[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMBATING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IN SCIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-564PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
June 12, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Mr. John Neumann, Managing Director, Science, Technology
Assessment, and Analytics, U.S. Government Accountability
Office
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Paula A. Johnson, President, Wellesley College
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Dr. Jean Morrison, University Provost and Chief Academic Officer,
Boston University
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement............................................ 48
Dr. Philip Kass, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Professor
of Analytic Epidemiology, University of California, Davis
Oral Statement............................................... 54
Written Statement............................................ 56
Discussion....................................................... 61
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. John Neumann, Managing Director, Science, Technology
Assessment, and Analytics, U.S. Government Accountability
Office......................................................... 86
Dr. Paula A. Johnson, President, Wellesley College............... 90
Dr. Philip Kass, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Professor
of Analytic Epidemiology, University of California, Davis...... 95
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 98
COMBATING SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
IN SCIENCE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice
Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. The hearing will come to order. And
without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. We are here
today to grapple with a very tough challenge facing the
scientific community. Sexual harassment and gender hostility in
the sciences is not new. Women have long endured demeaning
comments, professional sabotage, unwelcome sexual advances, and
other offensive and hostile behavior during the course of their
studies and research. Many have had to abandon their careers
altogether.
This is a moral issue, one that demands action to ensure
women have equal access to their career of choice. It is also
an issue of our economic and national security. The public
investment in research needs to draw on all of the Nation's
talent to return the best possible science for the benefit of
society. To reach this goal, we must do more to ensure that all
researchers have access to a safe work environment. It does no
good to invest in programs to encourage more young girls to
pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
studies if they end up in a research environment that drives
them away.
The historical tolerance of sexual harassment in the
sciences is deeply rooted in institutional culture. The
incentive structure within academia encourages a lack of
transparency and accountability. It does less harm to an
institution's reputation to allow a bad actor to quietly
resign, and often move on to another institution, than to do a
full investigation that may result in a potentially
embarrassing public finding. Successful researchers also bring
in large grants for their institution. The loss of these
researchers, and the funding that comes with them, would be a
big blow to some institutions.
The incentive to keep quiet is also strong for the victims.
It is far easier for a student or an early career researcher to
keep quiet about her experience than to face the very real
prospect of retaliation from her harasser and the harasser's
colleagues.
In science, students' career prospects rely entirely on
research advisors. This strong disincentive is illustrated by
the shockingly low rate of reporting by sexual harassment
victims at universities. According to the landmark 2018 report
by the National Academies of Science on this topic, only 6
percent of graduate students and faculty who are sexually
harassed formally report their experience to their institution.
There should no longer be any debate about the prevalence
of sexual harassment in STEM and its consequences for U.S.
leadership in science and innovation. The only discussion now
should be about the most effective ways to address it.
As the Science Committee, our responsibility lies in
helping to ensure that Federal science agencies are doing their
part. I commend the National Science Foundation (NSF) for
starting this conversation among agencies and taking the first
bold step with their new reporting requirement. I also commend
the leadership of the scientific societies and the universities
who have been trailblazers in taking concrete action and
sending a clear message of zero tolerance.
Where you have led, others have followed. Earlier this year
I was joined by my good friend, Ranking Member Lucas, in
introducing H.R. 36, the Combating Sexual Harassment in Science
Act. The bill draws upon recommendations made by the National
Academies in their 2018 report. The bill also directs science
agencies to follow NSF's lead by requiring their grantee
institutions to report incidents of sexual harassment. Finally,
the bill directs the Academies to conduct a follow-on study and
to include a section on sexual harassment in its guide on
responsible conduct research.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists
on what more is needed to make progress on this issue, as well
as any potential improvements to H.R. 36 that should be
considered as we move forward.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing.
We are here today to grapple with a very tough challenge
facing the scientific community. Sexual harassment and gender
hostility in the sciences is not new. Women have long endured
demeaning comments, professional sabotage, unwelcome sexual
advances, and other offensive and hostile behavior during the
course of their studies and research. Many have had to abandon
their careers altogether.
This is a moral issue - one that demands action to ensure
women have equal access to their career of choice. It is also
an issue of our economic and national security. The public
investment in research needs to draw on all of our nation's
talent to return the best possible science for the benefit of
society. To reach this goal, we must do more to ensure that all
researchers have access to a safe work environment. It does no
good to invest in programs to encourage more young girls to
pursue STEM studies if they end up in a research environment
that drives them away.
The historical tolerance of sexual harassment in the
sciences is deeply rooted in institutional culture. The
incentive structure within academia encourages a lack of
transparency and accountability. It does less harm to an
institution's reputation to allow a bad actor to quietly resign
and often move on to another institution, than to do a full
investigation that may result in a potentially embarrassing
public finding. Successful researchers also bring in large
grants for their institution. The loss of these researchers,
and the funding that comes with them, would be a big blow to
some institutions.
The incentive to keep quiet is also strong for the victims.
It is far easier for a student or early-career researcher to
keep quiet about her experience than to face the very real
prospect of retaliation from her harasser and the harasser's
colleagues. In science, a student's career prospects rely
entirely on her research advisor. This strong disincentive is
illustrated by the shockingly low rate of reporting by sexual
harassment victims at universities. According to the landmark
2018 report by the National Academies of Science on this topic,
only 6 percent of graduate students and faculty who are
sexually harassed formally report their experience to their
institution.
There should no longer be any debate about the prevalence
of sexual harassment in STEM and its consequences for U.S.
leadership in science and innovation. The only discussion now
should be about the most effective ways to address it. As the
Science Committee, our responsibility lies in helping to ensure
that Federal science agencies are doing their part. I commend
the National Science Foundation for starting this conversation
among the agencies and taking the first bold step with their
new reporting requirement. I also commend the leadership of the
scientific societies and the universities who have been
trailblazers in taking concrete actions and sending a clear
message of zero tolerance. Where you have led, others have
followed.
Earlier this year I was joined by my good friend, Ranking
Member Lucas, in introducing H.R. 36, the Combating Sexual
Harassment in Science Act. The bill draws upon recommendations
made by the National Academies in their 2018 report. The bill
also directs science agencies to follow NSF's lead by requiring
their grantee institutions to report incidents of sexual
harassment. Finally, the bill directs the Academies to conduct
a follow-on study and to include a section on sexual harassment
in its guide on responsible conduct in research.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists
on what more is needed to make progress on this issue, as well
as any potential improvements to H.R. 36 that should be
considered as we move forward.
Chairwoman Johnson. Before I recognize Mr. Lucas for his
opening statement, I'd like to present for the record a
statement from the American Society of Microbiology in support
of H.R. 36. And without objection, I place the statement in the
record.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lucas for his statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding
today's hearing. And thank you to all of our distinguished
panel participants for being here.
This hearing continues our Committee's important,
bipartisan work to combat a culture of sexual harassment in
science. Sexual harassment and gender discrimination are
unacceptable in any situation, period. It's wrong, it's
illegal, and it's imperative that we end it.
Sadly, combating sexual harassment and discrimination of
women is an ongoing challenge in workplaces and classrooms
everywhere. But the science community faces some unique
challenges when it comes to these issues--both in terms of how
we address harassment and in terms of the broader consequences
of this problem.
Individuals affected by sexual harassment and
discrimination can suffer long-term harm to their education and
careers, as well as to their mental and physical well-being.
While we can't lose sight of the individual cost, we must also
think about the cost to our society and the economy as a whole.
Engaging more women in STEM studies and careers is
essential to America's competitiveness. Women make up half the
workforce but account for less than 25 percent of America's
STEM workforce. We cannot afford to compete in the 21st-century
economy with one hand tied behind our back.
I'm proud to join Chairwoman Johnson on the very first day
of the 116th session of Congress in sponsoring H.R. 36, the
Combating Sexual Harassment in Science Act. This bill has a
foundation of more than a year of investigation, analysis, and
recommendations to the Science Committee. That work began last
year when the Science Committee held the first congressional
hearing on this subject. We heard disturbing testimony about
the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and gender
discrimination in the sciences. Only 23 percent of women who
earn STEM degrees stay in STEM careers. When that panel of
experts was asked what was driving women out of STEM, every
witness said the number one factor was the culture in science.
Since that hearing, a lot of work has been done to examine
this problematic culture, determine the extent of the problem
and to start identifying solutions. Last year, the Committee
investigated how universities and Federal science agencies
handle complaints and investigations of sexual harassment. We
found inconsistency in how different agencies deal with the
complaints. The Committee also found unclear policies and
procedures that leave victims unsure of where to turn. And the
Committee discovered many institutions are more interested in
checking the boxes of compliance than doing the right thing.
Last year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine also issued a consensus report: ``Sexual
Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in
Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.'' This report not
only found a high prevalence of sexual harassment in science
but outlined a number of contributing factors. These factors
include a perceived tolerance for inappropriate behavior, the
male-dominated environment in many science departments, power
structures that concentrate power in a single person who has an
outsized impact on a subordinate's future success, a culture of
symbolic compliance with legal requirements, and uninformed
leadership. The report made a number of policy recommendations
that we have included in our legislation.
Finally, the Committee commissioned a study from the
Government Accountability Office, GAO, to analyze how Federal
science agencies are ensuring compliance with sexual harassment
and discrimination laws and managing reports of sexual
harassment among grant recipients. We will hear the preliminary
results of that study today, and I hope that the final report
will make recommendations that drive changes within Federal
agencies.
I commend the National Science Foundation for already
making these changes. Under the leadership of Dr. France
Cordova, NSF has made new policies to address sexual harassment
and ensure the safety of all grant personnel supported by
taxpayer funding. Our legislation proposes that these types of
policies should be adopted by all Federal science agencies. No
taxpayer dollars should be awarded to a researcher who engages
in harassment and inappropriate behavior toward a colleague or
a student.
Today's hearing will raise some difficult questions, many
without easy answers. How do we address these issues while also
maintaining due process and guaranteeing the rights of the
victim and the accused? How do we ensure that in mandating
institutional reporting to Federal science agencies that we
don't unintentionally discourage women from reporting
harassment in the first place?
I hope our witnesses and the other stakeholders can help us
navigate these questions, help us improve H.R. 36 as it moves
through the process.
Again, thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding the
hearing and working in a bipartisan and collaborative way to
move this legislation forward.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you Chairwoman Johnson for holding today's hearing.
