[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-936 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JERRY MCNERNEY, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida AMI BERA, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
February 27, 2018
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Eddue Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on XX, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................
Written Statement............................................ 18
Witnesses:
Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head, Office of Diversity and Inclusion,
National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of Illinois
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Ms. Kristina Larsen, Attorney, Law Office of Kristina K. Larsen
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive Director, American Geophysical
Union
Oral Statement............................................... 62
Written Statement............................................ 64
Discussion....................................................... 70
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head, Office of Diversity and Inclusion,
National Science Foundation.................................... 94
Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of Illinois........................... 98
Ms. Kristina Larsen, Attorney, Law Office of Kristina K. Larsen.. 103
Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive Director, American Geophysical
Union.......................................................... 109
A REVIEW OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE
----------
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara
Comstock [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing entitled ``A
Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science.'' I now
recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Imagine being a young astronomer, and your dream of working
with one of the most well-renowned astronomers in the world
comes true. Then, imagine the horror when the professor you
hope will be your mentor, who you've revered, turns out to be
your tormentor, a predator. You are in his office and he tries
to kiss you. You spur his advances, but later at a work dinner,
he puts his hand on your leg and slides it up your thigh under
the table. You try to report the behavior, but some at the
university are more interested in protecting one of their most
powerful and lucrative researchers. This actually happened.
This is a real case. It took years for the professor, in this
case a professor from Berkeley, to leave. But that young woman
left the field of astronomy because of the harassment.
Now, imagine if this were your daughter, your sister, your
wife, or your mother, driven out of a dream career in a field
with lifelong high earning potential. Sexual harassment, abuse
of power, and intimidation in the workplace, classroom, or
research field site is unacceptable in any situation. Whether
it's in Congress, where we've been dealing with this also, or
in the fields of science and technology, every worker has a
right to a safe work environment, free of harassment, where one
can learn and thrive in their environment.
Concerns about sexual harassment occur against a backdrop
of women continuing to lag in many STEM fields and occupations.
Women filled 47 percent of all U.S. jobs in 2015, but hold only
24 percent of STEM jobs. Only 23 percent of women with STEM
degrees work in STEM fields.
Can sexual harassment have a significant negative impact on
the ability of female students and early career researchers to
engage in research and to get these high-paying jobs on this
path? That's what we want to look at here because we have been
working here on this Committee, really on a bipartisan basis on
bills where we are trying to get women into that pipeline at a
very young age. We have wonderful STEM initiatives going down
to preschool to make sure that we are having that kind of
gender equity and racial equity. We want to make sure none of
these things are going on. So we really appreciate the
opportunity to have this hearing today.
In this case, you know, with this person with such a
prominent researcher in the United States, a quote from
somebody in this case said, ``The stakes here couldn't be
higher.'' We are working so hard to have gender parity in this
field, and when the most prominent person is a routine
harasser, it threatens a major objective we have nationally and
with that pipeline.
So over the last few months, we've had a watershed moment
and really tried to open eyes to the systematic harassment and
abuse in many different fields and workplaces.
What has happened in Hollywood, in the media, and in other
industries has opened the floodgates for women and men who have
been afraid to speak in the past to come forward about
predators in their workplace. I know recently we saw even
something in a long story about the modeling industry and young
women preyed upon and exploited and really some horrible things
going on there.
And in the last few months we've worked together, my
colleagues and I, to reform the process of reporting sexual
harassment in Congress and to create that zero-tolerance
environment that we want in all workplaces. Democrats and
Republicans, men and women, have been working to change the
process so that victims have a safe place to turn and predators
are no longer protected by taxpayer dollars or silence.
Today is an opportunity to shine a light on how predatory
and abusive behavior is affecting or may be affecting the
science industry and the response that's going on here and the
women who are here today to testify who have been active on the
front of really promoting that zero-tolerance.
Women in science are particularly vulnerable to harassment
and abuse. Powerful scientists who manage large federal grants
have enormous influence within universities and exert
significant control over the education and training of young
scientists. If a Ph.D. student is being harassed by her
advisor, what safe avenues does she have for reporting the
misconduct without derailing her education and career? How does
a university respond to this when an abuser is a rainmaker for
the university?
And while I would note I have been saying ``her'' in some
of these cases, we do understand there could be abuse on both
sides of men or women.
But as more and more victims come forward, I cannot help
but wonder how many brilliant scientists, men or women, and
their ideas we have lost in the STEM fields because of this
because we know when people are harassed and leave their field,
many of them don't return to their field. That is something
common that we have seen in the study of harassment. So how
many women have given up these good, lifelong, high-earning
jobs? When we look at the overall wage gap, how--you know,
when--this is particularly a field where we want to make sure
women are staying in in this career field.
Currently, there are laws and policies in place designed to
protect individuals from gender-based discrimination and
harassment in education, but we want to make sure the process
is working right. Since October, the Science Committee has been
investigating--and thank you to our staff who have been working
on this--how federal science agencies and universities handle
harassment complaints. So far, the Committee has found
inconsistency in how different agencies deal with complaints
and investigations, unclear policies and procedures that leave
victims unsure of where to turn, and institutions more
interested in checking the boxes of compliance rather than
doing the right thing. A survey by the National Postdoctoral
Association found that nearly 30 percent of postdoctoral
candidates had experienced sexual harassment.
I was pleased to see that, two weeks ago, National Science
Foundation Director France Cordova, Dr. Codova, made a strong
statement to the science community about zero tolerance. NSF
also announced it is taking additional steps towards protecting
scientists and students. We are fortunate to have a strong,
accomplished woman leading NSF, and I appreciate her shining a
light on the problem and acting quickly to respond.
I think we all understand we are learning a lot as we go
through this process. That certainly has been the case whether
it's the media or Hollywood or those of us here in Congress, so
we appreciate even though this has been a long-time problem, we
are all learning how to deal with it in our different
workplaces.
So the purpose of this hearing is to learn how science
agencies and research institutions are handling current
complaints under current law and policies, assess the impact of
harassment on women's participation in STEM and advancement,
and discuss recommendations for improving the process, as well
as the overall culture.
Taxpayers spend millions of dollars a year on research and
education programs to get young girls and young women
interested in STEM. I meet young women eager to go into STEM
careers from my district nearly every day. My 3-year-old
granddaughter, her favorite place to go every week is the local
children's science museum, so we all want to make sure that
those little girls who are so excited at 2 and 3, when they
step into that science museum, know they have a path in a
career forward. I want to guarantee every one of them that they
are given those tools.
So I really look forward to hearing the testimony of our
witnesses, and thank you so much for all that you're doing and
for being here today.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. And I now recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, for holding
this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being with us
this morning to discuss this very important issue.
The stories we've been hearing about widespread sexual
harassment occurring across different workplaces, industries,
and seemingly in every corner of our society are sickening. We
must do all we can to fight the scourge of harassment, sexual
or otherwise. There is much we need to do as a society to
ensure that all individuals are treated with the dignity that
they deserve. I'm hopeful that this societal moment in which we
are collectively recognizing the scope of this problem will
lead to significant real change.
I want to thank Chairwoman Comstock for her comments and
for her work that she has done here in Congress to help us to
better handle and to combat sexual harassment in Congress.
Today's hearing is specifically about sexual harassment and
misconduct in the sciences. The issue of sexual harassment in
the sciences is not new. It's a longstanding problem of
mistreatment that violates individuals' dignity and is keeping
some of the brightest minds from pursuing their ambitions, and
thus impeding the progress of science. It is critical for this
Committee and this Congress to find new and better ways to
address sexual harassment and misconduct in the sciences.
This conversation has taken on a new sense of urgency in
recent years due to numerous high-profile revelations involving
prominent scientists. Their individual stories have helped to
bring this issue to light, and research shows that their
experiences are not rare. A survey conducted by one of the
panelists here today, Dr. Clancy, revealed that 35 percent of
female scientists have experienced some form of harassment. On
this Committee, we often talk about encouraging more women to
pursue their interest in science. How might a young woman's
decision to pursue science be affected when she learns she has
a one-in-three chance of being sexually harassed during her
career? I look forward to hearing more about this study and
research into sexual harassment in the sciences, including the
impact on the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women.
A major challenge is the low rate of individuals reporting
when they are harassed. A 2015 campus climate survey on sexual
assault and harassment revealed that only eight percent of
victims report their experiences. The most commonly cited
reason for students not reporting the harassment was that they
did not think anything would be done, and many junior
scientists do not report harassment by their more senior
colleagues for fear that doing so will negatively impact their
careers.
There's certainly--I understand from my time in academia
and certainly as a--before that as a graduate student, the
unevenness and the fear that, you know, everyone has about
doing something that's going to damage their career. We cannot
effectively address the problem of sexual harassment in science
without a better understanding of the scope of the problem. One
topic I hope we discussed today is how the reporting systems
can be made more accessible and responsive.
