U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–936PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

A REVIEW OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2018 

Serial No. 115–49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 27, 2018 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Statement by Representative Eddue Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on XX, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives ....................................................................................

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Witnesses: 

Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, National Science 

Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Ms. Kristina Larsen, Attorney, Law Office of Kristina K. Larsen 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46 

Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive Director, American Geophysical Union 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 62 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 64 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 70 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, National Science 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 94 

Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois .................................................................................................. 98 

Ms. Kristina Larsen, Attorney, Law Office of Kristina K. Larsen ...................... 103 

Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive Director, American Geophysical Union ....... 109 

(1) 

A REVIEW OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE 

Tuesday, February 27, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Comstock [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

<r:ongrcss of the llnitcd ~tatcs 

House of Rcprcscntatiocs COMMiTTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science 

Tuesday, February 27,2018 

10:00 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, National Science 

Foundation 

Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, 

University of Illinois 

Ms. Kristina Larsen, Attorney, Law Office of Kristina K. Larsen 

Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive Director, American Geophysical Union 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

February 27, 2018 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

FROM: Majority Staff, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

SUBJECT: Research and Technology Subcommittee Hearing: 

''A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

The Subcommittee on Research and Technology of the Committee on Science, Space. 

and Technology will hold a hearing titled A Review a_( Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in 

Science on Tuesday, February 27.2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House 

Office Building. 

Hearing Purpose: 

The purpose of the hearing is to review sexual harassment and other workplace 

misconduct in science, learn how science agencies and research institutions handle complaints 

under current policy and law, assess the impact of harassment on women's participation in 

science, and discuss recommendations for improving the complaint and resolution process as 

well as the culture in science. 

Witness List 

• Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, National Science 

Foundation 

• Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of 

Illinois 

• Ms. Kristina Larsen, Attorney, Law Office of Kristina K. Larsen 

• Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive Director, American Geophysical Union 

Staff Contact 

For questions related to the hearing. please contact Jennifer Wickre of the Majority Staff 

at 202-225-6371. 
4 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. The Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science.’’ I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Imagine being a young astronomer, and your dream of working 

with one of the most well-renowned astronomers in the world 

comes true. Then, imagine the horror when the professor you hope 

will be your mentor, who you’ve revered, turns out to be your tormentor, a predator. You are in his office and he tries to kiss you. 

You spur his advances, but later at a work dinner, he puts his 

hand on your leg and slides it up your thigh under the table. You 

try to report the behavior, but some at the university are more interested in protecting one of their most powerful and lucrative researchers. This actually happened. This is a real case. It took years 

for the professor, in this case a professor from Berkeley, to leave. 

But that young woman left the field of astronomy because of the 

harassment. 

Now, imagine if this were your daughter, your sister, your wife, 

or your mother, driven out of a dream career in a field with lifelong 

high earning potential. Sexual harassment, abuse of power, and intimidation in the workplace, classroom, or research field site is unacceptable in any situation. Whether it’s in Congress, where we’ve 

been dealing with this also, or in the fields of science and technology, every worker has a right to a safe work environment, free 

of harassment, where one can learn and thrive in their environment. 

Concerns about sexual harassment occur against a backdrop of 

women continuing to lag in many STEM fields and occupations. 

Women filled 47 percent of all U.S. jobs in 2015, but hold only 24 

percent of STEM jobs. Only 23 percent of women with STEM degrees work in STEM fields. 

Can sexual harassment have a significant negative impact on the 

ability of female students and early career researchers to engage 

in research and to get these high-paying jobs on this path? That’s 

what we want to look at here because we have been working here 

on this Committee, really on a bipartisan basis on bills where we 

are trying to get women into that pipeline at a very young age. We 

have wonderful STEM initiatives going down to preschool to make 

sure that we are having that kind of gender equity and racial equity. We want to make sure none of these things are going on. So 

we really appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today. 

In this case, you know, with this person with such a prominent 

researcher in the United States, a quote from somebody in this 

case said, ‘‘The stakes here couldn’t be higher.’’ We are working so 

hard to have gender parity in this field, and when the most prominent person is a routine harasser, it threatens a major objective we 

have nationally and with that pipeline. 

So over the last few months, we’ve had a watershed moment and 

really tried to open eyes to the systematic harassment and abuse 

in many different fields and workplaces. 

What has happened in Hollywood, in the media, and in other industries has opened the floodgates for women and men who have 
5 

been afraid to speak in the past to come forward about predators 

in their workplace. I know recently we saw even something in a 

long story about the modeling industry and young women preyed 

upon and exploited and really some horrible things going on there. 