And thank you to our distinguished panel of witnesses for being
here.
This hearing continues our Committee's important,
bipartisan work to combat a culture of sexual harassment in
science.
Sexual harassment and gender discrimination are
unacceptable in any situation. Period. It is wrong, it is
illegal, and it is imperative that we end it.
Sadly, combating sexual harassment and discrimination of
women is an ongoing challenge in workplaces and classrooms
everywhere. But the science community faces some unique
challenges when it comes to these issues-both in terms of how
we address harassment and in terms of the broader consequences
of this problem.
Individuals affected by sexual harassment and
discrimination can suffer long-term harm to their education and
careers, as well as to their mental and physical well-being.
While we can't lose sight of the individual cost, we must also
think about the cost to our society and the economy as a whole.
Engaging more women in STEM studies and careers is
essential to American competitiveness. Women make up half of
the workforce, but account for less than 25 percent of
America's STEM workforce. We cannot afford to compete in the
21st Century economy with one hand tied behind our back.
I was proud to join Chairwoman Johnson on the very first
day of the 116th Congress in sponsoring H.R. 36, the Combating
Sexual Harassment in Science Act. This bill has a foundation of
more than a year of investigation, analysis, and
recommendations to the Science Committee.
That work began last year, when the Science Committee held
the first Congressional hearing on this subject. We heard
disturbing testimony about the pervasiveness of sexual
harassment and gender discrimination in the sciences.
Only 23 percent of women who earn STEM degrees stay in STEM
careers. When that panel of experts was asked what was driving
women out of STEM, every witness said the number one factor was
the culture in science.
Since that hearing, a lot of work has been done to examine
this problematic culture, determine the extent of the problem
and to start identifying solutions.
Last year the Committee investigated how universities and
federal science agencies handle complaints and investigations
of sexual harassment. We found inconsistency in how different
agencies deal with complaints.
The Committee also found unclear policies and procedures
that leave victims unsure of where to turn.
And the Committee discovered many institutions are more
interested in checking the boxes of compliance, rather than
doing the right thing.
Last year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine also issued a consensus report: ``Sexual
Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in
Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.''
The report not only found a high prevalence of sexual
harassment in science but outlined a number of contributing
factors. These factors include a perceived tolerance for
inappropriate behavior, the male-dominated environment in many
science departments, power structures that concentrate power in
a single person who has an outsize impact on a subordinate's
future success, a culture of symbolic compliance with legal
requirements, and uninformed leadership.
The report made a number of policy recommendations, that we
have included in our legislation.
Finally, the Committee commissioned a study from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to analyze how federal
science agencies are ensuring compliance with sexual harassment
and discrimination laws and managing reports of sexual
harassment among grant recipients. We will hear the preliminary
results of that study today, and I hope that the final report
will make recommendations that drive changes within federal
agencies.
I commend the National Science Foundation for already
making changes. Under the leadership of Dr. France Cordova, NSF
has set new policies to address sexual harassment and ensure
the safety of all grant personnel supported by taxpayer
funding. Our legislation proposes that these types of policies
should be adopted by all federal science agencies.
No taxpayer dollars should be awarded to a researcher who
engages in harassment and inappropriate behavior toward a
colleague or a student.
Today's hearing will raise some difficult questions, many
without easy answers.
How do we address these issues, while also maintaining due
process and guaranteeing the rights of the victim and the
accused? How do we ensure that in mandating intuitional
reporting to federal science agencies, we don't unintentionally
discourage women from reporting harassment in the first place?
I hope our witnesses and other stakeholders can help us
navigate these questions and help us improve H.R. 36 as it
moves through the process.Again, thank you Chairwoman Johnson
for holding this hearing and working in a bipartisan and
collaborative way to move legislation forward. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness, Mr. John Neumann. Mr. Neumann is the Managing
Director of GAO's new Science, Technology Assessment, and
Analytics team. Since 2013, he has led audits in management and
oversight of Federal research and development programs,
protection of intellectual properties, and Federal efforts to
support innovation.
Mr. Neumann received his B.A. in political science from the
State University of New York at Stony Brook and holds an MBA
from American University, as well as a J.D. from Georgetown
University.
Our next witness, Dr. Paula Johnson. Dr. Johnson is
President of Wellesley College and recently co-chaired the
National Academies' report, ``Sexual Harassment of Women:
Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine.'' Previously, Dr. Johnson was the
Grace A. Young Family Professor of Medicine and Women's Health
at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Epidemiology at the
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. She received her
B.A., M.D., and MPH degrees from Harvard.
After Dr. Johnson, Dr. Jean Morrison. Dr. Morrison is
Provost and Chief Academic Officer at Boston University (BU).
In this role, she provides the leadership for the University's
overall academic, budgetary, and planning processes and
oversight of its academic programs, research, global programs,
enrollment, and student affairs. She also oversees the academic
deans of the University's 17 schools and colleges.
Dr. Morrison received her Ph.D. from the University of
Wisconsin at Madison, her M.S. from the University of Georgia,
and her B.A. from Colgate University.
Our fourth witness is Dr. Philip Kass. Dr. Kass is Vice
Provost for Academic Affairs at the University of California
(UC), Davis. Prior to his appointment to this position, he was
inaugural Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity and
Inclusion. He now works on issues of importance to faculty
success, including salary equity, enhancing an inclusive and
safe academic environment, promoting work-life integration, and
establishing a more diverse faculty.
He holds five degrees: Bachelor's, master's, and doctorate
in veterinary medicine; master of science and statistics; and a
Ph.D. in epidemiology.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When all of you have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin the questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. We will
start with Mr. Neumann.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN NEUMANN,
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT,
AND ANALYTICS, U.S. GAO
Mr. Neumann. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be
here today to discuss our ongoing work on preventing sexual
harassment in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, or STEM, research.
As you know, prominent members of the academic community
who receive Federal research funding have been engaged in or
accused of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is not only
degrading and illegal, studies show it has a negative effect on
the ability of women to engage in research at the same level as
men.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual
harassment, in education programs and activities receiving
Federal financial assistance. Federal agencies provide billions
of dollars in research grant funding to U.S. universities each
year and are responsible for enforcing Title IX compliance at
the universities they fund.
My statement today summarizes preliminary observations from
our ongoing review of selected agency efforts to prevent sexual
harassment by federally funded research grantees. I will focus
on three areas: First, Federal agencies' availability of staff
and budget to address sexual harassment complaints at the
universities they fund for STEM research; second, Federal
agency efforts to establish and communicate policies and
procedures for university grantees on preventing sexual
harassment; and third, steps Federal agencies have taken to
promote information-sharing and collaboration among agencies to
prevent sexual harassment.
We concentrated our review on five Federal agencies that
together funded about 80 percent of STEM research from fiscal
years 2015 to 2017. First, based on preliminary information, we
observed that the availability of agency staff and budgets to
address sexual harassment varies across the five agencies we
looked at. These agencies investigate sexual harassment
complaints from individuals at grantee universities through
their civil rights or diversity offices, which also handle a
wide range of efforts for the entire agency.
While agencies reported having the resources to handle the
number of complaints they currently receive, several agencies
noted challenges in ensuring adequate staffing levels or
funding the expertise needed for the specialized nature of
sexual harassment cases. Also, some agencies such as NSF have
recently seen an increase in sexual harassment complaints and
are considering the level of resources they will need to
address them.
Second, based on the information we've gathered to date,
the five agencies we're reviewing have established and
communicated harassment prevention policies to university
grantees, but they've done so to varying degrees. Specifically,
three of the five agencies--NASA (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration), NIH (National Institutes of Health), and
NSF--have detailed policies and have issued multiple forms of
guidance to grantees, including grantee policy manuals and
best-practices documents. In contrast, the other two agencies--
the Department of Energy and USDA (United States Department of
Agriculture)--have issued general policy statements that do not
specifically address grantees. We also learned that NSF
recently modified the terms and conditions of grants to require
grantees to report sexual harassment, and NASA is planning to
implement the same requirement by the end of this year.
For the third area we are looking at based on our
preliminary analysis, all five agencies have taken some steps
to promote information-sharing and collaboration to help
prevent sexual harassment at the universities they fund for
research. Specifically, these agencies participate in the
Department of Justice's Title IX STEM working group and discuss
strategies for conducting joint compliance reviews at
universities to leverage agency resources and also share best
practices.
Despite this collaboration, all five agencies reported
challenges in obtaining and sharing information on specific
sexual harassment cases. Agencies told us that they rarely
learn about instances of sexual harassment from voluntary
reporting from universities or other Federal agencies and
instead rely on other sources such as news reports. This
situation may change at NSF and NASA as they receive
information from universities based on changes to their grant
terms and conditions to require reporting of sexual harassment
findings by grantees.
In closing, I note that we are continuing our ongoing work
on this important topic, and we will determine whether
additional Federal actions may be needed to prevent and address
sexual harassment in federally funded research when we issue
our final report later this year.
This concludes my prepared statement. I'm happy to respond
to any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neumann follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Neumann. Dr.
Paula Johnson.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PAULA H. JOHNSON,
PRESIDENT, WELLESLEY COLLEGE
Dr. Johnson. Good morning, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking
Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on this important topic. I'm the
President of Wellesley College and a physician, but today, I'm
here in my capacity as Co-Chair at the Committee of the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that
authored the report that was released 1 year ago today:
``Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and
Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.''
I've been asked to summarize the findings and
recommendations from our report, so let me get straight to the
point. After a thorough review of our research, our committee
concluded that the cumulative effect of sexual harassment
includes a negative impact to the integrity of research and a
costly loss of talent in science, engineering, and medicine,
which has consequences for advancing the Nation's economic and
social well-being and its overall public health. We also noted
that rapid and sustained progress in closing the gender gap in
science, engineering, and medicine is jeopardized by the
persistence of sexual harassment in these fields.
One of the first findings our committee made was that the
public is generally aware of two of the three types of sexual
harassment: Unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion.
However, the public is often unaware of the third type, which
is the most common form of sexual harassment. This type is
known as gender harassment and refers to the verbal and
nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification,
exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender.
While we might like to think that gender harassment is less
damaging than other types of sexual harassment, the research
actually shows that severe or frequent gender harassment can
have the same professional and psychological consequences as a
single instance of sexual coercion, and it is why our committee
recommends that institutional leaders pay increased attention
to and enact policies that cover gender harassment.