The National Academies is conducting a study to review the
research on the impact of sexual harassment and to identify
successful policy interventions. This is an important step to
improving our understanding of how best to address sexual
harassment to the benefit of individuals and the scientific
enterprise as a whole. I look forward to recommendations the
study panel will produce and to working with my colleagues on
this Committee to implement them.
In the meantime, universities, federal science agencies,
and scientific societies all have a role to play in creating a
more welcoming, safe, and inclusive environment for STEM
students and researchers. Fortunately, promising changes are
being made. For example, the National Science Foundation has
proposed a change to its award terms and conditions, requiring
universities to our findings of sexual harassment. NASA
recently launched an anti-harassment campaign to assess and
improve the training and coordination related to their
antiharassment programs. And several scientific societies,
including the American Geophysical Union, which is here with us
today, have updated their codes of conduct and training
programs to prohibit and prevent harassment.
As a longtime supporter of women in the workplace, I'm
encouraged to see progress being made on this issue. I look
forward to a discussion on the additional cultural and
structural changes that will foster a safe environment for all
students and researchers. We cannot afford to lose another
brilliant scientist because she did not feel safe in her lab,
but even more important, no one should stand by idly while we
have an opportunity to prevent harassment in any context.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. And I thank
you for your leadership role on this and for your unique
experience because of your background and really understanding
this issue. I really appreciate your work.
And I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee for
a statement, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and also thank
you for taking the initiative and having this hearing.
Although federal law prohibits gender discrimination,
including sexual harassment, a disturbing number of cases of
inappropriate behavior and harassment of women in science
occupations and studies have come to light. There must be fair,
timely, and consistent procedures for investigating and
adjudicating allegations of harassment. Unfortunately, we will
hear this morning that such procedures are not always in place
and are not uniformly administered. These inconsistencies
create an environment where harassment and discrimination goes
unchallenged in classrooms, labs, and workplaces. Individuals
affected by such misconduct can suffer long-term harm in their
education and careers, as well as to their mental and physical
well-being.
There are broader implications as well. Engaging more young
women in STEM studies and STEM careers is essential to meeting
our global competitive challenges in science and technology.
Despite representing half of college graduates and half of the
total U.S. workforce, women account for less than a quarter of
America's STEM workforce.
In the last few months, the Committee and the full House
approved several bipartisan bills aimed at boosting interest in
STEM subjects and opportunities among women, our military
veterans, and other underrepresented groups. But efforts to
boost STEM opportunities for women might be greatly hampered if
there is a culture in science that does not respect and support
them. It is the responsibility of the science community,
universities, and federal science agencies to ensure there is a
fair, functioning process under the law in place for harassment
complaints and resolutions. It is their responsibility to take
steps to ensure that classrooms, laboratories, and workplaces
are safe.
No taxpayer dollars should be awarded to a university
researcher who engages in harassment and inappropriate behavior
toward a colleague or a student under their charge. Regardless
of the merits of a particular research project, all scientific
research is undermined if misconduct is allowed to go
unchallenged. And if there is a finding of research or
workplace misconduct by a federally funded researcher, that
information should be made public so that every research
institution, federal agency, and student is aware of the
finding.
Last month, Ranking Member Johnson and I requested that the
Government Accountability Office conduct a full study of
federal grant-making agencies' compliance with relevant laws
and policies for harassment, how agencies share relevant
information, and identification of recommendations for better
enforcement. I look forward to that report, in addition to the
recommendations from today's witnesses.
And I'll yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Now, let me introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness today is Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head of the Office
of Diversity and Inclusion at the National Science Foundation.
Ms. Davis joined NSF in 2010 from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, where she served in several positions, including Acting
Associate Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. She holds a
master's of science degree in agriculture economics from North
Carolina Agriculture and Technical State University and a
bachelor's of science and agriculture economics from the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.
Our second witness today is Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate
Professor of the Department of Anthropology at the University
of Illinois. Dr. Clancy's research integrates life history,
evolutionary medicine, and feminist biology to understand how
modern environments influence women's health and well-being.
She and her colleagues have empirically demonstrated the
continued problem of sexual harassment and assault in the field
sciences astronomy and planetary science. She also serves on
the National Academy of Sciences Committee to address sexual
harassment in the sciences. She was named one of Nature's ``10
Most Influential Scientists'' in 2013, and has received local
leadership awards from the Girl Scouts and YWCA. She received
her PH.D in anthropology from Yale University, and a joint
honors bachelor's degree in biological anthropology and women's
studies from Harvard University.
Ms. Kristina Larsen, our third witness, is an attorney in
private practice. She has over 20 years of experience in higher
education, human resources, and employment law, including
serving as an Assistant Vice Chancellor at a university where
she oversaw all aspects of human resources for academic
employees. She has represented and advised individuals at
numerous universities and academic institutions including UCLA,
Stanford, the Smithsonian, Scripps Research Institute, and many
more. Ms. Larsen received both a Bachelor of Arts in political
science from the University of California San Diego, as well as
her juris doctorate from the University of San Diego.
Our final witness today is Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive
Director of the American Geophysical Union, an international
scientific society that represents 60,000 scientists seeking to
promote discovery in earth and space science. Previously, Ms.
McEntee has held leadership positions at the American Institute
of Architects, the American College of Cardiology and its
foundation, and the American Hospital Association. She was
named CEO Update's ``CEO of the Year'' in 2016 and one of
America's top women mentoring leaders. She graduated from
Georgetown University and holds a master's degree in health
administration.
And I would also like to note that Mr. Billy Williams, also
from the association--from the union--is also joining us today,
and he is a constituent from Leesburg, so we thank you for
joining us and for all of your good work. I appreciate you
being here.
So I now recognize Ms. Davis for five minutes to present
her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. RHONDA DAVIS,
HEAD, OFFICE OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Ms. Davis. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Chairwoman
Comstock, and Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Rhonda Davis. I'm the National Science
Foundation's Office of Diversity and Inclusion Head. Thank you
for the invitation to testify on sexual harassment in science
and on the steps NSF has taken to ensure equitable and safe
access, irrespective of gender or background, to research
experiences in the STEM disciplines supported by our agency.
NSF does not tolerate sexual harassment of any--or any kind
of harassment within the agency at awardee organizations, field
sites, or anywhere NSF-funded science and education are
conducted. As the primary funding agency of fundamental science
and engineer research in the United States, NSF recognized that
to enable scientists, engineers, and students to work at the
outermost frontiers of knowledge, the agency must be a role
model for teamwork, fairness, and equity.
That is why, earlier this month, NSF announced new steps to
help eliminate sexual harassment from science and engineering.
NSF will be proposing a new award term and condition to make it
clear when an awardee organization finds that an NSF-funded
investigator or coinvestigator has committed sexual harassment,
NSF expects to be notified of that finding.
Due to the importance of this issue, NSF is making the
change a priority and fast-tracking this process. The new award
term and condition will go into effect after completion of the
Federal Register process, which includes a 60-day public
comment period. Once that process is complete, all new awards
and funding amendments on existing awards will include the new
term and conditions, and all awardees must adhere to it. NSF
expects all awardee organizations to establish and maintain
clear standards of behavior to ensure a harassment-free
workplace.
To mine the best ideas, we've also recently instituted a
cross agency special task force to examine and collect
promising practices and model codes of conduct. We will be
using one web portal, NSF.gov/harassment, to make it easier for
the research community and the public to access important
information. These new steps and resources will complement
NSF's title IX compliance program, which we have bolstered in
the recent years. Title IX requires schools to take steps to
prevent and remedy sex-based harassment. If an institution is
suspected of not complying with title IX, NSF and its federal
partners may conduct a review of the institution. If an
institution is in violation and refuses to take corrective
action, their funding can be revoked.
Like similar agencies, NSF conducts title IX compliance
reviews of at least two funded organizations each year and
makes its--these reports publicly available. NSF has also
enhanced its training program for internal staff to provide
guidance for an employee who may be notified of a title IX
matter. In addition, our program offices receive training on
sexual harassment during the merit review process training. NSF
policies are meant to ensure that the actions of one do not
negatively affect the careers of all.
It is vitally important that we do not punish innocent
award participants. If an awardee adjudicates a sexual
harassment case in a way that results in the investigator being
unable to fulfill the terms and conditions of his or her award,
NSF will act to minimize the impact on others supported by the
project, including students and postdocs.
NSF is committed to doing everything within our power to
help eliminate sexual harassment in science and engineering.
NSF accounts for approximately 27 percent of the total federal
budget for basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and
universities and has been vital to many discoveries that impact
our lives and drive the economy. However, we cannot and will
not succeed in our mission if we do not eliminate unsafe
research environments that upset the whole balance of the
science ecosystem, harm our scientists, and impede the very
progress of science itself.
