The study draws the line between sexual harassment act and socially acceptable behavior. Through symbolic interactionism and gender-power configuration theories, defining features of sexual harassment are drawn from the perspectives of 160 teacher education students—participants from four universities in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. The socio-psychological, legal and lay approaches to the study of sexual harassment guide the data gathering. The findings revealed that there is no significant difference in the level of awareness of the group samples as evidenced by a computed t-value of 1.936 less than the tabulated t-value of 2.447. The study argued that legal approach to the study of sexual harassment is insufficient to prevent it. Thus, standard of behavior must be set within the demarcation line both by public and private learning institutions while intensified awareness campaign must be undertaken to ensure safe and conducive learning environment the students rightfully deserve.
What is sexually harassing to one person may not be the same to another. The lack of universal and uniform socio-cultural interpretation of the phenomenon makes it more difficult to formulate accurate definition applicable to all cultures. According to McKinnon [
The trend in sexual harassment studies showed that prevalence of sexual harassment is a manifestation of power imbalance in society. It involves the improper use of perceived power. It is an issue better solve within the socio-psy- chological and cultural domains. It is also an issue to be explained by a social scientist rather than a lawyer whose treatment is unduly restricted by the legal definition and the limit of statutory construction. The multidisciplinary nature of sexual harassment makes it all the more difficult to understand and delineate the demarcation line between socially acceptable behavior and sexual harassment act [
In recent years, Higher Education Institutions (HEI) are challenged by the disturbing effects of social problems. The noble intention of learning institutions has been threatened by numerous issues blocking and sacrificing all its efforts to create a safe and secure learning environment. The problems on hazing activities and their impact on higher education students’ career goals [
The problem on sexual harassment transcends territorial boundaries and the knowledge on the nature, severity and perceptions of university students on harassment are essential to analyze the problem [
The study “Drawing the Demarcation Line: An Analysis of Sexual Harassment in Selected Learning Institutions Using Blumer’s Interactionism Model looks into sexual harassment as an attribute of interaction and the meaning the participants give to certain behaviors and tried to draw demarcation line between acceptable behavior and sexual harassment act.
The signing of the Philippines in the Universal Declaration to protect women made the government perform an active role in terms of parliamentary and executive initiatives in relation to the protection of women. The United Nations Declaration for the Protection of Women binds the Philippines to observe the principle of Pacta Sun Servanda [
Still, the government is perceived inefficient in the areas of dissemination, implementation and prosecution of offenses involving sexual harassment [
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:
1) To describe the respondents personal attributes;
2) To describe the respondents interpretation of certain verbal, visual and physical behaviors.
3) To determine the demarcation line between sexual harassment and socially acceptable behaviors on the point of view of teacher education students;
4) To determine whether there is significant difference on the level of perception on sexual harassment among groups of university teacher education students.
The fourth box argues that upon identifying the features, acts or behaviors are categorized as socially acceptable or sexual harassment. In the case of sexual harassment behavior (as interpreted by students), an agent of change is necessary to rectify wrong committed.
The fifth box contains the institutional responses, social intervention or observance of procedures and environmental hygienic agents to delineate the demarcation line between socially acceptable and sexual harassment behavior.
The last box consists of the educational outcomes summarized as safe and secure learning environment which the students rightfully deserve.
The case study method was used for two main reasons: 1) the study may serve as a theoretical example of arrangements and processes related to interpretation of sexual harassment behaviors. 2) The Anti Sexual Harassment Law is already existing in almost all countries. The findings of the study may serve as guide to teachers or professionals dealing with education of the young people to recalibrate their interaction with students to prevent unjust accusation of sexual harassment.
The researcher distributed more than 200 survey questionnaires to the four colleges of education in four universities in Nueva Ecija and retrieved 85% of them. After the trimming phase, he came out with 160 Teacher Education Students as respondents. The description of Junior and Senior Teacher Education students on verbal, visual and physical behaviors are measured by the use of Likert Scale; 1 - 1.66 (“Not” a sexual harassment behavior) 1.67 - 2.33 (“Sometimes” interpreted as sexual harassment behavior) 2.34 - 3.0 (“always” a sexual harassment behavior). The instrument consists of three main parts: The first part pertains to the demographic profile of the respondents; the second part relates to hypothetical scenarios where the respondents would identify whether they are considered as sexual harassment or not. Most of the scenarios on the questionnaires are the result of pre-survey and culled out from the actual scenarios in the narration of victims in selected cases decided by the Philippine Supreme Court. The last part consists of the general knowledge on RA 7877 used as tool to measure level of awareness and understanding of respondents of the law. The data gathered are reinforced by interview and personal observation and Focus Group Discussion (FGD).