The research available on academic environments reveal that
sexual harassment is common with over 50 percent of women
faculty and staff and 20 to 50 percent of women students
experiencing sexual harassment. The research also shows that
women of color and sexual and gender minorities experience more
sexual harassment than their peers. Unfortunately, it appears
that women are often bullied or harassed out of career pathways
in science, engineering, and medicine. Even when they remain,
their ability to contribute and advance in their fields can be
limited as a consequence of sexual harassment either from
harassment directed at them, the ambient harassment in the
environment, or from the retaliation they experience after
formally reporting the harassment.
The research shows that sexual harassment undermines
women's professional and educational attainment and their
mental and physical health. When women experience sexual
harassment, they often report symptoms of depression, anxiety,
and posttraumatic stress. They can experience physical effects
such as exhaustion and sleep disruption, and they experience
reduced productivity and performance and often end up
withdrawing from their work in various ways such as stepping
down from leadership opportunities, opting out of research
projects, and deciding not to attend professional society
meetings. It's important to note that these actions are taken
to avoid their perpetrator and to escape an abusive situation
because it is the only way they know they can get the behavior
to stop.
Our committee found that institutions can take concrete
steps to reduce and prevent sexual harassment. To do so they
need to make systemwide changes to, first, create diverse and
inclusive and respectful environments; second, to improve
transparency and accountability; third, to diffuse the
hierarchical and dependent relationship between trainees and
faculty; and fourth, to provide support to those who've
experienced sexual harassment regardless of whether or not
they've courageously spoken up to report their sexual
harassment experiences.
Building from our report, the Combating Sexual Harassment
in Science Act of 2019 addresses many of the recommendations
that our committee made to Federal agencies and Congress. For
instance, it directs NSF to fund research on topics our
committee identified as needing more research. By calling for
an updated guide on the responsible conduct of research that
specifically includes sexual harassment issues, H.R. 36
reflects our recommendation to consider sexual harassment
equally important as research misconduct in terms of its effect
on the integrity of research.
The bill also reflects our recommendations that Federal
agencies require grantees to report to them when individuals on
grants have been found to have violated sexual harassment
policies or have been put on administrative leave related to
sexual harassment.
In conclusion, as a medical professional, I want to note
that our report very clearly shows that sexual harassment in
academic science, engineering, and medicine is a public health
problem, and we need to treat it as such. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Jean Morrison.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JEAN MORRISON,
UNIVERSITY PROVOST AND CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER,
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Morrison. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
this morning. My testimony will focus on two things: One, how
Boston University is addressing gender-based harassment on
campus; and two, what legislators can do to help universities.
I entered the academic world in the 1980s by pursuing my
Ph.D. in Earth sciences. Like all aspiring scientists, we were
taught that our science had to be rigorous, exacting,
objective, and unforgiving in its pursuit of the facts. These
approaches remain the same today nearly 40 years later.
But in hindsight it's also clear that we misapplied these
approaches by extending them to the culture of our workplace
and to our relationships. We created a tough, unforgiving, and
unwelcoming workplace environment. No wonder, then, that
people, especially our more junior students and faculty, felt
more hazed than helped and that women, feeling the additional
burden of gender discrimination, fared even worse. But today's
scientists and engineers are showing my generation that a
positive culture of inclusion and respect is really the best
way to achieve truly excellence in science.
I'm pleased to tell you today what BU is doing to support
our scholars, but I want to make clear that we are also still a
work in progress. Yes, our values and our intentions are in the
right place, but it's our job to match those values with
concrete actions.
You're no doubt familiar with the case publicized in
Science magazine in 2017. A BU Earth scientist was accused of
harassing and bullying two former graduate students more than
20 years ago at a field site in Antarctica. Following our
investigation of the accusations, we initiated a serious
consequence. The BU scientist lost his tenured position and was
terminated.
The case reverberated at BU. We recognized that we needed
to redouble our efforts to combat gender-based harassment, and
here's what we're doing. First, we're prioritizing diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Why do I identify that first? Because
taking explicit steps to achieve greater gender and racial
equity in hiring and promotions is essential to creating a
community that rejects harassment.
We've changed the tenure clock to include time for parental
leave, offered childbirth and adoption accommodations for our
doctoral students, and welcomed our first Associate Provost for
Diversity and Inclusion. These changes benefit all faculty and
staff but are especially important for women.
Second, BU joined the AAAS (American Association for the
Advancement of Science) STEM Equity Achievement (SEA) Change
effort with a rigorous self-assessment of our commitment to
inclusion and equity in STEM and an action plan to address the
barriers that we identified. Due to this work, we were one of
three universities to receive the inaugural SEA Change Bronze
Award.
Third, BU initiated mandatory online sexual misconduct
prevention training for our more than 34,000 undergraduate and
graduate students and our nearly 11,000 faculty and staff.
Fourth, I created a working group on gender-based
harassment prevention to deliver recommendations to me on how
BU can provide an environment that is free of harassment.
And fifth, BU has joined the more than 55 institutions in
the National Academies' Action Collaborative. And universities
are of course foundational to this work, but we do not operate
alone.
So thank you to this Committee for introducing the
bipartisan Combating Sexual Harassment in Academia Act. I
appreciate many of the bill's provisions, including, first, the
governmentwide approach to handling sexual misconduct by
Federal grantees. It's better for all of us in science if there
is one clear set of rules at the Federal level.
Two, authorizing the National Science Foundation to fund
research on gender harassment, so our efforts are data-driven
and evidence-based.
I do, however, want to ask the Committee to take a fresh
look at two things. First, ameliorate potential legal conflicts
between the bill and existing education employment and civil
rights laws; and second, to be explicit about what privacy
protections you envision for this significant new data
reporting in the bill. We learned that sometimes complainants
and witnesses in harassment cases only come forward if they
know their information will not be shared with others.
So, again, thank you for holding today's hearing. I feel
this issue very deeply and personally. Today, my daughter is in
a STEM Ph.D. program, and I want her and every other young
woman in her generation to have every opportunity to thrive.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Morrison follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Dr. Morrison. Dr.
Kass.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PHILIP KASS,
VICE PROVOST FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND
PROFESSOR OF ANALYTIC EPIDEMIOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
Dr. Kass. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, it's a privilege to be here today to
discuss the University of California, Davis' efforts to address
sexual harassment issues in science.
The University of California is committed to creating and
maintaining a community where all individuals can work and
learn together in a safe and secure environment free of
harassment and discrimination. Combating sexual harassment and
fostering a culture of respect and accountability is what the
10 campuses of the UC system are striving for and has led the
system to take a strong and public stand against portions of
the Department of Education's proposed Title IX rule that would
narrow the definition of sexual harassment and lower the
standards to which schools are held.
At UC Davis, we're especially passionate about the issue of
combating sexual harassment. Fifty-nine percent of our more
than 30,000 undergraduates are female. In 2012, UC Davis
received an NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation grant to
increase the participation and advancement of women in academic
science and engineering careers. And in 2016, Forbes listed UC
Davis as the number one college for women in STEM.
In February 2019, UC Davis was one of three universities in
the United States to receive the inaugural AAAS SEA Change
Bronze Award certification. UC Davis' innovative hiring
practices such as offering childcare services to interviewees,
helping partners find jobs, using contributions to diversity
statements, and having policies in place to address salary
equity were among the reasons for UC Davis' selection. I
mention the AAAS SEA Change award as it was a voluntary self-
assessment and action from UC Davis and reflects our commitment
to fostering a culture of respect and accountability.
To further support this commitment, on July 1, 2018, UC
Davis initiated a pilot program to conduct reference checks on
final candidates for academic appointments with tenure. The
pilot reference check program enables UC Davis to obtain and
review information about candidates' personal conduct in their
previous academic appointments that may be important to the
appointment decision. This includes conduct involving gender
discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual violence.
The campus includes a statement in the posting of Senate
ladder-rank faculty positions with tenure providing notice to
applicants that UC Davis will conduct reference checks on final
candidates prior to hiring. The statement highlights the
University of California's commitment, quote, ``to creating and
maintaining a community dedicated to the advancement,
application, and transmission of knowledge and creative
endeavors through academic excellence where all individuals who
participate in the university programs and activities can work
and learn together in a safe and secure environment free of
violence, harassment, discrimination, exploitation, or
intimidation,'' unquote.
Based on this commitment, UC Davis conducts a reference
check on all finalists for tenured positions. The reference
check involves contacting the administration of the applicant's
previous institutions to ask whether there had been
substantiated findings of misconduct that would violate the
university's faculty code of conduct.
To implement this process, UC Davis requires all applicants
to complete, sign, and upload a form as part of their
application. If the applicant does not include the signed
authorization with the application materials, the application
will be considered incomplete and will not receive further
consideration.
Academic Affairs, in consultation with the dean and the
department chair, will then conduct an individualized
assessment of any information received, including the nature of
the conduct, the length of time passed, any corrective action
taken, and any explanation offered by the candidate. After
reviewing the information, we will determine whether the
candidate is still eligible to be considered for the position.
We have not received any protests about this program from
faculty applicants or institutions we have contacted. We
request feedback within 7 days and, in most cases, receive it.
To date, the pilot has resulted in 14 candidates requiring
reference checks, 23 academic institutions contacted, 19
responses received, and 0 instances where discipline was
provided.
We believe that potential applicants for faculty positions
who have been disciplined, upon reading UC Davis' requirement
for a signed authorization, will be dissuaded from applying.
The reference check process is therefore likely acting as a
prescreening deterrent, consistent with our belief that we do
not want to faculty whose behavior is inconsistent with our
faculty code of conduct and principles of community.
Finally, consistent with the language of H.R. 36, we
believe our reference check program is an intervention for
reducing the incidence and negative consequences of sexual
harassment in both the STEM and non-STEM workforces, including
students and trainees. We believe it's our moral imperative to
protect our students, as well as all other members of our
campus community, and so in our minds this modest step is long
overdue.
We found no impediments to its implementation, and during
the second year of the pilot program, we will again review and
share our findings with other universities at the University of
California. We expect and hope that other universities around
the country will want to follow in our footsteps to prevent
offenders at one university from relocating to another and
become potentially serial offenders, and we stand prepared to
help these institutions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for your
continued support for the academic community. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kass follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Kass.