With the support of this Committee, the research community,
and outside experts, NSF will continue to work to eradicate
sexual harassment and to eliminate barriers to gender equity in
science and engineering. Thank you and I'll be pleased to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Dr.
Clancy for five minutes to present her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KATHRYN CLANCY,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Dr. Clancy. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, and thank you
for the opportunity to share my research and expertise with you
today, and thank you for taking on such an important topic.
I want to start by sharing a bit about what sexual
harassment is, how it manifests in the sciences, and what I
hope you'll help us do about it. Sexual harassment comes in two
main forms: come-ons, which are unwanted sexual advances and
sexual coercions; and putdowns, also called gender harassment,
nonsexual behaviors that are crude or hostile regarding gender.
While the come-ons are the types of behaviors you see in
articles about Harvey Weinstein and in sexual harassment
trainings, the majority of sexual harassment are in fact the
putdowns. These are the kinds of behaviors most women in the
workplace have experienced at least once in their lifetimes and
many experience every day. The offensive remarks, subtle
exclusions, requests to make coffee, yes, but also starting
rumors, sabotaging a promotion, or ruining a career.
One of the more recent cases of sexual harassment in the
sciences is by alleged perpetrator David Marchant, a Boston
University geologist who conducted fieldwork in Antarctica.
This case involved horrifying and physical gender harassment,
blowing volcanic ash into the already snow-blind eyes of a grad
student, pushing her down a mountain multiple times, and
throwing rocks at her if she dared go to the bathroom.
There are a few conditions that make sexual harassment more
common in the workplace. When workplaces are male-dominated not
just in numbers but in culturally how they behave, sexual
harassment happens more. When workplaces demonstrate that
they're tolerant of sexual harassment by ignoring reporting,
retaliating against reporters, or not sanctioning perpetrators,
sexual harassment happens more. In 2016, the EEOC wrote a
report that showed that only 1/4 of sexual harassment is
reported, and of those who report, 3/4 of them faced
retaliation.
I study sexual harassment in the sciences because I am a
scientist. I care about science, and I'm interested in the ways
in which the manifestation of harassment varies by work
context. But this is a problem not just of science but of
American workplaces. In the sciences, sexual harassment looks
like this: women having less access to their advisors, to the
materials they need to conduct their research, and withstanding
constant questioning of their intelligence and worth. I have
stories from my research of sabotaged lab equipment, of
intentional safety violations, of rumormongering, and yes,
sometimes of sexual assault and rape.
What bothers me the most about how it usually looks in
science is that we wrap sexual harassment up in this package
that we claim is intellectual rigor and meritocracy. It's like
we think that rudeness and cruelty are the same thing as being
smart without noticing that we direct these cruelties more at
women than men, more at women of color than white women, more
of sexual minorities than straight folk.
We say that asking a nasty question at a colloquium is how
we push people to be better scientists. We say when we see an
all-male research team that it must just be that the best
scientists for the job are all men. We say that the sole woman
in a department is the affirmative-action hire. We spent all
this taxpayer money supporting recruitment of women to STEM
fields and supporting their educations only to lose that money
when they are forced out by damaging behaviors. We also lose
their diversity of perspectives and thus end up with a flatter,
more boring, less complex, and less innovative American
science.
Too often I've heard that harassment and bad behavior are
the price we must pay for star scientists, but are they really
doing star science? When I'm writing my papers or analyzing my
data on sexual harassment in the sciences, I'm thinking of the
victims and the science we've lost. We've lost their ideas;
we've lost their perspectives. We scientists do this work
because we want to give the best of ourselves to the
advancement of science. Women keep trying to give us their
best, and we blow ash in their faces and push them down
mountains.
The way we've tried to fix this problem isn't working. We
have decades of evidence to prove it. Let's move away from a
culture of compliance and towards a culture of change. Let's
convince universities to worry less about litigation and more
about legacy. Do you want to be on the right side of history
when it comes to how you center victims and how you improve the
lives of women? Do you want to be the hub for exciting
groundbreaking science? Do you want to be the place everyone
wants to work at or the place all women warn each other about?
I hope you will join me in encouraging universities and
other science workplaces to take a values-into-action approach
to eliminating sexual harassment. That means locational,
contextual solutions that create respectful and equitable
climates for everyone. That means focusing on the behaviors we
want to see, not creating fear around the legally actionable
ones, and that means creating confidential avenues for women to
speak and to be heard.
I just want to say one last thing because this testimony is
public record and it's important that I say it. In a climate
where perpetrators are being centered and where the
conversation has been on reporting and speaking up, I want to
say today to victims that I see you. I see whether or not you
report, whether or not you've been one of my studies. I see
when you email me, tweet at me, when you stay silent. I see you
and I think of you and I thank you for getting up every day and
I derive strength from you. I hope you know how much you mean
to those of us who do this work. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Clancy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you very much. And I now
recognize Ms. Larsen.
TESTIMONY OF MS. KRISTINA LARSEN,
ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICE OF KRISTINA K. LARSEN
Ms. Larsen. Thank you. Chairwoman Comstock and Ranking
Member Lipinski, thank you so much for having this hearing and
for giving me the honor to talk to you today about sexual
harassment and misconduct in the sciences.
We are all here today because we are committed to the
common goal of ensuring that women are able to succeed in STEM
fields. Despite our collective efforts, we too often send these
brilliant individuals barreling into a brick wall. And this
wall is formed by a complex set of conditions, many exacerbated
by the decentralized and individualized nature of science and
many still inadequately addressed by our current discrimination
laws and university policies.
Gender-based discrimination and harassment predicated on
sex stereotyping remains pervasive in science, yet it is nearly
impossible to prove cause and effect because of the incremental
ways in which these biases occur and then are laundered through
so-called objective evaluation processes which are in turn
given great deference by our courts.
In addition, with very few checks and balances on
individual faculty power, this power is easily abused. Abuse of
power takes many forms: bullying, intimidation, spreading
rumors, humiliation, changing feedback coupled with
unreasonable expectations, just to name a few. Not all of these
abusive conducts are considered illegal under our current
discrimination laws even though, in my opinion, they are
perpetrated because women and underrepresented individuals are
more often perceived as safe targets.
Even when the conduct is clearly prohibited under title IX,
title VI, or title VII, significant problems remain in how
these issues are reported and adjudicated. There are too many
to talk about here today, but there are three that stand out to
me as significantly important in women choosing to leave
science or being forced out. The first is confusion over where
to get help. The confusing organization of most universities,
the splits between administrative functions and academic
functions, and the added complications of shared governance
make the complexity of finding the right person to help, if
there is even one, especially daunting, especially given how
many times a woman will be told by someone ``I'll take care of
it,'' ``Don't tell anyone else,'' or ``I'll talk to him'' only
to have nothing happen except perhaps they will be retaliated
against even more.
When ineffective processes are highlighted by the media or
by faculty, a university often reacts by creating even more
places for people to go, which only adds to the confusion. The
amount of energy to simultaneously do as much as everybody
else, fight back against the abuses you're facing, and try to
find someone to help make the abuse stop is time-consuming and
emotionally and physically draining. A dedicated legal advocate
for those who are targeted for abuse, somebody not affiliated
with the university but available to empower an advocate from
the very beginning rather than at the end when most attorneys
are involved may help shift the substantial power imbalance and
reduce that sense of exhaustion, isolation, and betrayal and
hopefully lead to quicker resolutions.
The second is the secrecy of the proceedings. Without
exception, every person I have advised or represented wanted
only for the conduct they were experiencing to stop. They don't
want to get anyone fired; they are not looking for retribution.
They simply want to get on with their work and spare others
from facing the same obstacles that they experienced, yet at
every step they are encouraged not to formally report, not to
disclose what they formally reported to others. The complainant
may not be told what the outcome was or, more important for
them, what the consequences that will be imposed are.
The pressure not to report comes from peers, chairs, deans,
even by title IX officers. Some are threatened by the abusers,
who will flaunt their power and their money, or by the
university's administration, who will almost always have more
to fear from the powerful faculty bringing grant money than
from the student or more junior faculty. Those targeted for
abuse deserve to be able to tell others what happened to them.
Under the cloak of secrecy, abusive conduct almost always
becomes serial conduct.
The third is the harm to the abused even when there is a
successful finding. Even in the rare instances where the
process has worked and a faculty member is found to have
committed a violation of the policy, by the time that happens
the complainant is exhausted. They are demoralized, isolated,
and behind on their work. Others may have taken advantage of
their vulnerability, and many of their peers in the field will
fall into two categories: those who sympathize with the abuser
because he is a great scientist or a good person and those who
avoid her because they're not sure what to say, don't believe
her, or wish to stay neutral in what they consider an
interpersonal dispute.
