Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

#MeToo; The Development of Sexual Harassment Policies in the American Academy of Religion

2019; Indiana University Press; Volume: 35; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2979/jfemistudreli.35.1.07

8755-4178

Brock, Thistlethwaite,

Religion and Society Interactions

#MeTooThe Development of Sexual Harassment Policies in the American Academy of Religion Rita Nakashima Brock (bio) and Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite (bio) Keywords #MeToo, sexual harassment, women in academe The hashtag is a welcome contemporary addition to the long struggle to end sexual harassment against women. An American Academy of Religion (AAR) iteration of this struggle began at the first meeting of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession (SWP). As we met in the Gothic building of Chicago Theological Seminary, the monastic architecture of the building was a reminder of the historical legacy of our twentieth-century conversations. The SWP was formed in 1990 with a charge to "Study the problems of women in religious studies, propose remedies and initiative that can be undertaken by offices of the Academy, receive and review communications and recommendations on the topic from the membership, and develop ways to involve men as well as women in addressing these issues."1 Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite was the first chair, and members included Rita Nakashima Brock, Kelly Brown Douglas, Paula Fredriksen, Adele McCollum, and Judith Plaskow. Unlike most committees that move from ad hoc to standing committee, the SWP was formed as a standing committee, so its chair also served on the board of directors of the AAR. Shortly after SWP was formed, the first female executive director of the AAR, Barbara DeConcini, was appointed, and she attended the committee's third meeting. [End Page 81] As we discussed our charge at our first meetings in 1990, we realized we had to do at least two things: 1) improve mentoring for women entering the field and 2) convince the AAR to pass and implement a sexual harassment policy. In deciding on the first task, we discussed all the errors and personal horrors of our own early careers. We knew that most women still received little to no mentoring help from male faculty advisors, while increasing numbers of female graduate students and new scholars presented a formidable challenge to the few senior women in the field available to serve as mentors. As part of our charge, we intentionally sought out and listened to members of both the AAR and the Society of Biblical Literature. Thistlethwaite also contacted chairs of similar committees at the American Historical Association (AHA) and the Modern Language Association (MLA). Unsurprisingly, our committee found similar issues facing women in a range of professions. We could see clearly that a form of "mass mentoring" was needed and, based on her conversations with the other organizations, Thistlethwaite suggested that SWP create a mentoring manual. All agreed enthusiastically and volunteered to participate. Brock, Brown, and Plaskow agreed to take on the creation of this first guide as writers and editors. All members eventually contributed to the chapters. Although we addressed many issues in the committee, it was the discussion of the sexual harassment policy at that first meeting, however, that first unfolded the deep layers of harm that women of the academy had endured over the years. Some of the stories were personal and told by committee members with the courage to share. Others were told to us by friends and colleagues. The stories ranged from the egregious practice of using hotel sleeping rooms for job interviews, where harassment frequently occurred; to groping at social gatherings; to drunken, leering, and unwanted sexual advances at receptions; to sexist, homophobic, and/or racist questions at job interviews; and even to rape. As the committee did its work of listening to members, the issue of sexual harassment grew of increasing concern as more stories were told to us, many of them horrible and heartbreaking. At the same time the SWP was discussing sexual harassment, the nearly all-male and all-white AAR board criticized the committee for "not being diverse enough." In fact, the committee as originally appointed was quite diverse—we were proud to be composed of one-third racial and ethnic minorities, in addition to including a wide variety of religious affiliations among the members, including three Protestants members, two Jewish members, and one former Mormon member. After the criticisms at the board meeting, Thistlethwaite reported the comments from the men at the subsequent SWP...