Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

This study is based on analysis of 23 cases of workplace sexual harassment that went before court. It helps us understand what strategies the judicial system rewards & how institutions maintain a culture of silence & inequality, by believing victims only in limited contexts.

Perpetrators of sexual harassment deploy multiple outrage tactics at any given time, often devaluing the survivor's work performance; undermining their moral worth; using censorship; diminishing the severity & impact of harassment; and using intimidation or bribery.

Most survivors are afraid to speak out for lear of losing their jobs & other retaliation. Most try to manage the problem by staying quiet as long as possible or by confronting their harassers directly. This doesn't work because harassers seldom cease without external pressure.

Survivors are scared no one will believe them & support them. Harassers count on this - critiquing survivors for taking too long to report ("if it's so bad, why didn't you speak up sooner?"), or they use swift reporting as proof that the psychological pain could not be so bad.

Sexual harassers paradoxically rely on official channels to excuse their actions after a victim reports harassment. "[Perpetrators] ...typically claimed the issue had been dealt with through formal procedures and, consequently, that justice had been served."

Eg. harassers will point to official policies as proof that harassment could not have taken place. Harassers will also use their "clean employment records" as evidence - no other cases of abuse exist, how could *this case* be harassment? The "good guy" defence is big in academia

Good policies are important - but they are not enough. They need routine & proactive evaluation. Harassers use their "model" reputations as pre-emptive armour to use against their victims. Don't let policies & prestige get in the way of women's safety.