There is very few obligations to advocate or to
rehabilitate the careers of women who have actually suffered
this type of abuse, and they are often left entirely on their
own to pick up the pieces. It is not hard to see why many of
these incredibly smart women choose to take their talents
elsewhere into a more supportive setting. For this to change,
more resources and peer support needs to be targeted to those
who were abused, in addition to the energy put into what the
consequences are for the abused--abuser. And I hope that with
the help and the leadership from both the funding agencies and
the professional societies, we will be able to accomplish that.
Thank you very much for your--allowing me to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Larsen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Ms.
McEntee for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MS. CHRISTINE MCENTEE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION
Ms. McEntee. Chairs Comstock and Smith, Ranking Members
Lipinski and Johnson, and Members of this Committee, thank you
so much for inviting the American Geophysical Union to testify
on efforts we are taking to address sexual harassment in the
scientists--in sciences. AGU is an international scientific
society representing 60,000 members from 137 countries, and our
mission is to promote discovery in earth and space science for
the benefit of humanity.
Harassment in academic environments, especially in
scientific disciplines with limited diversity, is real and
confirmed by research, as you have heard today. Research has
also shown that harassment puts scientific careers at risk. The
lack of support networks and well-defined resources for
reporting and responding to harassment increases the
vulnerability of those who have felt harmed and often fear
reprisal for reporting.
For AGU, this is an issue that cuts close to home. The
earth and space sciences typically involve remote field
settings. In the field whereas--accepted workplace norms are
difficult to enforce. When coupled with a male-dominated
environment and power structures, these situations can amplify
the problems, making women and underrepresented groups even
more vulnerable to harassment.
Right now, the earth and space sciences only have 27
percent of the field that is women, more than it was 40 years
ago but drastically below the U.S. population as a whole and
other STEM disciplines. While women today account for nearly 50
percent of our members under the age of 30, AGU recognizes the
need to be more proactive to continue this trend.
As a scientific association that represents our members and
tries to chart a vision for the future, we have a
responsibility to promote a safe, inclusive, and professional
environment. A failure to uphold these principles harm
scientific credibility, the well-being of individual
scientists, and the entire scientific enterprise.
AGU first took up the issue of sexual harassment as
scientific misconduct in 2015 and 2016 when several cases broke
in the news media. As a result of discussions that AGU held
with our board and members on harassment and our community, we
convened a task force and ultimately in 2017 formally adopted a
revised ethics policy. The new language defines harassment,
bullying, and discrimination as scientific misconduct and
redefines established norms of acceptable scientific behavior.
Violations of this policy can now be addressed through
professional sanctions such as ineligibility for or loss of
honors, awards, and volunteer opportunities and also
membership. Our members have voiced their strong support for
this new policy, and they have praised us for our efforts.
However, this is just a first step in addressing this very
serious issue.
We commend other scientific societies like the American
Astronomical Society and the American Geosciences Institute who
have put in place similarly strong policies. We also thank the
other members of this panel for their hard work and the
National Science Foundation for creating a new policy that we
believe will provide a strong incentive for institutions to
take sexual harassment seriously.
Here are some additional measures we believe will be
needed. One, universal policies against sexual harassment with
clear and transparent reporting and follow-up procedures with
consequences; two, providing an environment in which
individuals are free to report and speak out against harassment
without fear of retribution; three, smart training beyond that
required for legal compliance, training that encourages
bystander intervention and culture change rather than
resentment and backlash; four, positive approaches such as
awards or certifications for those institutions that publicly
measure their progress towards positive work environment and
gender equity issues. Lastly, legislation can be a powerful
incentive and should include both positive and punitive
measures to hold harassers accountable and encourage a safer,
more inclusive environment for all scientists.
We very much appreciate the Committee holding this hearing
to understand and address some of the important steps we can
collectively take and to bring attention to this critical and
important issue. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have
and look forward to working with you and your colleagues to put
an end to sexual harassment in science.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McEntee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you so much. And I thank the
witnesses for their very powerful testimony and your very
important work. I now recognize myself for five minutes for
questions.
Dr. Clancy, you talked about the victims and the science
we've lost, and that's so powerful and you seeing those people
and giving them a voice and knowing the work you're doing. One
of the things that we are doing in Congress is having a
workplace survey. What type of workplace surveys have you found
to be most effective? I talked to a woman who implemented
policies in the Navy that actually dramatically reduced things,
and they really went in and thoroughly looked at first the
whole culture everyone was kind of swimming in, both the
workplace but then, you know, for them it was a base. You know
they went to restaurants, they went to the bars, they went to
the dorms, everywhere where people were to understand--and
understanding they're very young people often, which is
something you have in the situation with young scientists. The
military has it. We have it here in Congress. How can we
intervene before these things happen, and what are some of the
policies you've found have been the most aggressive in
prevention?
Dr. Clancy. Sure. I mean that's a great question. I think
that there are a number of ways that you can go at this sort of
depending on the context. Like you pointed out, you know, when
you have a bunch of young people together or when you're
thinking about a military context versus, say, an astronomical
observatory versus, you know, a field--an anthropology field
school, there are different contexts that actually have to be
considered. So the most important thing is to make sure that
you're involving a subject matter expert in the creation of the
survey. A lot of folks think that a survey is just, hey, it's a
bunch of--let's just put a bunch of questions together and
figure out what happens, but just like with any experimental
protocol, bad questions lead to the development of bad data,
and then it's actually hard to assess over time whether you're
really seeing improvement or not.
So climate surveys are a really great first step,
especially if you're using subject matter experts. There are a
couple of validated questionnaires already out there that
people often sort of use and fold into their existing survey,
and you can pick and choose them depending, again, on what you
know about your context.
As an anthropologist, I also really like a mixed-methods
approach, so I think it's really important to make sure that
you interview or do focus groups with folks so that you can
learn more again about the particular context of that
workplace.
I think that that leads to prevention because of the ways
in which first assessing what's going on helps you get a sense
at what the problems really are, so, you know, for--again, for
some workplaces, the culture might be like a real bro culture
and for others it might be widespread incivility. And across
the now three or four different work contexts I've started to
look at, I can say that there are different historical and
cultural contexts that lead to slightly different
manifestations. So with a bro culture we might want to take on
sort of why is it that people think they have to act macho to
be good scientists? With incivility, we can be asking, well,
why is it that professional--you know, we're considering
professional conduct that is uncivil to be appropriate and
respectful? So once we can start asking those questions, we can
move towards change.
Ms. Larsen. May I--I want to add to that that I think--you
know, a lot of times because of the confusion over what
harassment is, you know, I often tell people, you know, don't
write a zero-tolerance policy until you're really clear on what
you're not tolerating. And so starting from what is the conduct
that is actually damaging to them, not worrying about whether
it's legal or illegal under the law but really what are the
things, what are the actions that are occurring that, you know,
are really causing women to feel that they are being treated
and are actually being treated differently, but really starting
from that point of conduct versus conclusion about what that
conduct is.
Chairwoman Comstock. I wonder if there needs to be some
kind of checklist sort of like when if you're going out and
you're going to be alone and you're driving home or something
and you think, okay-- you park in a certain place, you take
certain actions, you're trying to protect yourself physically
from safety and danger, but we don't often instruct, say, our
children or young people to protect yourself in this type of
environment and what to expect, and I think--you're coming in,
say, as a college student or a graduate student with all kinds
of different experiences, particularly in a science career
where it involves a lot of studying and things and perhaps they
haven't been engaged socially a lot and then they're put in
these circumstances.
I'm thinking of this checklist, you know, when you're
socializing, say, with your colleagues, go with a buddy. What
kind of things can we really--just sort of commonsense kind of
things that our mom might tell us but that we haven't maybe
thought of to prevent some of these things because you think
culturally somebody from one part of the country and they come
into a different situation or racially if people have different
expectations, and it's just so many different approaches here.
And I feel like a lot of times when these young people are
getting into these circumstances, we just haven't prepared
them. And how can we do that?
Dr. Clancy. I certainly agree that some kind of checklist
would be really important. I really think it's on the PI, the
principal investigator or the boss or the director of the field
site to be the one creating that checklist and the one
responsible for it. So in our research that was published in
2014, in field sciences we found that the majority of our
respondents were not aware of a code of conduct or sexual
harassment policy for their field site and a very small number
of people who were actually harassed felt--even knew what the
reporting mechanism was. So to my mind the bigger issue is that
these behaviors are not--people don't tend to just
spontaneously become harassers. It has to do more with the
culture that they're in and whether it's permissive. So if the
director----
Chairwoman Comstock. And they're usually--the predators are
repeat offenders, too.
Dr. Clancy. They can be, yes. And I think they often are
but they're not always. And it has to do with the fact that if
the culture is permissive of that behavior, then it's much more
likely to happen. So it really has to be the person in charge
demonstrating leadership and making clear what's acceptable and
not acceptable in both implicit and explicit codes of conduct.