At this point, we will begin our first round of questions,
and the Chair recognizes myself for the first round.
Mr. Neumann, thank you for presenting GAO's preliminary
findings regarding policies and procedures in place at agencies
to prevent and address sexual harassment. One finding that
concerns me is that few agencies in your analysis have
undertaken efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of their
policies. Is GAO considering making any recommendations
regarding agency efforts to assess the effectiveness of their
policies?
Mr. Neumann. Yes. As I noted in my statement, none of the
agencies have currently taken any steps to evaluate the
effectiveness of their policies. As we noted, there's a variety
of policies--the agencies are using a variety of policies to
communicate their sexual harassment efforts, and so we believe
that there's likely an area that agencies could improve on
there, and so we're looking at making, you know, some
recommendations to improve the--that part of the work.
Chairwoman Johnson. OK. Thank you. Dr. Johnson, the
National Academies' report found that women of color are at an
increased risk of sexual harassment relative to their white
peers. Can you discuss the unique challenges faced by women of
color who experience sexual harassment in academia and perhaps
what more we can do to support them.
Dr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. Women of color
do experience higher rates of sexual harassment compared to
their peers, and unlike their white peers, there's often the
sense in the academic environment that they actually don't
experience harassment. So they're starting from a place of
tremendous lack of knowledge within academic sciences,
engineering, and medicine.
Second is that they are frequently in the minority, so as
numbers have increased with regard to women in academic
science, engineering, and medicine, those numbers have not
commensurately increased for women of color, and therefore,
there is increased isolation. So there is a sense that, without
a doubt, creating an environment of inclusion, diversity, and
one of equity requires increasing the numbers but also
increasing what is an inclusive environment and paying very
close attention to that.
And then last, it is very important that we focus on
supporting the targets of sexual harassment, making sure that
they understand that they will be protected from retaliation
and figuring out and developing strategies for them to report
in ways that give them more agency. And there are ombudspeople.
There are online methods of reporting that also allow them
privacy until they are ready to come forward.
And last, to make sure that all women, but particularly
those who are from other minority groups, understand that
reporting is an act of courage.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Kass and Dr.
Morrison, in February 2019 both of your institutions were
selected to receive the Bronze Award certification as part of
the new American Association for the Advancement of Science,
AAAS, SEA Change initiatives. First, congratulations to both of
you for that achievement, but then the question, can you talk
about why your institution chose to pursue the SEA Change award
and what steps your institution took to earn the recognition?
And what were your biggest challenges?
Dr. Kass. Would you like to go first?
Dr. Morrison. Sure. We chose to pursue it because we
thought it was an important opportunity to develop a really
comprehensive database around participation in STEM, and that
database that was developed as a result of our making the
application has been extremely useful in helping to guide our
action steps to follow up. We've been able to identify clearly
at a department level where representation is--
underrepresentation of women in STEM and underrepresented
groups is particularly severe so that we can target our actions
to that. So we saw it as an opportunity to create a database
that would allow us to use the information to most effectively
remediate where we have real issues.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Kass?
Dr. Kass. So the AAAS SEA Change program is based upon the
United Kingdom's Athena SWAN (Scientific Women's Academic
Network) program, a program that has largely become
institutionalized in the United Kingdom. We saw this at UC
Davis as a way to establish baseline information about the
myriad programs that we have across the campus that we're not
all even aware of on such a large campus.
Another advantage of this program is that once we receive
the award, we become then committed to a series of action plans
who will hold us accountable over the next 5 years, and we are
committed to meeting those. This is actually consistent with
suggestions that were in the National Academies' report as well
that universities across the United States should participate
in programs like SEA Change.
Now, having done that, we also see our responsibility to
try to share knowledge about the program with other University
of California campuses and, to an even greater extent, to other
universities around the country. This helps raise
consciousness, this helps raise the campus profile. This lets
everybody know that this is an important issue for all of us
and that it's not enough to simply rest on our laurels but that
we want to do even better in the future, and there's built-in
accountability for that.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Morrison, I'd like to first thank Boston University for
its cooperation during the Committee's investigation last year.
From that review, the Committee found the National Science
Foundation did not have a clear policy on how to deal with a
grantee when they are placed on administrative leave.
So I have a two-part question for you. One, could you
please share how this lack of guidance from NSF tied Boston
University's hands in taking actions in that case? And then
once you've done that, follow up, please, with do you feel that
the NSF's updated grant policies have clarified the process?
Two parts.
Dr. Morrison. Sure. To the first part, during the
investigation when we were trying to determine what the
appropriate steps were, there were a series of queries from BU
to NSF, and we were--you know, we asked what are our
responsibilities here, and we were told don't worry about it
right now. And so it created a sense of uncertainty about what
our obligations were. But I would note that we did reach out
and try to understand what the appropriate steps were.
What I think was most valuable about it is it really
revealed that neither we nor NSF knew what the rights steps
were to take because there's a lot on the line in a situation
like this. While we want to ensure that we are holding
individuals who have engaged in gender-based harassment or
sexual harassment accountable, we also feel very strongly about
the importance of due process. And so in trying to balance
those two, the absence of those guidelines just made it very
much harder.
And what was the second question?
Mr. Lucas. The second part was do you feel that the NSF's
updated grant policies----
Dr. Morrison. Oh.
Mr. Lucas [continuing]. Have helped clarify the situation?
Dr. Morrison. Yes. It's better than it was. I think there
are still important questions around the precise language about
when we need to notify Federal agencies, and I think that's
going to take more discussion. And I think it is an extremely
important point for the very reason I just cited in that we
want to make sure that we are both appropriately addressing
inappropriate behavior but also ensuring that people who are
accused are entitled to due process.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Mr. Neumann, from GAO's initial
findings, what inconsistencies have you found in sexual
harassment policies for grantees across the five Federal
agencies that GAO is examining?
Mr. Neumann. Yes, I think the main inconsistency we saw is
there are some agencies like NASA, NIH, and NSF that had, you
know, very detailed policies, they had manuals for grantees,
they had best-practice documents, and others just had general
policy statements that didn't specifically address grantees and
their responsibilities. I think that was the most significant
difference.
Mr. Lucas. So in the process of what you're doing now and
since time has passed, briefly, have there been steps taken to
coordinate across agencies to develop a uniform Federal policy?
Mr. Neumann. Well, certainly, the agencies are
collaborating. As I mentioned in my statement, they collaborate
through the Department of Justice's STEM working group, and
they also take on some individual collaboration with each
other. But that's an area that we want to look at a little more
closely because we believe that there could be additional steps
they could take to better collaborate and share information.
Dr. Morrison was talking about the uncertainty that NSF's
policy or lack of guidance created for them, and I think that's
partly due to the fact that the agencies haven't really
evaluated the effectiveness of their policies to see what is
working, what--you know, is this effectively reaching the
grantees so they know what they are required to do?
Mr. Lucas. And in the time I have left, I turn to my three
doctors. Would you like to see uniform policy for grantees, and
what would it mean to your institutions? Yes, that's an open-
ended question, but the floor is yours. Dr. Johnson?
Dr. Johnson. The answer would be yes. I think that having
uniform policies and procedures across the Federal funding
agencies would be extremely beneficial--beneficial to our
institutions and also beneficial to our grantees.
Dr. Morrison. I agree, absolutely. It's essential in order
to facilitate our ability to be effective in working through
these always complicated situations.
Dr. Kass. And we concur. Having a uniform policy across all
Federal agencies would reduce potential errors. In addition,
many faculty investigators receive funding from multiple
sources, and so we would ostensibly otherwise be faced with the
possibility of trying to apply different standards to the same
individual, so we would welcome a uniform policy.
Mr. Lucas. Very valid point. With that, I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking
Member Lucas, for the hearing, also for your bipartisan
legislation, which I am proud to support. And to our
distinguished panel, thank you.
A few years ago I heard from a talented fisheries biologist
whose career was basically put on hold--she was conducting
research on a NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) vessel when she finally reported the
harassment, which of course she delayed for a long time because
she was afraid for her career. The scientist, not the
individual who harassed her, was advised against returning to
the sea, so she was given a desk job, and her research was
basically derailed.
And like with so many other cases of harassment in the
sciences, the investigation was slow. I finally contacted then-
NOAA Administrator Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, who begin the process
of really making some tangible changes. They have updated their
policies. And I noticed NOAA is not one of the agencies in your
report, Mr. Neumann. They updated their policies and procedures
for reporting. They began training the NOAA workforce. They
started to improve the investigation protocol. Fortunately, the
scientist was able to return to her work, and NOAA has now
implemented a full-time workplace violence prevention and
response program manager. I just got an update from them
yesterday, and they really have taken it seriously. But of
course we have a lot of work to do.
And we know of course that this is not just restricted to
remote areas like a NOAA research vessel. According to the
comprehensive report, more than 58 percent of individuals in
academia experienced sexual harassment or gender harassment,
and it could be more than that because I don't necessarily have
confidence that everyone is reporting. We're losing a
tremendous amount of potential when this happens without a way
to address it.
Dr. Johnson, you talked about the perceived tolerance for
sexual harassment in academia. When does that start? And is it
affecting incoming students and their course choices or major
choices? Is it affecting faculty and faculty recruitment? Where
does that start? I'm on the Education Committee, so I'm always
looking at prevention.
Dr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Representative Bonamici. And
our report very clearly states that this is a pervasive problem
and that it impacts students, trainees, postdoctoral students,
as well as faculty, so across the board there is significant
impact.
So one particular area I'd like to just reference, though,
in your question or in your statement was the particular issue
that's experienced by those who are engaged in field site
research because there is also a problem. Our report clearly
stated that evidence shows that it's an area where the rates of
documented sexual harassment are even higher.
According to the SAFE (Survey of Academic Field
Experiences) study, which was run by one of our committee
members Kathryn Clancy, the estimates are about 64 percent of
those in field sites are experiencing sexual harassment with
the greatest numbers being amongst female trainees. On those
sites, both men and women experience harassment. It's
experienced somewhat differently, but it is a pervasive
problem. And according to the study, there is a real lack of
understanding of any codes of conduct, lack of understanding
how to report, and so it's a particular area, in addition to
all of the others that we've discussed, where there really
needs to be attention.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I'm going to try to get
another couple questions in real quickly. Dr. Johnson, in
addition to Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas' bill,
the report says treat the legal obligations for addressing
sexual harassment under Title IX and Title VII as a floor not a
ceiling. What else do you recommend Congress do?
