difference between vengeance and forgiveness, between anger and accountability, between playing the victim and being a victim, between telling the truth and telling a lie. Companies investigating an individual sexual harassment case must accept they are not in a position to discuss these characteristics. Lecture halls, political arenas, religious teachings, or newspaper articles can examine these traits in a safe, separate space where individual survivor narratives are removed from the discussion. In other words, issues about justice, recovery and mental health are debated, not one survivor’s motives for coming forward. 

Consequently, administration should forbid investigators from conducting research and writing statements that biasedly smears any of the staff involved in the conflict. Each employee’s mental health, family, medical, and financial records should be off limits. Employees who try to take the investigation there should be reprimanded. This is vital as every employee must return to the workforce after the investigation is complete. Respect, privacy, and trust must be maintained to keep the work environment safe from retaliation and toxicity. 

In addition, companies should issue findings that objectively report the outcome of a survivor’s charge. When there is not enough evidence to warrant a sexual harassment charge, the company should issue an “unsubstantiated” verdict as compared to a “not sexual harassment” finding. Ruling an unsubstantiated case as “not sexual harassment” implies the survivor was dishonest or was somehow wrong in their assessment, when, in fact, their case simply became a “you said-they said” situation. Saying the survivor’s claim was unsubstantiated, meanwhile, signals the employee is still trusted, valued, and wanted on the professional team. Cases that locate evidence which prove the employee is lying should be deemed “unfounded” while reports that do not meet the qualification for sexual harassment should be classified as “baseless.” Using these four labels (substantiated, unsubstantiated, baseless, and unfounded) will make sure statistics on false reporting are not inflated. It will also protect the survivor’s integrity as they continue to work for their company and with their colleagues.