Chairwoman Comstock. And I know one of the things that
we've heard in looking at this in Congress is when you have
these new policies in place, usually you're going to see first
a spike in complaints because people feel free to come forward
now, but then if there is, you know, consequences and they see
that and they now know that there's going to be action taken,
there is then a reduction in both the activity in the first
place and sort of the confidence that this is going to be
handled. Is that consistent with what you've seen or what
you've all----
Dr. Clancy. Yes, absolutely across workplaces it's
consistent that if you have consequences, not just that you
claim to have them but that you actually have them, that people
face sanctions, then you do see a reduction in harassment--or
you see less harassment in those workplaces at least.
Chairwoman Comstock. All right. Thank you so much. And I
now yield to Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for
your testimony. I think I was particularly moved by Dr. Clancy,
your testimony, because having been an academic, I understand
the hierarchy and the--how those who are lower on the totem
pole, those who are lower in status are relying on those who
are above them for their career, for their entire career,
whether you're a grad student or you're, you know, a faculty
member. If you are--have a higher ranking, you have a lot of
power over those below you. And I think that there is a
cultural problem in general with those who are higher up
sometimes being abusive. And that is--it's a terrible problem.
I can't say that I suffered harassment at any point
although I was in situations where things were said to me that
were--did not make me comfortable. But I certainly heard
stories from colleagues that were definitely harassment. And,
you know, nothing that I heard that ever really came of that.
And again, it's because of the hierarchy and because, you know,
when you are a star, if you're considered a star academic, you
are protected. And so this is something that really is--makes
this even tougher when we're talking about academia.
So I wanted to ask Ms. Davis about the--what NSF is doing
now. So the proposed requirement you talked about says that
grantee organizations need to report findings of sexual
harassment to the agency. We have to make sure in doing this
that NSF needs to make sure that such a requirement is not
going to chill investigations of assault for fear of making a
finding that jeopardizes grant money. Again, something that
is--we need to be very careful about that.
So I want to ask, how will the NSF enforce its
requirement--well, first, will researchers, technicians, and
students be able to report harassment directly to the NSF, and
if not, how you ensure that grantee organizations have
effective reporting mechanisms in place?
Ms. Davis. Thank you. Yes, they will be able to report it
directly. We have set up a portal so anyone can go to this
portal whether it's a postdoc, a student, or if it's a faculty
member and report directly to us. It will come directly to us.
In regards to the chilling effect, we thought about that,
we talked about it. We think that we're in a time now that--for
universities to take the approach to have a chilling effect
could be at their own peril if you see what is happening to
universities. What we like about this new portal that we have
is that anyone can report to us. So if a university has a
finding, or if they have investigated and just decided the
degree of what has happened, they're going to put the person on
administrative leave. If they elect not to notify us, it could
be the student that was involved, it could be a postdoc that
was involved, it could be the community, it could be
professional societies, anyone that could notify us and we
would have like many compliance reviews of that situation.
We had a situation recently where we were just made aware
of something, and within two hours we were able to be on the
telephone with the university and to begin addressing it right
now before the policy is in place--the difference with the
policy is that they will be required. But we learned through
another means, we will still implement it right now.
Mr. Lipinski. And how will you enforce the requirement,
given that many victims sign nondisclosure agreements as part
of their settlements?
Ms. Davis. Thank you. We run into that situation, too, with
nondisclosure agreements. We'll have a lot of back and forth,
but what we're looking at is if you put that person on
administrative leave, this is a term and condition. If they're
not able to carry out their term as it relates to the research,
we can actually have the university replace that PI that is on
there, or we would do everything in our power to make sure that
no student under contract is impacted. The enforcement part of
it will be from the perspective of can they carry out the terms
of the agreement?
Mr. Lipinski. All right. Thank you. Very quickly, Ms.
McEntee, scientific societies play an important role in shaping
the culture in scientific communities. How can scientific
societies best leverage their position within the community to
bring about cultural change?
Ms. McEntee. Well, thank you. You know, we think we have a
lot of ability to work both within our society and with others.
We view this as a community effort. We are establishing an
ethics resource center that is providing--in collaboration with
other scientific societies and research institutions--tools,
resources, research, training that everyone in the community
can benefit from. It'll also be a place where we can share best
practices and what's working well to change this climate and
will allow us to collaborate more broadly both within the
scientific societies but also with colleagues here that are on
this panel. And we also hope that many others will adopt
policies as strong as ours that call harassment, bullying, and
discrimination scientific misconduct because it harms
scientific careers and the entire scientific enterprise.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. I now recognize Mr.
Marshall for five minutes.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you, Chairwoman.
It's hard to believe but 33 years ago today I was a second-
year medical student and decided to go into obstetrics. I know
that because today is my daughter's birthday, our firstborn 33
years ago, and as a medical student trying to figure out what I
wanted to do and that was certainly a sentinel day. But what I
didn't realize when I became an obstetrician was that I'd be
spending 95 percent of my time with women. And certainly, I saw
the world through their eyes. I got a glimpse through their
world more so than many people do. And whether it was spousal
abuse, I did over 100 rape exams one year as a resident, but
certainly, this issue of sexual harassment is something maybe I
would see more than other people. You know, why is a woman
perfectly happy at a job, she sees me once a year, and she
walked into my office and she quit a really good job. And, you
know, they would kind of beat around the bush, but too often
this was the reason.
You know, I want to talk about being proactive rather than
reactive and challenge you all. What can we do to be more
proactive? I think about culture, and my concern is that
there's a cultural acceptance in an institution this is more
likely to go on. And certainly, we control the purse strings,
we give grants through the NSF. You know, in sports we'll see
if an institution has a constant disregard for the rules, like
the NCAA, eventually, we give them the death penalty and you're
done. You don't get any scholarships, you don't get any--in
this case, any grant money--so it would be more than just the
single person. You know, where there's smoke, there's fire.
What are we doing to kind of get to institutions where this
is a socially accepted norm rather than just one person? And
maybe start with Ms. Davis and answer that question. What can
we do to be more proactive rather than waiting for this
complaint to be filed?
Ms. Davis. Thank you. We believe we have several tools in
being proactive, and one of those tools is our outreach to let
them know from a title IX perspective when it comes to
compliance what our expectations are. Beyond those
expectations, if we see universities where we are seeing repeat
problems over and over and over, when we go in and conduct
these title IX compliance reviews. We could address those with
the new term and condition that we have. We do not give the
money directly to principal investigators. We give the money to
the institution, so we can have these really hard conversations
that may be difficult for the universities, which I believe
we're at a time right now where even universities who've had a
lot of complaints really can see that everybody----
Mr. Marshall. Have you had any of those hard conversations
with any universities or institutions?
Ms. Davis. When we go on our Title IX compliance--yes, we
have.
Mr. Marshall. Good.
Ms. Davis. We've had some of the conversations that--I
wouldn't want to go into----
Mr. Marshall. I understand.
Ms. Davis. --specific names now that have resulted in some
results that have made the harassment community a better
community.
Mr. Marshall. Okay. Dr. Clancy, you want to take a shot at
that one, being proactive?
Dr. Clancy. Certainly. So there--it turns out there's
actually a pretty good literature on this. There are
researchers who do work on what's called respect climates in
the workplace. They're also called inclusion or diversity
climates, some really great social scientists who conduct
research to try to figure out how do we actually start with the
culture and move forward from there. And what a lot of that
research seems to show is that we need to do a lot more of the
hard work, not just, you know, like slapping on a policy and
saying, okay----
Mr. Marshall. Exactly.
Dr. Clancy. --sexual harassment is fixed but actually
coming together as a group, you know, doing workshopping
sessions for instance where you get together and ask, okay,
what are our values? What are our shared values? What's
important to us? What is the current culture of this
organization? And is this the culture we want? So if it's very
hierarchical, you know, which often happens in the sciences, is
all of that hierarchy justified? So are there times where we're
hierarchical for the sake of being hierarchical instead of
doing it because of expertise or experience?
And I think if we really encourage more science workplaces
and more workplaces generally in the United States to ask these
questions first, then they can start to put together value
statements and do more values-into-action trainings instead of
sexual harassment trainings, which just tell you don't do these
behaviors. Values-into-action trainings and respect trainings
say here's what we want a professional workplace to look like.
Let's encourage each other to do these behaviors, and it
incentivizes the positive behaviors.
Mr. Marshall. Great. Ms. Larsen, go ahead.
Ms. Larsen. Thank you. You know, a couple of things, I
agree with everything. The challenges in--you know, in change
management they often say that people don't change because they
see the light; they change because they feel the heat, and
there is no heat in academics, so there is no way to compel
somebody to do exactly that unless they feel it.