Dr. Johnson. Title IX and Title VII really are the base,
and what has happened is that in many institutions, the
approach to addressing harassment has been one that's been
legalistic and one that really looks to only decrease
liability. It's important that we really focus on the culture
and the climate in order to prevent harassment. And it is the
areas that I focused on in my opening statement: Increasing the
culture of diversity, inclusion, and respect; changing the
power dynamic in the mentor-mentee relationship; supporting
targets of harassment; and really improving accountability and
transparency.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I real quickly want to ask Mr.
Neumann because you brought this up in your testimony about the
Department of Justice Title IX STEM workgroup meetings, but you
also suggested in your testimony that the discussions about
sexual harassment are not happening in those meetings. So do
you agree that OSTP is the appropriate entity to help provide
this consistency? What's happening with those conversations if
sexual harassment is not being discussed in those workgroup
meetings?
Mr. Neumann. Well, so I think that it's the emphasis, as
Dr. Johnson mentioned, is more on compliance with the law.
That's what the focus of that working group is and how they can
jointly conduct compliance reviews. So it's all very valuable,
but it doesn't really get at the broader issues that have been
raised by the National Academies' report. And that's something
we definitely want to look at, you know, are agencies' policies
effective in addressing the larger issue?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I'm over time. I yield back. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. I want to follow up on what
Congresswoman Bonamici said, Dr. Johnson, if I may. She asked
you the question where does sexual harassment start, but I want
to ask you a different question. Where does it end? And here's
what I mean by that. You talked about in the field there seems
to be a lack of understanding of codes of conduct, which I find
astounding because you would think that that should have been
made obviously apparent in the institutions. And then you said
there was a misunderstanding or lack of understanding on how to
report. So if we're going to end this, how do you fix those two
problems?
Dr. Johnson. Our report gives a number of recommendations,
and one particular one is if we look at what training should at
least include from the knowledge we have now, understanding
that there's more research to be done in terms of the most
effective strategies. It's very clear that training that is
targeted toward particular groups and not just a vanilla
training across all is indicated. So specific training for
students, for postgraduate students, for faculty and staff. The
experience is different across those groups and requires
different types of training.
It's also clear that training should not focus on changing
beliefs but should focus on changing behavior. Often, training
that is online and brief is focused on really understanding
some of the rules, which is beneficial, but it really does not
get at the heart of how we need to change behavior.
Mr. Weber. Well, that sounds interesting to me that
training should be focused on not changing beliefs, but if we
don't encourage people to think differently, some that believe
they're entitled or believe they can get away with stuff or
whatever, that seems a little incongruous with what we need to
be doing. And I know you all researched that and so you're
educated in that and I appreciate that.
I want to go over to Mr. Neumann and follow up with what
Congresswoman Bonamici said also. Mr. Neumann, you said there
were five agencies, and she asked were they having
conversations about this. And you've studied these five
agencies. Is there one person generally in charge? When you did
this study in each of these agencies, was there one person
accountable for progressing this issue and relaying that back
to you and interfacing with you?
Mr. Neumann. Well, there's a variety of offices depending
on the agency that are involved. It's usually the, you know,
civil rights or diversity offices that are involved in
enforcing sexual harassment policies.
Mr. Weber. Is there a time when you double back or do you
just do the one study and you're done?
Mr. Neumann. No, we have--and actually, we're continuing to
do additional work, so we had initial conversations, we met
with different officials at the agencies, gather documentation,
reviewed that documentation. Now, we go back and finalize our
analysis with them. And the last step of the process is getting
their input so they have a chance to, you know, give us any
additional evidence before we make any final recommendations.
Mr. Weber. Do you give them a grade, a report card if you
will?
Mr. Neumann. We certainly will point out any weaknesses in
areas that we see could be improved and make recommendations.
Mr. Weber. And is that information made public to anybody
who is seeking to come be employed there or come to a college,
for example, or be a grantee? And I'll come back to you Dr.--is
it Kass or Kass?
Dr. Kass. Kass.
Mr. Weber. Kass in just a minute. But do you give them a
report card? Do you make that information public so if anybody
wanted to go to work there knows the pervading atmosphere
there, Mr. Neumann?
Mr. Neumann. Well, so we wouldn't be giving a report card,
you know, for the universities. We're focused on the Federal
agencies.
Mr. Weber. Well, that's what I'm talking about.
Mr. Neumann. Right. So we wouldn't be looking--yes, so we'd
be providing recommendations that we made publicly available on
our website, and agencies will take action in response to that.
Mr. Weber. OK. And then, Dr. Kass, you just said
something--thank you for that, Mr. Neumann.
Dr. Kass, you said something that got my attention. You
said that the program--somebody asked you about going after the
SEA deal, and you said it was fashioned after a U.K. program.
Dr. Kass. That's correct. In the United Kingdom there's a
program called Athena SWAN, and that program, which has been
around for a number of years----
Mr. Weber. Athena----
Dr. Kass. Athena, hyphen, SWAN, S-W-A-N.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Dr. Kass. And the program exists to try to help United
Kingdom universities diversify their faculty particularly with
respect to gender.
Mr. Weber. OK. And then you said one thing that caught my
attention. I think you said that program had permeated the
institutions in the U.K.
Dr. Kass. Yes, many, many universities in the United
Kingdom are either bronze-, silver-, or gold-certified. And
indeed, for some government grants, it is required that you
achieve a certain level of certification in order to become
eligible to even apply for those grants.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, I've got other questions, but I'm over
my time. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and thank you for
holding this hearing and for your continued dedication to this
critical issue. And thank you to each and every witness here
this morning for joining and helping shine a light on this
problem.
Every time a woman in America is driven out of the
sciences, it diminishes our Nation's leadership and our
competitiveness. When sexual harassment in the fields of
science, technology, engineering, or math is accepted or
ignored, we lose future leaders, inventors, innovators, and
pioneers.
The greatness of a nation has often been measured by its
achievements in science. If half of us and half of the people
in future generations are held back from their full potential,
we squander the potential of those amongst us who would have
gone on to find lifesaving cures, make discoveries that enhance
our lives, or change our understanding of the universe and do
research that pushes us forward.
We must act decisively on this issue to end the outdated
and useless culture that allows for harassment and
discrimination in science. There is no reason to perpetuate a
perverse dynamic that can only serve to limit our perspectives
and our ability to solve problems.
As an engineer, I want to thank the Society of Women
Engineers for their work highlighting this issue and for
reminding us that we lose a golden opportunity when many of the
women who want to go into engineering are thrown into a culture
where sexual harassment is tolerated and they are undermined.
This is indeed unacceptable.
I have supported many pieces of legislation to diversify
the STEM workforce and inspire young women to go into the STEM
fields. However, if the STEM fields are not a welcome place for
women and this culture of sexual harassment is allowed to
continue, we will lose these very same young women whom we have
worked so hard to inspire to go into STEM, and we will lose
every extraordinary thing they would have achieved because we
failed to address the problem before us today.
That is why I'm so grateful for today's hearing, and I for
one will continue to listen closely for opportunities and
actions that we can take to more fully realize America's
potential in science.
So with that said, Dr. Morrison, in your testimony you
mentioned your personal experience as a woman in the sciences,
and you describe a culture that absorbs the, quote, ``exacting
and unforgiving nature of the scientific discipline.'' Can you
elaborate on what specific cultural challenges exist in
academia that may contribute to a hostile environment?
Dr. Morrison. Sure. I think, as I said both in my oral and
written testimony, that when one, you know, asks the question,
well, where did this start so we can get to where does it end,
it's a very good question, where does it start, because this is
not necessarily characteristic of other organizations. And I
think it--and STEM--and in fact we don't see it in quite the
same ways manifest in other disciplines within the university.
And I think it goes back to the exacting and rigorous nature of
how we think about the scientific process where you have a
hypothesis and you gather data and you could repeatedly
question and question and question to get to the truth. And so
that characteristic where a sort of dogged pursuit of the truth
can often be hostile.
And certainly I had a number of exchanges during the course
of my Ph.D. where in what should be sort of rational back-and-
forth and discourse and, you know, question and answer, it gets
hostile because people can take it personally. So I think
that's in part where it drives from.
And I think the other element is that particularly in
research universities, these are institutions that are
extremely decentralized, so faculty do most of their teaching
and research within the context of a department. And those
departments are led by a department chair who's been elected
from among the group. And so they are in some ways isolated
from broader structures, and so they have a tremendous amount
of autonomy. And I think that decentralization of academic
departments where cultures get established and are allowed to
exist without aggressive intervention is part of the issue.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Dr. Johnson, you list a number
of negative professional outcomes when women experience sexual
harassment in the workplace, all of which affect retention of
women in STEM. Having done a lot of work on that issue, does
sexual harassment in STEM also serve as a barrier to
recruitment of women in STEM studies and careers? And where's
the pipeline--where in the pipeline are its impacts first felt?
Dr. Johnson. What we know and what our study showed was
that along the pipeline there are barriers. And we don't have
good data regarding whether it's a barrier to entering. What we
do have data on are the increasing numbers of women in certain
fields entering that pipeline but then dropping out. And I
think it's evidence that this is a pervasive problem and
contributes to that high dropout rate.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you very much. And let's all keep up
the fight. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Chairwoman. My first question is
for Dr. Johnson. The Federal definition of research misconduct
was last revised over 20 years ago and was altered to take out
the detrimental research practices from the definition. Is it
time to revisit whether sexual harassment and other abusive
behavior should be part of the Federal definition of research
misconduct?
Dr. Johnson. Thank you. And our report recommends that
sexual harassment be considered as important as research
misconduct, and it really negatively impacts the integrity of
science. And therefore, it is time to relook at the definition
and to look at the full definition of what negatively impacts
and constitutes a negative impact on research, so yes.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Dr. Morrison, would you add anything to
that?
Dr. Morrison. No, I think that's absolutely--it's
absolutely essential that is added to the definition.
Mr. Marshall. OK. My next question for Dr. Kass, in many of
the harassment cases that have recently come to light, one
running theme is that nondisclosure agreements and other
privacy considerations have allowed abusers to go unchecked. In
education, this often means perpetrators are able to go from
university to university committing the same egregious
behavior. How does UC Davis pilot program--check program assist
in addressing this hurdle?
