ELIZABETH FOX-GENOVESE
373
less than complete justice. But it is hard not to believe that they are much
more interested in equality of results than equality of opportunity, respon–
sibility, or condition. How else are we to understand the myriad claims that
women should not be held to the same expectations as men but should
reap the same rewards? According to this logic, it is unacceptable to say
that the presence of women in a specific workplace-say a construction
site, a fire truck, or a police beat-may make men uncomfortable, but pos–
itively noble to say that the presence of men intimidates women. You will
note that this statement assumes that both women and men as workers will
retain some of the common attributes of their sex, whether the degree of
physical strength or social reticence or whatever. But then, I do believe that
in most instances most women and men do. So what the gender feminists
are seeking is to reshape the workplace to conform to the sensibilities of
the most "feminine" women workers. And sexual harassment claims have
emerged as their weapon of choice. For girls to be free to be girls, boys
must be prohibited from being boys, which means that employers are held
accountable for their female employee's perception of their male employ–
ee's demeanor and behavior.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 has indisputably given sexual harassment
cases an unpredictable new lease on life. The introduction ofjury trials and
compensatory damages has, for good reasons, encouraged a veritable explo–
sion of sexual harassment claims, which have increased astronomically
since its passage.Juries, which are normally composed of ordinary citizens,
tend to be sympathetic to plaintiffs, especially when the defendants are
large corporations, including universities, which are assumed to be callous
towards the needs and feelings of workers. In addition, juries frequently
mistrust arguments about qualifications and standards of performance. It is
surprisingly difficult to convince a jury that a person who has been hired
for a job may not have done enough-or, heaven forbid, may not be smart
enough-to merit a promotion or tenure. And if the person who is denied
the promotion or tenure happens to be female and happens to have the wit
to claim discrimination based upon sex, that person may very well prevail
in a jury trial. The likelihood that a jury will sympathize with a plaintiff,
combined with the astronomical costs of such legal battles, has led large
corporations-and their insurance companies-to settle for almost any
amount that does not exceed the projected costs of going to trial. And that
willingness to settle in turn feeds a presumption that the plaintiff must
indeed have experienced sexual harassment or discrimination. And so, the
vicious circle spirals out of control.
Sexual harassment claims have increased in our economy-up two
hundred percent or more during the past year-but their most fertile
breeding ground is the academy where they have increased by sixty-two