And one of the cases that I have been working on for now
three years with a client, her department has been found over
15 years by several external reports to have a terrible climate
for women and to have it observed that women are leaving,
including a NASA title IX investigation. There is no one to
follow up and enforce the department making any changes. The
department has done nothing in 15 years.
Two years ago, a program review within the university done
by the academic senate, which is where I say that we have a
shared governance issue, you know, also found that this was
still a problem, that women were leaving in large numbers. Two
out of three of the women in this department went directly to
that committee and said, you know, we don't think the
department is taking this seriously; they're not doing
anything. And the academic senate still closed that program
review and basically said we'll review them again in three
years. The senate has no accountability and responsibility for
what goes on in the department, and the administrative
structure has no ability because there--you know, this idea of
departmental autonomy, they can't go in and compel a department
do anything. So we have a problem with enforcement. I would
like to see federal agencies effectively saying if I don't--we
don't see changes, we will pull funding.
And to the point about money, it is true that the money is
given to an institution, but it is considered the PIs, and that
money is abused all the time. I have seen so many cases where
equipment is withheld from one person because they don't like
them. This is happening to a tenured faculty member who was
denied access to a lab that was paid for by federal money, and
there is nothing that can be done about that. A reporting
structure to say this person is abusing the funding that we
had, again, whether or not it falls under a legal definition,
they're abusing the funding and this happens far too often. And
a reminder that it is the university's money, not the PI's.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you. And I yield back.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Ms.
Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member,
for holding this hearing, and thank you to our very impressive
panel.
Over the past several months we've seen so many survivors
of harassment and abuse speak up, and it really is making a
difference and I appreciate you're here to--that you are all
here today. And no matter what the industry is, everyone
deserves to work in a safe workplace.
As policymakers on this Committee, we have to do everything
we can to make sure that our scientists and researchers are
able to do their work free from harassment and abuse. We talk a
lot about getting more women in the sciences, but we need to
not only get them in the sciences, we need to be able to keep
them there when they get there. And a working environment
that's free from harassment and abuse and power abuse will mean
that researchers can focus their full attention on finding the
next great scientific achievements. I thank Dr. Cordova for her
leadership at the NSF on this issue.
A few years ago a fisheries biology--biologist who's very
passionate about her work came into my office with a serious
issue. She and some of her female colleagues had experienced
sexual harassment while conducting research on a ship owned by
NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. After
reporting the harassment, this talented scientist had been
effectively grounded from furthering her career. Her research
was derailed. Her colleagues and her harasser knew that she had
reported the harassment, and she was counseled against going
back out to sea for her own safety. There seemed to be little
investigation into her case at the time, her case and other
women's cases.
I contacted NOAA, including then-Administrator Dr. Sullivan
who--Kathryn Sullivan, who took this issue very seriously, and
with Dr. Sullivan's leadership, NOAA changed their policies and
practices. They made it easier to report sexual harassment,
they implemented new training, and they changed their
investigation protocol. And I just thank Dr. Sullivan for
really taking the lead on that.
This investigation into this particular case was completed,
and best of all, this talented scientist returned to sea. Since
then, she's gone on three research cruises and she said, and I
quote, ``For the first time in my career, I was able to focus
entirely on my work.'' So it really does make a difference.
So we have to do more to both prevent harassment and to
make sure that victims can seek justice, and all of our
agencies need to take a close examination of their practices
and put into place these accountability measures that will
focus on prevention and also justice for survivors.
So, Dr. Clancy, your research talked about how women
conducting research in isolated field sites are particularly
vulnerable, so I want to ask you, Ms. Davis, and Ms. McEntee,
can you talk about some particular protections that can be
implemented at field research sites to keep scientists safe?
And I want to save time for a question for Ms. Larsen as well.
Dr. Clancy. Some of the first things are, at least in our
most recent research, we had a paper come out in November of
2017 that talked about the importance of having both implicit
and explicit rules at the field site. So generally speaking, I
think explicit rules are the best, you know, having an actual
code of conduct of some sort, having a clear line of reporting,
especially one that is third-party or independent of the PI
who's there or whoever the director of the field site is, so I
think that that's really important. But then I also think that
the implicit rules like just getting everybody together on the
first day and saying, okay, so here's what I think is
appropriate behavior, here's what's inappropriate behavior and
being very clear about both of those, so articulating those.
Ms. Bonamici. I don't want to interrupt, but, Ms. Davis and
Ms. McEntee, can you add anything to that for remote sites
because I want to get to Ms. Larsen as well?
Ms. Davis. Yes, and thank you for your dedication to this
issue. We took it as a prevention and reporting approach to
this issue, and so we have instructional videos on--for anybody
who's at a field site, a ship, Antarctica, or any of those
locations on actually how they report. We have a new web portal
that we set up where anyone at these sites will know how to
access information quickly, and we have several other steps
we've taken--
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I'm going to get to Ms. McEntee----
Ms. Davis. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. --because I want to save time for Ms. Larsen.
Ms. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. McEntee. So we would add also we think you need
training not just for those who are leading the expedition or
the field but also for bystanders so they know how to act and
you can--they can also implement programs like our Safe AGU
where individuals are publicly identified as having the
training to assist when someone is experiencing harassment.
Ms. Bonamici. I think a bystander speaking up is important.
Ms. Larsen, in 2011 President Obama released new guidance
for the implementation of title IX by universities. It
clarified that title IX cases are to be decided under a
preponderance-of-evidence standard and impose a 60-day limit
for concluding title IX investigations and introduce an appeals
process for both parties. Last year, Secretary DeVos withdrew
those updates, effectively reverting to the title IX guidance
from 2001. The specifics of the 2011 guidance of course were
debated, but ultimately, the goal was to make sure that title
IX is actually protecting individuals from harassment and
abuse.
So to what extent has the 2009 guidance already led to
institutional change, and how will withdrawal of that guidance
affect title IX cases? And I noted also that apparently NSF
used to refer title IX complaints to the Department of
Education Office for Civil Rights, and even that was rescinded,
so, Ms. Larsen?
Ms. Larsen. You know, I think that--thank you. You know, I
think that it wasn't--you know, I used to say that working at a
university is like dog years; it takes seven years to
accomplish what it--would normally take a year--
Ms. Bonamici. Just like Congress I think.
Ms. Larsen. So I think that it was, you know, slow to begin
with, so by the time the--you know, the rescission happened, I
think it was--it wasn't where I would've liked to see it in the
first place, but I think the rescission did add a lot of
confusion over, you know, what is the process and it reinforced
this idea that it is two-sided. And I--you know, I absolutely
believe in due process, and again, I want to be very clear that
there's a difference between how we look at sexual assault and
harassment, but it is--you know it reinforced this idea that
it's a 50-50 problem and that, you know, we have to really
watch out for both rights in an environment where the rights of
the powerful are well, you know, protected by other ways. It--I
think it did reinforce this idea that the victim is really not
going to be supported well.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. As a member of also the Education
Committee, we'll probably follow up with you on that as we
approach higher education at reauthorization. I thank you. I
yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr.
Beyer for five minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much and thank you
very much for being here. As the--I have four sisters and three
daughters, and so this is a very important issue at home.
Dr. Clancy, in your testimony you emphasize the importance
of addressing sexual harassment because it's the most prevalent
and frequent form, and it's often a predecessor to more extreme
behaviors, but then we also--there's been a lot of talk about
culture. And some of the factors in your testimony, the fact
that a student's or postdoc's career is entirely dependent on
their advisor, that principal investigators are given complete
control of the research funding, that departments have this
autonomy, that I no longer want to be a college president. I
just want to figure out--I had no control over all that money
that was coming in. Are these structures--structural elements
of the scientific community that can be changed, can be
addressed and are these discussions that have been having
within the National Academies?
Dr. Clancy. So there are definitely some ways in which
these structures can be addressed. I know that some
universities are moving to a co-advisor model for instance. In
fact in my department that's primarily what we do is we make
sure that there are always two primary advisors for most of our
students so that if there are ever difficulties with one,
there's always a second avenue. I think empowering a Director
of graduate studies to be able to work with faculty who are
being a problem is another way to handle it.
I think also just, you know, in terms of this fundamental
culture change, I think part of what has to happen is faculty
have to be willing to call each other out when we see bad
behavior a bit more, so kind of to speak to Ms. McEntee's call
for more bystander intervention training, just in general we
need to be able to say, look, I don't think the way you're
treating your student is appropriate, and I don't think that
she should be retaliated against for, you know, doing whatever
it is she's doing. And so to me those are sort of the big
things that we can be doing on the ground.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Good. And that's sort of university by
university or----
Dr. Clancy. Yes. I mean I think there are also ways in
which professional societies can maybe be addressing this and
maybe Ms. McEntee or Ms. Davis would be able to address this as
well.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you. Ms. Davis, you talked about
NDAs, the nondisclosure agreements. Do they potentially permit
serial abusers? And what's the--you know, when the abuser is
not identified, what's the trade-off in terms of using NDAs
versus the--you know, the good versus the bad there?