Dr. Kass. By requiring applicants to sign a disclosure
agreement authorizing the previous institutions to disclose to
us any substantiated charges of sexual harassment and
discipline. We think that we'll be able to then mitigate that
problem.
Mr. Marshall. So have you been able to exercise that or is
it working so far? Is it too early to tell?
Dr. Kass. The problem--well, it's working in the sense that
so far we have not had anybody applying for tenured faculty
positions who have had substantiated sexual misconduct. And we
can't be sure why that is, but we suspect that our program is a
deterrent to them to even apply in the first place knowing that
if they did have substantiated sexual harassment, they would be
forced to sign an agreement allowing their previous university
to disclose it to us.
Mr. Marshall. I'm trying to be the devil's advocate here I
guess. If I was university X where there was an issue and now
they're applying to your university, if I was at university X,
I'd probably be consulting about 15 lawyers to say, look, I've
got a nondisclosure agreement, and this person now is--it
sounds like he's waiving their nondisclosure agreement. That
seems like a hassle or an issue probably.
Dr. Kass. Well, it hasn't come up so far, so we haven't had
to cross that bridge. I suppose we would reach out to the
university then to understand why they were not being
responsive to us. Is it that they simply don't have the time or
whether or not they are declining to respond to us for unknown
reasons, which would raise a red flag.
Mr. Marshall. Does anybody else have any comments how we
overcome the hurdle? Yes, Dr. Johnson, please.
Dr. Johnson. One thing that we have recommended in our
report as a potential congressional action is that we really do
away with confidentiality statements because this is at the
heart of the problem. If there are confidentiality statements
that are signed, then it creates many barriers, as you've
stated. So if we can do away with those statements, we'd go
much farther in having much more of an open book around what
institutions can or can't say.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Anybody else have any further comments on
that? OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member
Lucas, and our panelists.
You know, this is an important subject. Throughout my 25-
year career in physics, our field always struggled with gender
diversity, and I always wondered what fraction of that struggle
might be due to harassment and discrimination. It's a very
difficult question to answer, as Dr. Morrison mentioned.
You know, in science, you know, everyone talks over
everyone else, you know, and, you know, it's just--it's the way
it is, and that culture, you know, lands particularly hard
perhaps on women who choose not to be as aggressive.
And my first question, Mr. Neumann, it relates to table 3
on page 8 of your written testimony. The statistics on this are
small, but it seems like there are significant differences in
the rates of reported sexual harassment complaints received by
different agencies. And I was wondering if you can say
something--does this just reflect difference in the number of
grantee institutions, a difference in the number of potential
targets, the number of different reporting criteria, or what
other factors?
Mr. Neumann. Well, I think part of the issue is that the
complaints don't always reach the agencies. A lot of them are
addressed at the university level or they go to the Department
of Education, so they go through a different process. The ones
that are reaching the agencies are going to be limited based on
the nature of the oversight.
But NSF, as we noted, had more complaints, and that was
because of a change in agreement they had with the Department
of Education which previously handed their complaints for them.
And now NSF is handling those directly, so that number went up
recently.
Mr. Foster. Yes. And are you optimistic that you'll be able
to come up with standardized reporting criteria so we'll
actually be able to look across all the different agencies and
see if there is potentially a cultural problem in one of the
other agencies?
Mr. Neumann. We'll definitely continue to look at the
information-sharing. It's an area that we believe there is
likely to be improvements that we'll recommend because the
agencies themselves have noted that they would like to be able
to share more information. They haven't really identified any
legitimate barriers yet that we could see to that information-
sharing, so we want to continue to pursue that in the rest of
our analysis.
Mr. Foster. Are there appropriate workshops that are
attended by the relevant people who could standardize the
policies so at least we could have some idea, you know, to have
a level look at the different agencies?
Mr. Neumann. Each agency is taking different steps, you
know, that some are creating working groups, others are working
with each other, you know, on a bilateral basis to kind of
coordinate on different policies, so there's definitely a lot
of workshops. And we'll include some of that information in our
final report.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And I guess this is a question for
the whole panel. Is the line drawn--both for harassment and
discrimination in academia the same as the lines that are drawn
in business? You know, for example, in big law firms, you know,
there are very, very explicit, you, rules and training that,
you know, the associates at the law firms have to take, you
know, when, you know, two lawyers at a firm develop a
relationship, there are very explicit rules on--they have to
report it, they have to, you know, deconflict any legal
problems, and so on, and as well as laws about harassment and
so on, or rules about harassment. I'm not aware that there are
such explicit rules about reporting it when someone leaves a
law firm because of some trouble. They may or may not leave
quietly.
I was wondering, are the rules in academia comparable, more
lax, or more stringent than those in general business?
Dr. Morrison. I would say that the culture is very
different if you compare a law firm with a university where
tenured and tenure-track faculty members have a shared
governance role in the institution. That structural difference
I think has led to differences in how the two institutions, a
law firm and a university, address these things. I think we're
working toward having the kinds of policies and procedures that
corporations and businesses have, but it is complicated by the
role and the fundamental structure of the university where
faculty are deeply engaged in the process. I think we're
moving--we strive toward that, but I think there are real
differences.
Mr. Foster. Dr. Johnson?
Dr. Johnson. There are other differences. For example, the
very close and dependent mentor-mentee relationship in which
the mentee or advisee at different levels is fully dependent on
the mentor or the senior faculty member for funding, for
mentorship, and that frequently goes unchecked. And so in the
report we really recommend that this is an opportunity where
academia is quite different, and it's an opportunity for us to
really think about diversifying that model, widening that
mentorship circle, changing the models of funding so that, in
addition to all of the other recommendations, we're also
changing some of the fundamental structures that we think are
very important in leading to harassment.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And I guess I'm out of time here and
yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
important hearing, and thank you to our panel today for your
testimony and your tireless work to shed a light on this
important issue.
So little bit of my background, I, prior to this job, ran a
technology company, small startup run by two incredible female
entrepreneurs, one, our CTO was from MIT, and we used to talk a
lot about this issue specifically. And I know we've made
progress, but it's still unbelievably frustrating and I can't
thank you enough for all your work. And I'm glad we're here
today.
And I want to first direct my first question to Dr.
Johnson. In your written testimony you recommended academic
institutions diffuse the hierarchical and dependent
relationship between trainees and faculty. You were just
talking about that. Could you speak as specifically as you can
on how we could actually do that. How can we incentivize that
as Congress? Because it's such a unique and kind of odd
structural arrangement that hurts us here.
Dr. Johnson. Yes. So in our report, we recommend the
widening of that mentorship circle and really thinking about
widening how funds are granted. What can be done through
Congress and through our funding agencies is to set certain
expectations for how grant-receiving institutions must create
these opportunities for changing the paradigm.
Mr. Gonzalez. Great.
Dr. Johnson. And this is another opportunity obviously for
research.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK. But I'm trying to figure out how we
decouple--because there's this notion that you're almost
beholden to your superior no matter what in the academic world,
so how do you kind of get around that or how do we----
Dr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez [continuing]. Decouple those?
Dr. Johnson. So what we recommend in the report is that you
will always have a relationship----
Mr. Gonzalez. Right.
Dr. Johnson [continuing]. With a senior faculty member or
mentor, but that should not be singular----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Dr. Johnson [continuing]. That there's an opportunity here
to broaden that mentorship circle to create very, very
intentionally a different model of mentorship so that a trainee
is not alone in that singular relationship.
And second, the funding piece is also quite important----
Mr. Gonzalez. Right.
Dr. Johnson [continuing]. And what we recommend is that we
consider potentially pooling funds and having funds come
centrally to the trainee as opposed to being directly handed
over or that direct one-on-one dependency.
Mr. Gonzalez. Great. And then another one of your
recommendations has to do with better protecting claimants from
retaliation.
Dr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Could you maybe go into that a little bit as
well, you know, specifically how can we do that?
Dr. Johnson. Yes. So a lot of what H.R. 36 is recommending
in terms of helping to create not only a different culture but
also helping to do the research that allows us to better
evaluate some of the interventions we recommend I think is
important.
The second thing is to really give the target of sexual
harassment more agency in the process. And what I mean by this
is really thinking about other ways that the target can have
control over reporting. We know that there's underreporting.
How do we make reporting safe? How do we create greater
opportunity for reporting that is confidential? How do we also
look at opportunities to report where a victim may not have to
come forward but can actually record the incident, timestamp
it, and when they're ready come forward. So the more agency we
can give a target, the more we believe will come forward.
Mr. Gonzalez. Great, thank you. And then, Dr. Kass, I just
want to drill down on Athena SWAN a little bit. You were
mentioning it earlier. Can you tell me about how that program's
working today and what the interplay is between kind of the
government versus the institutions themselves?
Dr. Kass. Well, from what I can see from across the
Atlantic it seems to be working fairly well. Universities
across the United Kingdom want to become certified through
Athena SWAN. It has now spread to Australia as well. So it
seems to have become part of the United Kingdom's fabric. And,
as I said, there are now some grants that universities would
otherwise not be eligible to apply for were they not showing
some measure of success in creating a more diverse and
equitable environment for female faculty.
Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic. Thank you again for your time and
your important work, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mrs. Fletcher.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you for
holding this hearing and Ranking Member Lucas, and thank you to
all of our witnesses who are here testifying. This is a really
important topic.
And folks here have heard me say before that I'm the aunt
of a niece who wants to grow up to be an engineer, and I want
to make sure that path is clear on the way, as well as in
arriving.
And we've had the privilege on this Committee of hearing
from many accomplished, incredible women, including those on
our panel today, who are in the sciences, and it's critical
that we create environments where we can do that.
So my questions are really geared around how do we in
Congress help combat some of these challenges? And I think
that, as a lawyer, one of the things that stuck out to me, Dr.
Morrison, was your testimony that H.R. 36 is a good step but
that we need to look at the conflicts and kind of ameliorate
some conflicts between the existing laws and the requirements
under H.R. 36. And I wonder if you could just expand on that a
little bit for us of the things that you see that are
potentially intentioned that we might address now.
Dr. Morrison. Yes. I think there are a variety of things.
