Sexual Harassment and Quid Pro Quo

Baosheng Guo                                          05-09-2023

 

 

Editor’s note: A Manhattan jury has found that Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll, and awarded $5 million in damages Today (May 09, 2023). Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her during a chance encounter at a Manhattan department store. He has denied her allegations, calling her a liar. Carroll sued him last year for battery and defamation. Trump found liable for sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll, federal court ordered to pay $5M.

 

 

 

What is Sexual harassment? According to the definition of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):

 

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include ‘sexual harassment’ or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature… Harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted) (“Sexual Harassment”).

 

Although the definition of Sexual Harassment by EEOC is clear, the controversy about how sexual harassment could determine continue constantly. For instance, the well-known film “Oleanna” which focuses on the issue of sexual harassment on the university campus led to a massive argument, about whether Professor John sexually harassed student Carol or Caral sexually harassed even extorted John.  Someone thinks Professor John is innocent because he has not any physical action regarding the sexual molester and harassment of Carol. In fact, based on the “three tests” about sexual harassment of EEOC, which was suggested by Professor Catharine MacKinnon, Professor John has obviously violated the regulation about sexual harassment.

 

In 1980, the EEOC adopted three tests of sexual harassment by Professor MacKinnon: First, is it ‘quid pro quo’ behavior that makes submission to sex an implicit or explicit condition of advancement? Second, is it behavior that ‘unreasonably interferes with an individual’s job performance’? And third, is it behavior that creates an ‘intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment’? (“Talking Dirty”).

 

In terms of the first test, Professor John clearly matches the definition of sexual harassment although he was only verbal and not physical.  “Quid pro quo” is a Latin phrase that means “something for something” and indicates situations where some powerful one asks someone who is relatively weak for sexual favors in exchange for something, and if not exchanged, punishes the weak one. In “Oleanna”, the student Carol discussed with the professor and asked him to improve her course grade, but John ultimately said to her, “I’ll make you a deal… Your final grade is an ‘A.’… Your grade for the whole term is an ‘A.’ If you will come back and meet with me. A few more times. Your grade’s an ‘A.’ Forget about the paper. You didn’t like it; you didn’t like writing it. It’s not important” (Oleanna 1:20).  Also, John said multiple times that the reason of make the deal is he likes Carol (Oleanna 1:20).  Professor John maybe had no intention to sexually harass Carol, but his words obviously mislead the audience including Carol to think he wants to make the deal that “grade A” exchange the female student stay with him in his office many times. Because John has the “grade A” power and advantage position in the relationship between teacher and student, and Carol only has a weak position, Carol is sensitive to these words about the deal. As a powerful man, John only thinks these words are common, but in Carol’s position, they are offensive and sexual harassment words.  As a result, the words “come back and meet with me a few more times” leads to sexual imagination, deepen the reasoning for “exchange”, and clarify the judgment about “quid pro quo”.

 

Especially, along with the rise of the Me-too movement and other feminist movements, females start to have high levels of self-wake and sensitivity about sexual harassment and “Quid pro quo”. And Carol, a female student, certainly has this sensitive self-awareness against sexual harassment and “Quid pro quo”. As the open letter regarding combating sexual harassment in the workplace announced by Hollywood Coalition:

 

To every woman employed in agriculture who has had to fend off unwanted sexual advances from her boss, every housekeeper who has tried to escape an assaultive guest, every janitor trapped nightly in a building with a predatory supervisor, every waitress grabbed by a customer, and expected to take it with a smile, every garment and factory worker forced to trade sexual acts for more shifts, every domestic worker or home health aide forcibly touched by a client, every immigrant woman silenced by the threat of her undocumented status being reported in retaliation for speaking up and to women in every industry who are subjected to indignities and offensive behavior that they are expected to tolerate in order to make a living: We stand with you. We support you (“Hollywood Coalition”)

 

Indeed, these above words disclose many kinds of “Quid pro quo” in the workplace. Actually, the university campus is very similar to the workplace in terms of the power structure, and the professors have some kind of power to “Quid pro quo”.