Ms. Davis. Thank you. The nondisclosure agreements are a
challenge when you're trying to get information about what
happened. We know that's a challenge that we will probably be
getting a lot of feedback on when we put our Federal Register
notice out there. That's why we approached this from--can they
fulfill the terms? This bolstered title IX is not a title IX
where we're conducting the investigation and we actually need
to know all of the particulars that happen. We really need to
know can they still fulfill the terms of the agreement. That's
why we took this first approach, and we are actually doing
everything that we can do inside of NSF and NSF's control.
Our second phase, is that the Director put a sexual
harassment task force together, which is across the foundation.
We will be looking at other things we can do inside, but also
how we can go out and collaborate with our other federal
science agencies. To the degree it comes to something that
title IX needs to change, we'll be looking at that, too.
Nondisclosure agreements can be challenging in a title IX
setting, but we're approaching this from can you still fulfill
the requirements whether we know all the details.
Mr. Beyer. All right. Thank you. Ms. McEntee, it's been
suggested that one of the things the #MeToo movement may do in
a pernicious way is that men will simply stop hiring and
promoting women. You know, I think Sheryl Sandberg wrote that
she's heard rumblings of a backlash in the tech industry where
women are already significantly underrepresented. We just read
that Florida legislators and lobbyists have told the Miami
Herald that many male legislators won't meet with women
privately. So is this a danger in academia also where, you
know, one-on-one relationships are very important with the
advisors or with the principal investigators? Will fear of
accusations against male researchers exclude female students
from mentoring opportunities?
Ms. McEntee. Well, that fear already exists, and certainly,
if there's more fear of backlash, that will just reinforce the
culture that we all know needs to change. That's why sanctions
are important. We also need to start rewards and recognitions
for departments and universities and others who are starting to
adopt really proactive codes of conduct and are putting in
place effective resources and training and mechanisms like co-
advisors where we're starting to see a change, and then we need
to continue to fund research to track progress and share those
best practices. This is going to take a community effort, and
we can't allow fear of backlash to stop us from trying to
address and create the kind of positive work environment we
need for science.
Mr. Beyer. I agree. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr.
Hultgren for five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all so much
for being here today, but more importantly, thank you for your
really important work and the mentors that you are. This is an
important hearing so that we can make sure that federal
agencies are following the law, and proper protocols are in
place to protect students and researchers from abuse.
I have a STEM Scholars program that we started in our
district in Illinois, the suburbs of Chicago. This is our
second year of our STEM scholars. We've got 30 high school
students from around the seven counties that I represent that
are part of our STEM scholars program. I meet with them once a
month. We go to different places throughout Northern Illinois
to see application of STEM fields in our communities. It's been
an amazing time for me to learn from them what sparked their
interest but then also for them to see some great opportunities
right close to home for them.
One of the things I'm most excited about this year with the
30 students that we have, the majority of our STEM scholars are
young women, so I'm encouraged by that and I'm learning from
them and just excited about their passion and want to do
everything that we can to encourage all young people that we
need them in our science and technology fields. I know so much
more can be done to spark an interest and foster passion for
STEM, but all of this can be so dishearteningly be undone if
young women especially find themselves in an academic setting
with a culture of sexual harassment and abuse. If people leave
these fields because of abuse, then we are losing the very best
and brightest we need to be supporting at this time. We need
institutional safeguards in place so that victims can feel safe
reporting abuses, and abusers can be identified and removed.
Dr. Clancy, if I could address my first question to you, we
know that only 23 percent of women with STEM degrees stay in
STEM fields. What impact do you think harassment and
discrimination play in women leaving the STEM fields?
Dr. Clancy. Unfortunately, I think it explains most of it.
You know, for a while a lot of folks tried to make the claim
that motherhood is the reason that a lot of women don't stay in
science because the nature of the job is so difficult, and
really, that just hasn't been borne out. I had fact have my--
I'm a breastfeeding mom and my daughter is in the next room
right now. I had to bring her with me in order to come to this
hearing. So I don't think that motherhood is what's holding
women back in the sciences. I really think it's the daily
indignities of being told that you are less than.
And again, I want to emphasize that a lot of times these
experiences are, you know, small incivilities and small
slights, so it's how do you--how exactly do you report a
systemic problem where you're always the one asked to take
notes at the faculty meeting or you're always the one asked to
make the coffee or, you know--or you're always the one who's
ignored or left off the emails or somehow not given access to a
really important piece of equipment. Those kinds of things are
really hard, I imagine, to adjudicate and really hard to report
on the side of the victim. So to me, again, these broader
prevention measures to encourage women to provide more peer
mentoring to each other and to work together and for them to
feel like their work environment actually cares about these
issues and won't retaliate against them if they try to speak
up, those are the things to me that I think are really key.
Mr. Hultgren. I think that's a really good point. And
you're right, too, that so much of it is--it might seem at the
time, well, this isn't a huge deal, but it is a huge deal,
because it's got to just have the cumulative effect of feeling
pressed down or excluded, and we've got to do everything we can
to change that, to stop that.
Ms. Larsen. May I?
Mr. Hultgren. Yes, that would be great if you would.
Ms. Larsen. I just--I want to add, you know, I have been,
you know, in private practice and also in my years in the
university I--they may exist but I have never met a woman who
told me that she chose to get out of science because she just
decided that it wasn't for her. But I have a client right now,
in fact two in the same lab, who were told, I don't know, 6
months ago when they informed their PI that they were pregnant
that mothers couldn't make it in research and he didn't want to
waste his resources on them, and they both suddenly lost their
funding. And when the title IX officers investigated, the
people that they asked--because the excuse always is they just
weren't good scientists--are all the other people who were
funded on the same money who know that if they actually said
anything different than what the PI has said, they lose their
funding, too, so--
Mr. Hultgren. It's horrible. Ms. Davis, if I can address--I
just have a minute left or less. The federal definition of
research misconduct was last revisited over 20 years ago. It
was altered to take out detrimental research practices from the
definition. Is it time to revisit whether sexual harassment and
other abusive behaviors should be part of the federal
definition of research misconduct? And then with a few seconds
left, I'd love to from you, and if others have thoughts, I'd
love to hear from you as well.
Ms. Davis. Thank you. We've had a lot of discussion around
this, and fortunately, our Director, actually chaired a working
group on that issue back in the 1990s. We see sexual harassment
as having a vehicle to address this, title IX. When they were
looking at definitions for fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism, there was nothing--no vehicle to address it. We are
not taking anything off the table. We know--we looked at what's
within NSF's scope, and some of these things will be across the
whole federal sector as it relates to research.
The thing that we were concerned about is having a
consistent way of handling sexual harassment. If you have some
parts of it in the research misconduct area being handled, and
other areas where there's sexual harassment issues handled
outside, it could possibly strip down the law, so we were
concerned about that. So those are some of the things we talked
about saying right now; it seemed like our energies would be
better suited doing something swiftly that we could do now and
then look at what we can do across agencies.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, I've run out of time.
Ms. McEntee. If I could add, please?
Mr. Hultgren. Yes, real quick, sure.
Ms. McEntee. I would say that we're extremely proud that
our policy that was approved in September of last year defines
harassment, bullying, and discrimination as scientific
misconduct.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. Again, thank you all so much. I've
got probably 10 more questions I would love to ask but just 5
minutes goes by way too fast--or 6 minutes, 20 seconds goes by
way too fast, but I may follow up in writing if that's okay.
And we really do want to help. We need you. We need your
brilliance and expertise, and this has to stop. And so we just
one all our best and brightest young people to see that we want
you to excel, and anything that gets in the way, we've got to
work to stop it. So thank you.
Thanks, Chairwoman, for your indulgence. I yield back.
Chairwoman Comstock. Thank you. And I did want to note how
important it is that that has been changed. The policy on
scientific misconduct includes this. It's really important, and
I did just want to take a point of privilege to--you know, this
issue of backlash and worrying about women not getting hired
because we start to hear a little bit of that. It's important
that everyone understands that is illegal. That is already
illegal. You can't say, oh, I'm not going to hire women now
because of this or that, so it's important, because I've seen
this even around here where reporters are asking us that, and
we know we've had problems in the media, so we want to make
sure that everyone understands, under current law, that is
illegal and you can't say now the way you're going to deal with
harassment is not to hire women. So thank you for letting me
jump in on that.
And I now want to recognize Mr. Loudermilk for five
minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you
for having this hearing.
Ms. Davis, I want to go back to something that Dr. Clancy
brought up, which was Dr. Marchant with Boston University. And
during--the first question I have is during that time period,
did the NSF have the authority to immediately remove him or
anyone from a grant if someone's been put on administrative
leave or is under investigation?