The demographic profile is presented in
Majority of the respondents are female students. This is not surprising because the College of Education in four universities are female dominated. Majority of senior teacher education students are female while only 10 of the respondents―senior students are males. It is noteworthy that sexual harassment as an offense is not gender exclusive. In terms of age
The illustration shows that 94 % of the entire sample population belong to age bracket 19 - 20. In the case of junior students, majority of the respondents or 76% are 18 years old and is capable of giving informed consent to the study. None is of age of minority considering the sensitivity of issue under study.
As
Gender | Senior | % | Junior | % |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male | 10 | 12.50% | 20 | 25% |
Female | 70 | 87.50% | 60 | 75% |
Total | 80 | 100% | 80 | 100% |
Age | Senior | % | Junior | % |
---|---|---|---|---|
18 years | 3 | 4% | 61 | 76% |
19 - 20 | 75 | 94% | 16 | 20% |
20-above | 2 | 2% | 3 | 4% |
Total | 80 | 100% | 80 | 100% |
Responses/percentage | Not SH | % | SHB | % | ASB | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Juniors | 60 | 75 | 15 | 19 | 5 | 6 |
Seniors | 38 | 47 | 20 | 25 | 22 | 27 |
Responses/percentage | NSH | % | SSB | % | ASH | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Juniors | 65 | 85 | 6 | 7.5 | 9 | 11 |
Seniors | 44 | 55 | 12 | 0.2 | 24 | 30 |
Responses/percentage | NSH | % | SHB | % | ASH | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Juniors | 59 | 69 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 11 |
Seniors | 47 | 59 | 13 | 0.2 | 20 | 25 |
Only 47% of Senior teacher education students identified and considered the behaviors as verbal sexual harassment. The 25% of Senior teacher education Students considered the cited behaviors as not sexual harassment behaviors. The result is a little higher than the Junior teacher education students’ responses which revealed a measly 19% saying that those behaviors are not sexual harassment behaviors. Meanwhile, 27% of senior students revealed that they did not know the nature of the behavior. It is higher than the junior students’ perception having only (6) six percent showing that they could not categorize the nature of the behavior as to whether they are considered “Always Sexual Harassment Behavior” (ASHB) or “Not Sexual Harassment Behavior” (NSHB) and Sometimes a Sexual Harassment (SHB) behavior.
Among the junior teacher education students, sexist language is a verbal act interpreted as sexual harassment. The items that have the highest Weighted Mean (WM) are those with sexual terms such as “big breasts” and “good in bed” respectively are terms with derogatory and offensive connotations. The weighted means of 2.56 and 2.31 were derived. Meantime, the perception of senior teacher education students, has and the highest weighted mean among verbal behaviors, are spreading sexual rumors and having a big breasts with 2.78 and 2.77 mean scores respectively.
Type of Behaviors | Junior | Senior |
---|---|---|
1) Verbal Behaviors | 2.23 “Sometimes” | 2.76 “Always” |
2) Visual Behaviors | 1.95 Sometimes” | 2.24 Sometimes” |
3) Physical Behaviors | 2.4 “Always” | 2.64 “Always” |
Meanwhile, from the responses of teacher education students on visual behaviors has the highest weighted mean computed as 2.38 which pertains to the item “teacher exposure of sensitive parts of his body”. It seems that senior teacher education students considered “exposure of sensitive parts” as visual sexual harassment behavior regardless of whether or not malicious intention is present Also, the overall weighted mean of 2.24 was derived from the responses of the Junior teacher education students. Among the presented visual behaviors in the questionnaires, “showing of sensitive body parts” has the highest weighted mean. This implies that the same act has the highest consideration as a sexual harassment act on the point of view of the Junior teacher education students. The same item was also given the highest consideration by the Senior teacher education students as a sexual harassment act regardless of the absence or presence of malicious intention.