We want to make sure that the guidance from the Federal
Government and all the different areas is consistent and clear
so that, as we go then to communicate to our decentralized
organization, that we can talk with one voice about particular
things, and that, you know, one of the critical issues is
around H.R. You know, we've talked about the policies that are
standard as part of H.R. contracts. And while we don't have
necessarily confidentiality agreements, it is the nominal
expectation that personnel matters are held in confidence. And
I think to move away from that basic expectation of
confidentiality is an important one.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. And does anyone else on the panel have
additional suggestions on potential conflicts or issues that we
should address now in this bill?
Dr. Johnson. Thank you, Representative Fletcher. Just a
couple of additions. I already talked about the confidentiality
agreements. I think there are a couple of others that we
recommended in the report. Really banning mandatory arbitration
clauses could be another, allowing lawsuits to be filed against
alleged harassers directly instead of or in addition to
academic employers, so I think these are another couple that
might be helpful.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thanks. That's helpful. Anyone else?
Well, then, I also want to follow up, Dr. Johnson, on your
testimony. And Mr. Gonzalez's questions touched on it as well,
but I'm really interested in your conversation about really
rethinking the funding system and how we do that, and so I
don't know if you have in mind or if a working group has come
up with sort of alternative funding models, but it seems like
there's an opportunity to really rethink at a big level how our
Federal funding is administered and what we could do or what we
could require to come up with really alternative models. So I'd
love your thoughts on that.
Dr. Johnson. So our report did not go into detail that was
beyond the scope. We did make the recommendation, and I do
think that in H.R. 36, in its focus on funding research in this
area, there's the opportunity to really take this up as we
could test models and then determine which ones are the best.
Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific. Does anyone else have any thoughts
on the funding models to share?
Otherwise, just more broadly I guess, do you all have any
other recommendations for us about how we as lawmakers can
tackle the problem of sexual harassment in the sciences outside
of this particular piece of legislation or suggestions for us?
Mr. Neumann, have you seen anything in the scope of your report
that you think--outside of what we're talking about?
Mr. Neumann. So I--there's a couple areas that we're
looking at that do--I think the bill would address like, you
know, kind of the policy--looking at the policies and the
information-sharing. We're going to continue to look at
agencies' efforts to do compliance reviews and the
investigation process, so there may be other things coming in
under that but nothing that I see that would be--that isn't,
you know, envisioned in some of the bill right now.
Mrs. Fletcher. Dr. Johnson?
Dr. Johnson. Just briefly, as our report had recommended
the use of high-quality climate surveys, this is in the bill,
but I do want to state we have not discussed yet today that
this is very important in terms of really having high-quality
tested climate surveys and sharing of that information, making
it public so we can all truly get better at understanding what
are the best methods.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and the Ranking
Member Lucas and all the witnesses. I appreciate you being here
today.
You know, the National Academies have outlined several of
the factors that contribute to sexual harassment in academia.
These include a culture of symbiotic compliance with Title IX
and Title VII were the institutions are great at checking legal
boxes but maybe not able to reduce and eliminate sexual
harassment.
So my question to all of you is how can we in the Federal
Government, as well as you in academia, ensure that the spirit,
not just the letter of the law, is being adhered to? Start with
you, Mr. Neumann.
Mr. Neumann. So I think, you know, one area that the
agencies, you know, can look at is when they do compliance
reviews at universities, you know, they can--those are pretty--
can be comprehensive and look at best practices, as well as
deficiencies. But I think even more importantly going back and
looking at are the policies they have in place really getting
at the issue? So I think that requires an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the policies. If agencies were to do that,
they may identify those things that'll--that are more useful in
combating the sexual harassment issue at universities.
Dr. Johnson. Again, looking at the policies at the grant-
receiving institutions is what our report recommended,
particularly around the transparency and accountability of
policies. Ensuring that there are very transparent policies not
only regarding reporting but also regarding what are the
consequences for varying levels of sexual harassment if one is
found in violation of policy. I think the greater the
transparency, the greater the trust in the organization, and
that is what the evidence supports.
Dr. Morrison. To build on those things, I would add that
leadership both at institutions where we continue to emphasize
the importance of this and how we select deans and leaders
within the university to ensure that women and people of color
are more represented than they are now is critical and that
the--you know, you asked sort of more broadly than H.R. 36 that
the leadership and guidance out of the Federal Government more
broadly, including the Department of Education, would speak to
the importance of supporting universities and working on this
critical issue.
Dr. Kass. And I would just point out that there are other
organizations that are also working on this, and it would be
great for people in the government to work with those
organizations. I'll give as an example of that the AAU's
(Association of American Universities) advisory board on sexual
harassment and gender discrimination, which is comprised of
leaders of all levels at the university who encounter issues
related to sexual harassment firsthand. You know, this--they
have this advisory board in order to come up with new ideas,
ideas for research, ideas for prevention, and will be meeting
on a regular basis to come up with what we hope will become
best practices.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. My last question because we only got
about a minute or so--and I'm glad you brought up the issue
about gender because, as we previously noted, women hold only
24 percent of the STEM jobs. This creates an inherit imbalance
of power in this field. So my question to you folks is would
you care to comment on if and how a change in the gender
balance in STEM fields, specifically one in which more women
were employed in STEM careers, could contribute to decreased
harassment?
Dr. Johnson. Well, our report clearly states that the data
point to the male-dominated fields. Those that are most male-
dominated experience greater rates of sexual harassment. So, as
Dr. Morrison indicated, really diversifying not only the
pipeline but really diversifying the leadership is critically
important to decreasing rates of sexual harassment.
Mr. Baird. I think I'm out of time, so I yield back my
time, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Casten.
Mr. Casten. Thank you to the Chair. Thank you to all the
witnesses.
There's really a larger group that I'd like to thank. And
it strikes me that the stuff we're talking about today is not
particularly new. It's been out there for a long time. We just
kind of accepted it as part of the background not necessarily
willingly but we did accept it.
And the--what's new in the moment is that we are talking
about this ubiquitousness of sexual harassment in a whole lot
of workplaces, academia and STEM not included. And as the old
saying goes, admitting you have a problem is the first step.
We're not done yet, but we're at least starting on a road to
recovery.
And we wouldn't be there but for all the--you know, the
tremendously brave women in male-dominated fields who stood up
in this Me Too movement and said we got to stand up. And
they're really the ones that we owe the most thanks to today,
sort of the silver lining of a lot of the negative news in our
moment right now.
Our job now is: Number one, to believe them, and number
two, to make sure that we're establishing policies that
demonstrate our commitment to ensuring a workplace where
everyone can feel comfortable, valued in their roles as
professionals. In going through and reading the background, my
first job out of college was doing cancer research, then spent
a couple years doing basic research on biofuels development.
And to the best of my knowledge those were all very tolerant
workplaces, but it's not lost on me that most of my colleagues
were overworked, overcaffeinated, young, single men. And the
bravery that's required for women to enter that environment is
certainly something I appreciated.
And I was struck reading Dr. Johnson's testimony coming in
that maybe my experience wasn't typical. I think you said that
over 50 percent of women in academic environments and somewhere
between 20 and 50 percent of students in higher education
experienced sexual harassment at the hands of their colleagues,
mentors, faculty members. Maybe our experience was typical and
I didn't know about it.
But what I'm struck by in the moment is, how do we catalyze
that fix? Because even with the best of intentions, I'm
sympathetic to the bravery that's required for the first woman
to enter a lab that's dominated by men or the first two to come
in.
And so, Dr. Johnson, what steps would you recommend--I
don't want to say to break the cycle but how do we sort of
create the activation energy to catalyze that to make it easier
for the next generation that comes through and not make this
such an act of bravery every time?
Dr. Johnson. As we look at the Academies' report and we
look at what's happened in the past year since the publication
of the report, I think we've seen an activation, and we've seen
actions by NSF that we've talked about. We've seen actions by
NIH, and they're further looking at their policies on
extramural research. We've seen the various societies,
professional societies enact codes of conduct and take even
greater steps. We've seen the National Academies themselves
develop new codes of conduct and also take a number of steps.
And we've seen the National Academies develop an action
collaborative that has brought together over 50 universities
and colleges to come together to address this issue to share
what are--I won't say best practices--to share practices and do
work together so that we can combat this issue.
So what I would say is that I think there has been an
activation. This has been a complex problem. We have not seen
any decrease in the rates of sexual harassment over time. And
H.R. 36 is very important in this. It is a multifaceted problem
that is going to require constant attention and a number of
inputs. And I think that the Federal funding agencies, as we
have recommended, play a very important role in this. So it's
going to be really continuing the work, but I do believe that
what we see is an activation over the past year.
Mr. Casten. Yes, go ahead, Dr. Morrison.
Dr. Morrison. I would add the other thing I think is
catalyzing some movement is the next generation of junior
faculty. There are a number of new up-and-coming faculty who
just don't accept this old culture, and they are working to
establish welcoming and collaborative environments in their
laboratory. And that they are, through their actions and who
they select to be their students and their postdocs and how
they interact within the context of their labs, they are
changing the culture. And I think there's a tremendous amount
that is positive and hopeful about that. They look at the world
differently, and it's very good.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I see I'm out of time, but to date
my musical preferences that the kids are all right. Thank you,
and I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Lucas.
I was curious. Three of you are at academic institutions
presently. Is it common that such institutions have
confidentiality statements for incoming employees to sign?
Dr. Morrison. At Boston University it is presumed part of a
personnel agreement. It is not an explicit element of a
contractual relationship, but we're--we presume that our
contractual relations with faculty and staff are confidential.
Mr. Crist. But do the all have to sign a confidentiality
agreement?
Dr. Morrison. No, they sign a contract that comes with the
presumption that it's confidential.
Mr. Crist. So the presumption is written out in it?
Dr. Morrison. No, it is not. It's----
Mr. Crist. How is it presumed?
Dr. Morrison. Through practice, that we would not--that we
would not disclose the details of a personnel interaction or
personnel matter.
Dr. Kass. We do not have them, and if we have substantiated
sexual harassment, we disclose it under a Public Records Act
request.
Dr. Johnson. We do not have confidentiality agreements at
Wellesley.
Mr. Crist. So why are we discussing them? I mean, I know
you were asked a question about it, so that's the short answer,
but if your institutions don't have them and only one of them
presumes them, is it an issue or not?
Dr. Johnson. From our data that we've looked at, it's one
thing for an institution to have them. It's another thing when
episodes of harassment occur and a perpetrator is found in
violation to have a very specific confidentiality agreement
signed having to do with the finding. So, as I'm talking about
confidentiality and outlined confidentiality agreements, they
pertain to sexual harassment.