Ms. Davis. The authority that NSF has with the university
is we would work with the university to find a replacement PI
if the PI is on admin leave or something, and is not meeting
the terms and conditions of the grant. The authority--what
we're doing now, the authority didn't change. The only thing
that's different is that they have to report to us.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. So during that time period you did
have the authority to--okay.
Ms. Davis. If I can make that clear----
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes.
Ms. Davis. --the authority to work with the university for
them to do the removal.
Mr. Loudermilk. Right.
Ms. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. And thank you for that clarification.
Ms. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. I and of course many Members have concerns
about the recent interaction between Boston University and the
NSF regarding this matter, and I actually have some emails
between NSF and Boston University I'd like to kind of walk
through. And, first of all, let me say thank you for the NSF
and Boston University providing these documents to the
Committee during our investigation. That isn't something that
we get a lot of cooperation on with a lot of other agencies, so
I do appreciate that.
Mr. Loudermilk. And so, again, this is an email chain
between the NSF and Boston University regarding the alleged
sexual harassment by a prominent Boston University geologist
Dr. Marchant. The first slide, as you can see, that we already
have up, Boston University found that Dr. Marchant did sexually
harass a graduate student while on a research expedition in
Antarctica, which Dr. Clancy has already brought up here today,
and he was immediately put on administrative leave, so hats off
to Boston University for doing the right thing at that time.
And Boston University sent an email to the NSF on December 5
notifying the NSF that Dr. Marchant currently had an NSF grant.
Then, on December 11, 6 days later after a phone
conversation with the NSF, the university followed up with an
email asking for clarification. Apparently during the phone
call, there was some information passed along that he could not
remain as the principal investigator. But they were asking for
clarification from why they would not allow him to continue as
principal investigator on the grant.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Loudermilk. So if we bring up the next slide, then
December the 18, the NSF stated in this email there is no NSF
policy that supports the statement, quote, ``That NSF would not
allow Dr. Marchant to continue as principal investigator while
he's on administrative leave.'' Even though NSF wanted to
remove Dr. Marchant from the grant, apparently, it was thought
there was no policy to allow that to take place.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Loudermilk. Further, and a little bit disturbing, on
January 22 the university then indicated that--in this email--
that due to NSF's inability to force them otherwise, the
university would keep Dr. Marchant on the grant, which is what
Dr. Marchant wanted and kind of disturbing to me is that he
continued to want--in this email--he wanted to continue to
mentor another graduate student.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Loudermilk. So then if we go to the last slide, it
wasn't until January 25 that the NSF got clarification from
upper management that Dr. Marchant was required to be removed
as the principal investigator of the grant. This was almost 2
months after the initial December 5 notification by Boston
University to the NSF that he had been placed on administrative
leave.
So my first question is why did it take so long to
determine that Dr. Marchant needed to be replaced as PI?
Ms. Davis. Thank you. What you just shared with us here is
what we have been addressing. This is unchartered territory. We
have typically tried to handle title IX issues within a
stovepipe of title IX, and so what happened here, is that the
communications were from the program offices, and the program
offices were interacting back with the universities. They were
talking to each other and they thought that there was nothing
we can do. Well, the Director put together a sexual harassment
task force, and that task force includes people across the
whole foundation. What we learned in that task force is that
communication was taking place between the universities and
some of our personnel outside of our title IX role, and so as a
result of that, we have put in a communication to all employees
if anybody reaches out to you about a title IX matter, you
immediately notify my office and we will coordinate it.
As a result of that and the lessons we learned from this
situation right here, we are now--last Thursday, we learned of
an issue of a title IX person being put on administrative
leave. Within two hours of learning that, we were able to pull
together a team, contact the university, and find out what was
going on on the issue, and as a result of that, we've actually
made a modification in our Federal Register notice that we're
going to put out. This is unacceptable for us, and it's a
lesson learned and we've acted upon it.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you for that, and I think
you've just answered my follow-up question on that, does your
current policy give you the ability to address this
immediately? And it sounds like not only can you, you have
acted on that as well.
But a question back to the December 18 email, it actually
said, ``I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I
discussed your question''--and when I say your email----
Ms. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. --regarding NSF's, not yours personally,
because I don't know who actually sent it--but it said, ``I
apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I discussed
your question with our policy office in the Division of
Institution and Award Support,'' and they feel that it is an
internal Boston University issue, which would depend on the
conditions of the administrative leave, and then it followed up
as there is no policy. Was the problem in that policy office
that they weren't aware of the ability to remove? I mean, where
was the breakdown?
Ms. Davis. The breakdown is that it's still stovepipe
approaches. We have typically handled title IX issues within my
office, and the grants and terms is handled in the policy and
the grants division. So no one really--it's almost like what
we're seeing in office of research in title IX. We were not
communicating across. We've really put the brightest minds
together to try to talk about how to tackle this issue, and in
doing that, that's when we learned, well, wow, we have the
opportunity in our grants and our award--terms and conditions
right now to go back to the university and say that this is
not--if a person is being put on administrative leave and they
cannot adhere to the terms, we can do something. And so it was
a matter of communication.
One was the science office doing it. When they reached out
to that office they hadn't been--this is unchartered territory.
They had not been dealing with issues around sexual harassment
in a grants and terms way.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Well, thank you. One last question
and--is the NSF reliant on--totally reliant on institutions to
appropriately deem what is considered the beginning of an
investigation?
Ms. Davis. Actually, we created the NSF.gov/harassment
portal, and the reason that is a very key is because we want to
do a lot of outreach so people can know to reach out to us and
let us know if an issue is going on. If the university is
conducting an investigation, failed to tell us something or
failed to conduct an investigation, we can be notified by
numerous sources----
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. Davis. --including the media, and so it's almost
another tool we have to have--to catch violators I would say.
Mr. Loudermilk. And thank you.
Ms. Larsen. May I----
Mr. Loudermilk. I see my time has long expired.
Ms. Larsen. May I please respond?
Mr. Loudermilk. Sure.
Ms. Larsen. I want to make a really important point about
the Marchant case. And I actually had dinner not too long ago
with one of the women who brought forward the allegation, not a
client, just a friend in San Diego. It took her until she was
tenured, years later before she felt safe enough to actually
bring that allegation. And I wonder how many women were out in
the field having rocks thrown at them in the meantime, and so
this is a problem we must address, that people have to feel
safe to report this. Having rocks thrown at you isn't always
thought of as sexual harassment, right? It's not sexual but it
is harassment, and I--and that is an issue as well.
I had a third point and I don't remember it. But I think
the time that it takes, you know, is really something--oh, I
know what I was going to say. She changed her field, so she
went from researching in the Antarctica to researching in the
Arctic to avoid this person. She went to the opposite pole to
avoid him.
Chairwoman Comstock. Wow. That is--thank you all so much
for your important testimony. I wanted to pick up on some of
those points in terms of--you know, we've talked a lot about
the impact on the individual women and how their lifetime
careers change, ``polar opposites,'' and also how they're
losing income over a long time. And, Dr. Clancy, I thought your
point about, this sort of the myth that it was children--and I
can't wait to see your little one here, and great that you're a
nursing mom, that's a great thing, too. But it is bigger than
the individuals who are losing their career here. As a country
and as the science, we're losing that bigger picture and the
talent, and the cost to our economy. So I think this is such a
human rights issue, it's a sexual harassment issue, but we
really need to look at this, how it impacts wages and the
individuals and the economy in the bigger context.
So I know we had a hearing last year where we--in another
committee that I'm on--where we found that companies with three
or more women in senior management functions scored higher in
leadership, accountability--what we're all talking about here--
and innovation, so that's innovation, you know, moving our
economy forward.
And Fortune 500 companies with the highest representative
women on their boards outperformed generally, so this means our
country would be doing better if these women were advancing at
better rates, you know, at the rates that they're going to
school. And then women CEOs in Fortune 500 companies have 200
percent better returns on the S&P 500. So this is costing our
economy. I know we often say--some people might feel like, oh,
we're going to be good and do this. This isn't just doing the
right thing, which is first and foremost very important. This
is economically an issue that is costing our economy if we
don't get this right. So this makes a big impact. You know,
women live longer. If women aren't getting their--into their
careers and getting to stay in them and making that money, this
is costing the country in so many different ways.
So I thank you for your just fabulous research and work and
insight and how you're making all of these connections. You
know, with the example of the woman who had to wait until she
was tenured, you know, I imagine just with the work that you
all are doing and having to--the intervention factor, women
intervening can sometimes be a difficult thing for you even
when you're studying this. So thank you so much for--and please
keep in touch with us. I appreciate the great work, lots of
good representation here of women scientists here, so thanks so
much.
The record will remain open for two weeks and written
questions can be submitted. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ms. Rhonda Davis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Kathryn Clancy
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Kristina Larsen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Christine McEntee
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]