The “exposure of the body parts” has the highest mean score of 2.38 which is verbally described as “sexual harassment behavior”. The respondents do not qualify whether with or without malicious intent. The table also showed that Junior teacher education students treated the behaviors as physical sexual harassment behaviors. In fact, it has an overall mean score of 2.68 verbally interpreted as “always”. The result means that the respondents would give meaning to the cited acts as sexual harassment acts. Among the cited physical behaviors, it is “forced sitting on the lap of student” is given the highest mean score of 2.8 verbally interpreted as always. It is noteworthy that among the behaviors cited; visual, sexual and physical; it is physical behavior that easily convinced the respondents that the person committing it has malicious intention to commit sexual harassment. Among the presented scenarios it is with “physical behaviors” insinuating sexual request considered sexual harassment to both groups of respondents to wit; The general weighted mean scores of 2.24 and 2.65 respectively for junior and senior groups of teacher education students showed their commonality in the interpretation. It can be deduced that any sexual request coupled with physical behavior/actions is always interpreted by the respondents as sexual harassment behavior. On the other hand, the responses are diverse in the interpretation of verbal behaviors as shown by weighted mean scores of 2.23 and 2.76 verbally interpreted as “sometimes” and “always”. On this note senior teacher education students tend to interpret verbal behaviors as sexual harassment more than junior students. Finally, both groups consider visual behaviors presented as “sometimes “ interpreted as falling under sexual harassment behaviors.
Students considered an invitation for a date a sexual harassment when it involves reward or punishment. In case approval of the invitation would help the students complete or receive a passing grade in exchange for a date.
Friendship between faculty members and female students is a common thing. Any touching not on the sensitive parts of the body, is not interpreted as sexual harassment behavior considering when they are friends and those should not be given malicious interpretation.
Behaviors | Acceptable if | Demarcation Line | Sexual Harassment if |
---|---|---|---|
1) Asking for a date | Without R&P | Reward/punishment | With Promise of R& P |
2) Touching | Friends | Friendly Relation | Without relationship |
3) Invitation for a date | Non graduating | Senior standing | If graduating |
4) Touching of body | For Male | Gender | If woman tends to |
5) Commission of acts | In Public | Place when committed | If in private and in isolation |
6) Sexual invitation | Not repetitive | Insistence/demands | If there is repetition/insistence |
7) Invitation for a date | With consent | Consent | If without consent |
8) Person inviting | Pleasing | Personality | If without pleasing personality |
9) Invitation/material gain | If male interpreter | Material gains and Gender | Female interpreter |
10) Sexual invitation | Male | Gender | Female tends to label as such |
Graduating students tend to interpret any of the sexual, visual or physical behavior as sexual harassment act. This is based on their belief that due to their status they are prone to sexual harassment.
Male students tend to label their action as sexual harassment only when there is already a body contact or actual sexual congress especially during “drinking spree” with their teacher who is a member of the third sex. Intentional body touching is not sexual harassment especially when done during drinking spree or festive occasion.
Many of the respondents consider the place a qualifying circumstance. When it is committed alone with the harasser they considered it as sexual harassment. When the same is committed in front of others, they consider it as a mere joke synonymous to a teacher verbalizing sexist language in the middle of the classroom discussion.
The respondents consider the act as sexual harassment when the harasser is insistent on the demand for sexual favor.
When demand for a date or sexual favor is rejected the act is a sexual harassment. But when the victim acceded to the demand, they did not consider it as a sexual harassment but a consensual relationship. There is a wrong notion that consent is a waiver of their right to file a complaint against sexual offender.
When the harasser is having displeasing personality (ugly) they tend to interpret the behavior as harassment. But when of pleasing personality, they tend to label the act as consensual.
Many male respondents tend to label physical acts of teachers who are homosexual as harassment when there is no material gain. However, especially when it involves grades or during “Gimmick” which the faculty sponsored, no sexual harassment is interpreted.
Female students consider sexual acts more often as sexual harassment behaviors than males. They said that by the nature of their gender, they expect higher level of respect from their teacher. Thus, if sexual harassment behavior (verbal) is committed by their teacher they tend to think that those are meant
That their basic knowledge of sexual harassment in so far as elements, rules and regulation and some of the consequences are concerned, are neither aware nor unaware of their existence.