Mr. Crist. Which I think is great. You know, transparency
should be the order of the day. What does it say, that the best
disinfectant is light. So I guess what I'm curious about is why
would there even be a presumption at, say, Boston University of
a confidentiality within a contract for a new employee? What is
it that is trying to be protected or not disclosed?
Dr. Morrison. Well, that is--my understanding is that's
generally standard practice.
Mr. Crist. Yes, why? Should it be, given the topic we're
talking about?
Dr. Morrison. Should it be is an important question, and I
think our conversations go to the question of should it be. And
we are--I think all of the--everything we've learned from the
difficult situations we have faced suggested it should not be.
However, that has to be balanced against, you know, an
individual's right to privacy in their contractual dealings
with their employer, so I think there are elements that need to
be balanced in sorting through it.
Mr. Crist. Well, of course, but we're talking about sexual
harassment here today, right? Is there any kind of right to try
to protect from disclosure of sexual harassment at an
institution?
Dr. Morrison. Yes. No, I don't think there's a right to
protect--to keep sexual harassment silent. No, I don't agree
with that.
Mr. Crist. Great. That's good. So I guess the presumption
in your contractual situation you would expect it would be
something that would be not presumed in the near future?
Dr. Morrison. Yes, we--this is--as we examine our policies
and practices, this is an issue that's at the top of the list.
Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Stevens.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses for today's very important hearing.
Dr. Morrison, just to kind of pick up on the line of
questioning that we were just having, you--in your hearing you
mentioned the importance of inclusion policies as part of
broader cultural change, and I think that's what we're all here
talking about is we're talking about a culture, you know, that
can't necessarily always be pinpointed on one individual or one
group. Certainly our institutions set a tone for culture, they
set a tone for a way of life, and they have a really important
role to play.
And we commend our universities, we commend the leadership
that they take in terms of listening and engaging the students
to faculty to addressing the tough topics. We have a rich
history in this country of change coming from universities,
change coming toward some of our tougher social topics.
So what other concrete policy changes have been made to
consider this, you know, greater diversity and equity charge?
I'm thinking about child--you know, paid family leave, you
know, increasing the wage, you know, things that like sometimes
are often the barriers to entry that, you know, you might be
working on that we haven't yet discussed here today.
Dr. Morrison. Yes, there are a variety of things. And I
agree with you; it is a whole-scale cultural change.
Universities are some of the oldest institutions and--globally,
and so the--you know, they're very deeply grounded in the
history and a culture that is dominated by white men. And so
there are a lot of changes that are necessary as women and
people of color enter the academy.
And so we've been working on a number of policies around--
one of the more recent ones is that we have mandated vacation
time for our doctoral students, which seems an odd thing, but,
you know, the way graduate students are funded on grants, it's
not clear that they are necessarily entitled to vacation, so
that's an example where we thought it was important to call out
that--the students who work extremely hard, and the expectation
is that, you know, they're working long hours but that vacation
is a normal part of what is to be expected. And we've
instituted a number of policies around family and childbirth
leave and an array of different policies.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And I'd also just like to remark
how significant it is that today's hearing is being Chaired by
our incredible Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. It's truly a
marker in history that we're having this discussion here in
2019 in the 116th Congress commenting a very tough topic.
Obviously I'm a proud cosponsor of H.R. 36, the Combating
Sexual Harassment in Science Act, that's being led by our
Chairwoman, and we thank you for your insights on this
important work.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses for coming today to testify before us.
Mr. Neumann, one of the key findings from the 2018 National
Academies' report on sexual harassment was that agencies and
universities have to move beyond a culture of just bare
compliance with Title IX in order to effectively address sexual
harassment. Have any of the agencies or universities contacted
you about that, about what they might be able to do or sought
your guidance and advice about things that they could do?
Mr. Neumann. Yes. Even just in the course of our review
we've been seeing agencies taking additional actions, you know,
toward some of the recommendations in the National Academies'
report. And, for example, all the agencies have updated their
definition of sexual harassment to include gender harassment,
which the National Academies' report, you know, has as one of
the most common forms of sexual harassment. So we're seeing
some positive steps. That doesn't mean there isn't room for
improvement, but definitely the agencies are taking this
seriously and want to do more. And I think with our review it
can maybe identify some areas that they might want to target to
improve.
Ms. Wexton. OK. And I guess with agencies being so focused
on--and universities being focused on Title IX now with what,
you know, I certainly perceive as the potential erosion of
Title IX, the--with the proposed overhaul and regulations that
were released by the Department in November of last year,
that--Dr. Kass, you talked about what the UC system has done
that you guys have taken strong and public stance against
certain aspects of the proposed overhaul of Title IX. Can you
talk about the impact of the proposed regulations at UC Davis
and the other campuses in the UC system and what you all have
done in response to them?
Dr. Kass. Well, my understanding is that they have not been
finalized yet, so at the moment we're simply resisting them
because we think that it will have a very negative impact on
reporting incidents of gender discrimination and sexual
harassment were these to go into place, particularly if victims
were to be confronted by the alleged perpetrators. So we think
it would actually inhibit the reporting.
Ms. Wexton. So how will your institutions then ensure that
the proposed regulations don't weaken the policies you already
have in place? Are you just participating in the rulemaking
process in the hopes that it does not become final?
Dr. Kass. Yes, the University of California systemwide is
participating in that process. It's not being done campus by
campus but rather for the entire system.
Ms. Wexton. OK. And, Dr. Morrison and Dr. Johnson, I'd be
interested to hear your thoughts on these proposed regulations
and the impacts that they would have in your campuses to your
ongoing efforts to address sexual harassment.
Dr. Morrison. Yes, I would support what Dr. Kass said, that
we're concerned about the effect it will have on reporting. And
we've been very engaged in responding to the call for input
with the hope that the regulations, when they do come out, will
not reflect what we saw at the outset.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. And, Dr. Johnson?
Dr. Johnson. So I'm going to answer this question as
President of Wellesley College to say that there are several
issues. One, I would agree both with Dr. Morris and Dr. Kass
around the significant concern on reporting. I think the other
concerns are the definition of harassment. That is far more
limited. And also the lack of ability to address cases of
harassment that have occurred off of one's campus.
So these are all very significant issues, and we have
participated with a number of organizations to provide input,
as well as my writing a letter individually, having served as
the co-chairperson of the National Academies' committee.
I do want to add, though, that with all of the difficult
issues with this proposed set of rules is that the work that is
recommended in the report and that needs to move forward
aggressively does have to do with the culture, does have to do
with all of the other issues we have discussed today and have
been really outlined in the report--changing leadership,
diversity, inclusion, and so much more.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you very much. I'll yield
back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Beyer?
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all very
much for being part of this.
Dr. Johnson, I was Wellesley spring 1971 living on Beebe
Hall, which is a----
Dr. Johnson. You're one of the campus exchange.
Mr. Beyer. Yes, exactly. Yes, there were 19 of us men on
campus with 2,000 women. It's the first time in my life I got
over being shy. It was a wonderful experience.
And I'm really fascinated by this, and especially the
notion of gender harassment, which I confess is a new idea for
me but easy to relate. My oldest daughter is in the automobile
business with us, and when she went to the general management
school, 2 women with 52 guys, I think mostly what she dealt
with for that whole year was the gender harassment, not sexual
harassment--people weren't hitting on her--but just a
completely different perspective, where my next daughter, who
went to the coding course for 12 weeks, again, 1 woman and 27
guys, and there was a sense that she couldn't compete or that
she was different even though she was smarter than the 27 guys.
How do you address gender harassment in a meaningful way?
And I was particularly interested in the whole notion in your
study about hierarchical power structures making gender
harassment easier to present itself, more difficult to
overcome.
Dr. Johnson. Yes. Thank you for addressing this important
issue. Gender harassment is pervasive. And from the data that
we looked at and presented in the report, again, culture change
is really the predominant focus and way forward. Training is
also important as we look to change behavior. And, in addition
to more general training, a certain type of training called
bystander training. Harassment not only affects a particular
targeted victim, but more ambient harassment also impacts those
who experience it and experience it negatively. And giving
those people, the bystanders, the power and agency and the
training to come forward, report, and really look forward and
give them an ability to be part of that solution is also, from
the data, quite important.
Mr. Beyer. How different is it when a woman is the leader,
is at the top of that hierarchical structure?
Dr. Johnson. Well, the data show that when you have a more
diversified leadership structure, you will also have more
diversified personnel. So to say that any one person correlates
with a differnce--I think we don't have those data, but what we
can look at is overall when there's diversity at the top that
these issues are experienced differently.
Mr. Beyer. You know, one of the things that my wife picked
up at the World Economic Forum 7 or 8 years ago was the notion
of certifying companies for their women-friendly policies,
essentially, the economic dividend from having the gender
diversity within a company, much like LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) certification for buildings.
Is this something that would apply in an academic setting, too,
where you say Boston University is a great place for women to
work and to lead in this study?
Dr. Morrison. Yes, I think it could. There are a variety of
rankings, you know, best place to work in Boston or company
friendliest to LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
questioning, intersex, and asexual (or allies)) folks, so there
are a variety of different kinds of competitions for
recognition, and I think that is one that could be very useful.
Mr. Beyer. OK. Mr. Neumann, the--they pointed out that a
number of the agencies had 4 or 5 gender complaints, but the
National Science Foundation had 14. I know my pal Dr. Foster
asked about that earlier. Did you see anything systemic within
the National Science Foundation that would make you more likely
to experience gender or sexual discrimination?
Mr. Neumann. No. I think the numbers are overall relatively
small and are more reflective of a change in the way the
investigation complaints were handled. Prior to 2017, the
Department of Education handled it on behalf of the National
Science Foundation. Now, they're--the NSF is handling it
themselves, so the numbers have recently increased. Those are
all, I think, in the last year or so because of that change.
But no, there's nothing--and we'll continue to look at the
number of investigations, as well as a little more information
behind those investigations to find out, you know, what the
numbers mean.
Mr. Beyer. Great. I know one of the big things that you all
pointed out was how important it was to bring public attention
to this, so I really want to thank our Chairwoman for having
this hearing to do exactly that.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. I think that ends
our list of witnesses. Let me express my appreciation to this
outstanding panel, and thank you for being here today.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members or any additional questions the
Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are now excused, and the Committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]