 

In addition, the action of “Quid pro quo” needs some physical evidence to prove the reality. In “Talking Dirty”, the author wrote, “Sexual harassment lawyers say that cases of verbal harassment where the woman cannot prove physical or psychological damage are rarely successful in court, even under the ‘hostile environment’ test” (“Talking Dirty”). However, except for verbal harassment, Professor John also left the witness, physical evidence and the “tangible way” of sexual harassment, which could lead to Carol would prevail in the courts. In “Oleanna”, at least two parts are full of witnesses and physical evidence. One is that many professors and students as witnesses see Carol escaping from the office of John and she cries, “LET ME GO. LET ME GO. LET ME GO. WOULD SOMEBODY HELP ME? WOULD SOMEBODY HELP ME? PLEASE…?” (Oleanna 2:37). The other one is that John ultimately grabs Carol and begins to beat her, he slaps her face multiple times, and he knocks her to the floor. The shattered window glass, the smashed teacup, and the bruises and blood on the two persons’ bodies are very strong physical evidence to prove this sexual harassment. This evidence and witness testimony will not only prove that the female student Carol suffered serious physical injuries, but also will definitely result in an unfavorable judgment for Professor John in court.

 

From the advantaged perspective of the powerful male professor, John could not be aware of the seriousness of his words and actions. Till he starts to reflect on himself, he and Carol both are hurt and victimized. In Fox New’s review Lies of Faux Victims Cast Doubt on Real Ones, the author argued, “Is a double standard being applied? If the same thing were to happen to a man, would it still be considered abuse? A quick test is to flip every sexual reference in an account from male to female and gauge your reaction” (McElroy). Although John is essentially a harasser, he was also hurt by Carol’s mistake, such as her no-end entanglement, and her false claim against John want to rape her, and so on. Finally, John lost his job, his house, and his reputation, so he is a victim too. He should learn the lesson from this significant incident in his life, at least, he should copy Mike Pence’s principle that he never stays alone with a woman except his wife (Cooney). In this era when the feminist movement is surging, males must be very careful to speaking and doing things with females.

 

 

Works Cited

Cooney, Samantha. “Vice President Pence Won’t Eat Alone With Any Woman But His Wife Karen.” Time, 29 Mar. 2017, time.com/4716439/mike-pence-karen-pence-eat-alone/.

“Hollywood Coalition Launches Time’s Up.” 17 Dec. 2017. Issues & Controversies, Infobase, https://icof-infobaselearning-com.eznvcc.vccs.edu:2443/recordurl.aspx?ID=18326  Accessed 8 Dec. 2019.

McElroy, Wendy. “Lies of Faux Victims Cast Doubt on Real Ones.” Fox News – Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos, 15 Jan. 2015, www.foxnews.com/story/lies-of-faux-victims-cast-doubt-on-real-ones.print.

“Oleanna Script – transcript from the screenplay and/or the.” Drew’s Script-O-Rama: free movie scripts and screenplays, baby!. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. <http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/o/oleanna-script-transcript-david-mamet.html>.

“Talking Dirty.” The Aims of Argument: A Brief Rhetoric, 2nd ed., Mayfiled Publishing, pp. 418–421.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Sexual Harassment.” US EEOC, www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment.

 

 

 

The Chinses Gov. Report of Tangshan Assault on 4 Women is Full of Holes

Author: WRIC Jing Zhang                           08-31-2022

 

 

On August 29, the Hebei Provincial Procuratorate released a report on the investigation and prosecution of the Tangshan Barbecue Restaurant related to local gangsters. China Central Television broadcasted a video of a reporter interviewing one of the victimized girls with her back turned. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been waiting for nearly three months for the investigation report on the case of sexual harassment and assault. Unsurprisingly, it’s another big lie like the five investigation reports on the “Chained woman” case in Xuzhou in 2022, it is full of holes.