And in the last few months we’ve worked together, my colleagues 

and I, to reform the process of reporting sexual harassment in Congress and to create that zero-tolerance environment that we want 

in all workplaces. Democrats and Republicans, men and women, 

have been working to change the process so that victims have a 

safe place to turn and predators are no longer protected by taxpayer dollars or silence. 

Today is an opportunity to shine a light on how predatory and 

abusive behavior is affecting or may be affecting the science industry and the response that’s going on here and the women who are 

here today to testify who have been active on the front of really 

promoting that zero-tolerance. 

Women in science are particularly vulnerable to harassment and 

abuse. Powerful scientists who manage large federal grants have 

enormous influence within universities and exert significant control 

over the education and training of young scientists. If a Ph.D. student is being harassed by her advisor, what safe avenues does she 

have for reporting the misconduct without derailing her education 

and career? How does a university respond to this when an abuser 

is a rainmaker for the university? 

And while I would note I have been saying ‘‘her’’ in some of these 

cases, we do understand there could be abuse on both sides of men 

or women. 

But as more and more victims come forward, I cannot help but 

wonder how many brilliant scientists, men or women, and their 

ideas we have lost in the STEM fields because of this because we 

know when people are harassed and leave their field, many of them 

don’t return to their field. That is something common that we have 

seen in the study of harassment. So how many women have given 

up these good, lifelong, high-earning jobs? When we look at the 

overall wage gap, how—you know, when—this is particularly a 

field where we want to make sure women are staying in in this career field. 

Currently, there are laws and policies in place designed to protect individuals from gender-based discrimination and harassment 

in education, but we want to make sure the process is working 

right. Since October, the Science Committee has been investigating—and thank you to our staff who have been working on 

this—how federal science agencies and universities handle harassment complaints. So far, the Committee has found inconsistency in 

how different agencies deal with complaints and investigations, unclear policies and procedures that leave victims unsure of where to 

turn, and institutions more interested in checking the boxes of compliance rather than doing the right thing. A survey by the National 

Postdoctoral Association found that nearly 30 percent of 

postdoctoral candidates had experienced sexual harassment. 

I was pleased to see that, two weeks ago, National Science Foundation Director France Co ́rdova, Dr. Co ́dova, made a strong statement to the science community about zero tolerance. NSF also announced it is taking additional steps towards protecting scientists 
6 

and students. We are fortunate to have a strong, accomplished 

woman leading NSF, and I appreciate her shining a light on the 

problem and acting quickly to respond. 

I think we all understand we are learning a lot as we go through 

this process. That certainly has been the case whether it’s the 

media or Hollywood or those of us here in Congress, so we appreciate even though this has been a long-time problem, we are all 

learning how to deal with it in our different workplaces. 

So the purpose of this hearing is to learn how science agencies 

and research institutions are handling current complaints under 

current law and policies, assess the impact of harassment on women’s participation in STEM and advancement, and discuss recommendations for improving the process, as well as the overall culture. 

Taxpayers spend millions of dollars a year on research and education programs to get young girls and young women interested in 

STEM. I meet young women eager to go into STEM careers from 

my district nearly every day. My 3-year-old granddaughter, her favorite place to go every week is the local children’s science museum, so we all want to make sure that those little girls who are 

so excited at 2 and 3, when they step into that science museum, 

know they have a path in a career forward. I want to guarantee 

every one of them that they are given those tools. 

So I really look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses, and thank you so much for all that you’re doing and for 

being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:] 
7 

COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, SPACE, & TECHNOLOGY 

Lamar Smith. Chairman 

For Immediate Release 

February 27, 2018 

Media Contacts: Thea McDonald, Brandon VerVelde 

{202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairwoman Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) 

A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science 

Chairwoman Comstock: Imagine being a young astronomer and your dream of 

working with one of the most well renowned astronomers in the world comes true. 

Then imagine the horror when the professor you hope will be your mentor turns into 

your tormentor-a predator. You are in his office and he tries to kiss you. You spur his 

advances, but later at a work dinner, he puts his hand on your leg and slides it up 

your thigh under the table. You try to report the behavior, but some at the university 

are more interested in protecting one of their most powerful and lucrative 

researchers. 

This happened. This is a real case. And that young woman left the field of astronomy 

because of harassment. 

Now imagine if this were your daughter. your sister, your wife or your mother. Driven 

out of a dream career in a field with lifelong high-earning potential. 

Sexual harassment, abuse of power and intimidation in the workplace, classroom or 

research field site is unacceptable in any situation. Period. 