Basic Knowledge on Sexual Harassment | Junior | Senior | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legend: Y = Yes, TF = Total Frequency, N = Not sexual harassment, NA = No answer, WM = Weighted Mean | Y | TF | N | TF | N | TF | WM | Y | TF | N | TF | NA | TF | WM | |
1) Sexual harassment involves sexual favor in exchange for something or favor | 56 | 168 | 9 | 18 | 14 | 14 | 2.5 | 33 | 99 | 24 | 48 | 23 | 23 | 2.12 | |
2) Sexual harassment requires subordinate-superior relationship | 26 | 78 | 26 | 52 | 24 | 24 | 1.92 | 21 | 63 | 37 | 74 | 22 | 22 | 1.98 | |
3) I know the person to talk to in case I feel that I am sexually harassed | 28 | 84 | 48 | 96 | 4 | 4 | 2.3 | 34 | 102 | 13 | 26 | 33 | 33 | 2.01 | |
4) I believe that any sexual harassment case must be reported to proper to the proper school authorities | 54 | 162 | 16 | 32 | 10 | 10 | 2.55 | 30 | 90 | 23 | 26 | 27 | 27 | 1.78 | |
5) I believe that reporting the matter to the proper university official, the person who harassed me will be penalized | 48 | 144 | 9 | 18 | 23 | 23 | 2.31 | 41 | 123 | 24 | 48 | 15 | 15 | 2.32 | |
6) The fact of my reporting to proper authority would adversely affect my academic standing | 38 | 114 | 24 | 48 | 18 | 18 | 2.25 | 26 | 78 | 27 | 54 | 27 | 27 | 1.98 | |
Overall Weighted Mean: | 42 | 126 | 22 | 44 | 16 | 16 | 2.32 | 31 | 93 | 25 | 50 | 24 | 24 | 2.12 | |
and consequences of sexual harassment or RA 7877. It is supported by an overall mean score of 2.32 verbally described as “consider acts as sexual harassment acts”. In other words they are “aware” of the contents of Anti-Sexual Harassment Act or 7877. It is the presence of “subordinate-superior relationship” that qualifies the act as sexual harassment act has the lowest mean score of 1.92 verbally described may or may not “as sexual harassment act. This goes to show that in their minds, there is a possibility that they would consider an act as sexual harassment even without the superior―subordinate relationship as they are not certain of the need to have the relationship exists before a case qualifies as a sexual harassment case.
It is respectfully submitted that this pinch of uncertainty would expose the faculty and even classmates of the respondents to be charged of sexual harassment act even if the act is more accurately define as a simple case of irritation but not sexual harassment punishable under the Revised Penal Code provisions and not by RA 7877.
The data below show the statistical evidence to accept the null hypothesis. As observed, there is no significant difference between the levels of awareness on sexual harassment act on the part of the two group samples. The test result is presented below.
Testing of Hypothesis:
The t-test result of the significant difference between the responses of senior and junior teacher education students on sexual harassment.
Since the computed t value of 1.936 is less than the tabulated t value of 2.447, there is enough statistical evidence to accept the null hypotheses; hence it can be concluded that there is no significant difference between the responses of Senior and Junior teacher education students on sexual harassment. At 5% level of significance, the mean response of the junior teacher education students is not significantly higher than the mean response of senior teacher education students.
The study showed the diverse interpretation of respondents on potential sexual harassment acts. It also showed the need to increase level of awareness on sexual harassment. Towards the goal of preventing sexual harassment in learning institution, there is a need to reorient society on the issue using social- cultural and power approaches in the analysis of sexual harassment. A nationwide study on the issue to level of and lay down theoretical guidelines on teachers’ behaviors potentially interpreted as sexual harassment behavior of students is necessary. The government must ensure that dissemination, implementation and observance of organizational guidelines on teacher’s behavior are observed. There are defining features of sexual harassment behaviors which teachers must bear in mind to evade undue accusation of sexual harassment. As the study pointed out, the symbolic interactionism as a theoretical model implies that the same gesture may create different meanings to different persons. Sexual harassment is greatly dependent on the perception of victims and their meaningful interpretation. Although, the study is not done in a laboratory setting, the emergence of results may contribute to the prevention measure which private and government institutions may design and use as a set of standard of behavior within a learning institution. Learning institution is not only a provider of quality education to young people. It has also the duty to maintain safe and peaceful environment for the students and faculty members.
Thank you very much for the cooperation of the participants of the four universities; Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, Wesleyan-University Philippines, Phinma-education Network in Cabanatuan City and Central Luzon State University in the Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija.
Gabriel, A.G. and Panahon, H.P. (2017) Drawing the Demar- cation Line: An Analysis of Sexual Harass- ment in Selected Learning Institutions in Nueva Ecija, Philippines Using Blumer’s In- teractionism Model. Open Access Library Journal, 4: e3328. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1103328