 

The report on the investigation of the Tangshan case and the video shown by CCTV did not focus on the definition of gang violence that took place after sexual assault, nor did they explain to the public about any detail of the physical recovery of the four victimized women, the degree of impact on their lives and work, and other serious effects. The official statement did not mention the scope of the criminal law provisions and the scope of civil compensation liability involved in the personal injury suffered by the four people. The investigation is more like a public stunt after the suppression of information done by the local officials, that is, the destruction of a huge den and gang supported by local political forces that do not obey the command of the central government. 28 people were prosecuted. As we know over the years, there has never been a major or important case of “cracking down on gangsters” in China that did not involve local political forces.

 

On June 10, 2022, the scene where 4 women were besieged. (Online picture)

 

However, the case of beating the four women and the publicity of the official media did not mention sexual assault a single time, from the beginning to the end. The fact of sexual violence was completely covered up. The four injured women then disappeared without a trace. The public doesn’t know whether any of them were beaten to death. It was unknown whether they accrued real injuries or receive any form of compensation at all.

 

In the video released by CCTV, the female victim XX Wang, showing the back of her head, was asked by the reporter, “Online posts said that the victims were sexually assaulted in a small alley, thrown from upstairs, and run over by a car. Do you happen to know anything?” The female victim said, “No (Would she dare to say yes?)”. So, the CCP media, official media, and even social media condemned the rumors all over the country, “Sexual assault, being run over by a car, and being thrown downstairs are all rumors”. However, anyone who has watched the 11-minute interview video and possesses even slightest critical thinking would notice that when the victim girl surnamed Wang was beaten brutally, how would she pay attention to others? The victim surnamed Wang was beaten in the downstairs while another victim was gang raped and dragged up to the second floor. Even if other women were raped by gang, thrown downstairs or run over by a car, she would not be able to see them at all. How can she see what was happening on the second floor? The issue was the fact she represented not just herself but on behalf of other victims despite being separated from them at least once.

 

A girl was taken to hospital with the zipper of her jeans unzipped. (Online picture)

 

I believe people still remember this photo or video from the day of the gang assault in June: when a girl was beaten all over her body and was unconscious when she was taken to the hospital, the front zipper of the jeans she was wearing was open! Why? Who did it? Does this rule out the possibility that the girl was not sexually assaulted? Wang XX, who was used by the government as a “witness”, can be said to have done a good job under the “excessive power”. The only few words in the video are only about herself, and she does not represent any other victims. It’s just that the popular party media and official media “advised” her to make decisions and help her represent other victims. This is why the “rumors” were all over the place. The video released by CCTV and the investigative report of Hebei Province are full of holes and shameless! Just like the five investigation reports on the case of “Woman in Chains” in March this year, one lie is used to cover up another lie!

 

In addition, people still have a question in their minds: Is the crackdown on gangsters related to the “sudden death” of Liu Wenxi, the Hebei provincial’s director of the Public Security Bureau, secretary of CCP, and newly appointed vice-governor of Hebei? If it were not for this chief of public security who “died suddenly” one month after the assault, would the gang members have ended up in the arrest? Police and robbers colluded to make easy money, just like the classic trope of black and white teaming up to cover up the story. China’s current system is like a big hotbed of corruption, where the rot corrodes the body to keep existing.

 

The pervasive sexual assault and harassment problem in China is very serious such that the reasonings made by rapists and those who would rape in future, “People harass you only because you are beautiful”, and “Who told you to dress so sexy?” are very common. Powerful male defendants do what they please with impunity, and women who have the audacity to go to court are often ruined and rarely win cases. The higher the defendant’s social status, power, and wealth, the harder it is to obtain justice! For example, the second trial of Xianzi’s sexual harassment case against CCTV celebrity Zhu Jun was dismissed again because of “insufficient evidence”. The court said there was no on-site audio or video recording. The 4 girls were gang-beaten because of sexual harassment in Tangshan, but the government’s investigation report listed quarrel as the cause of the gang crime and did not mention sexual harassment or assault at all. The rural girls, like the “Chain woman” who have been trafficked, being raped, gang-raped, and abused have disappeared without a trace. She openly disappeared from the sight of one billion people and all those who visited her became quiet and disappeared.