Whether it's in Congress or in the fields of science and technology, every individual 

has a right to a safe work environment-free of harassment-where one can learn 

and work. 

The last few months have been a watershed moment and opened many eyes to 

systematic harassment and abuse in a variety of workplaces. 

What has happened in Hollywood, the media and in other industries has opened the 

floodgates for women who are no longer afraid to speak out against predators in 

their workplaces. 

For the last few months, I have worked with my colleagues to reform the process of 

reporting sexual harassment in Congress and to create a zero tolerance 

environment. Democrats and Republicans-men and women-have been working 

to change the process so that victims have a safe place to turn and predators are no 

longer protected by taxpayer dollars and silence. 
8 

Today is an opportunity to shine a light on how predatory and abusive behavior are 

affecting another community-science. 

Women in science are particularly vulnerable to harassment and abuse. Powerful 

scientists who manage large federal grants have enormous influence within 

universities and exert significant control over the education and training of young 

scientists. 

If a PhD student is being harassed by her adviser, what safe avenues does she have 

for reporting the misconduct without derailing her education and career? How does 

a university respond to this when an abuser is a rainmaker for the university? 

As more and more victims come forward, I cannot help but wonder how many 

brilliant women and their ideas we have lost in the STEM fields to harassment. How 

many women have given up good, life-long earning capacity as they leave fulfilling 

careers due to harassment? 

Currently, there are laws and policies in place designed to protect individuals from 

gender based discrimination and harassment in education, but the process does not 

seem to be functioning well. 

Since October, the Science Committee has been investigating how federal science 

agencies and universities handle harassment complaints. So far, the committee has 

found inconsistency in how different agencies deal with complaints and 

investigations, unclear policies and procedures that leave victims unsure of where to 

turn, and institutions more interested in checking the boxes of compliance rather 

than doing the right thing. A survey by the National Postdoctoral Association found 

that nearly 30 percent of post-doctorate candidates had experienced sexual 

harassment. 

I was pleased to see that two weeks ago National Science Foundation (NSF) Director 

France Cordova make a strong statement to the science community about zero 

tolerance for harassment. 

NSF also announced it is taking additional steps towards protecting scientists and 

students. We are fortunate to have a strong, accomplished woman leading NSF, and 

I appreciate her shining a light on this problem and acting quickly to respond. I look 

forward to learning more about those proposed policies today. 

The purpose of this hearing is to learn how science agencies and research institutions 

handle complaints under current law and policies, assess the impact of harassment 

on women's participation in STEM, and discuss recommendations for improving the 

process as well as the overall culture in science. 
9 

Taxpayers spend millions of dollars a year on research and education programs to 

get young girls interested in STEM. I meet young women eager to go into STEM 

careers from my district nearly every day. 

I want to guarantee that every one of them is given the tools and support necessary 

to succeed, without fear of harassment or abuse. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses and their ideas for ensuring a 

bright and safe future for every scientist. 

### 
10 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, for holding this 

hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being with us this 

morning to discuss this very important issue. 

The stories we’ve been hearing about widespread sexual harassment occurring across different workplaces, industries, and seemingly in every corner of our society are sickening. We must do all 

we can to fight the scourge of harassment, sexual or otherwise. 

There is much we need to do as a society to ensure that all individuals are treated with the dignity that they deserve. I’m hopeful 

that this societal moment in which we are collectively recognizing 

the scope of this problem will lead to significant real change. 

I want to thank Chairwoman Comstock for her comments and for 

her work that she has done here in Congress to help us to better 

handle and to combat sexual harassment in Congress. 

Today’s hearing is specifically about sexual harassment and misconduct in the sciences. The issue of sexual harassment in the 

sciences is not new. It’s a longstanding problem of mistreatment 

that violates individuals’ dignity and is keeping some of the brightest minds from pursuing their ambitions, and thus impeding the 

progress of science. It is critical for this Committee and this Congress to find new and better ways to address sexual harassment 

and misconduct in the sciences. 

This conversation has taken on a new sense of urgency in recent 

years due to numerous high-profile revelations involving prominent 

scientists. Their individual stories have helped to bring this issue 

to light, and research shows that their experiences are not rare. A 

survey conducted by one of the panelists here today, Dr. Clancy, revealed that 35 percent of female scientists have experienced some 

form of harassment. On this Committee, we often talk about encouraging more women to pursue their interest in science. How 

might a young woman’s decision to pursue science be affected when 

she learns she has a one-in-three chance of being sexually harassed 

during her career? I look forward to hearing more about this study 

and research into sexual harassment in the sciences, including the 

impact on the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women. 

A major challenge is the low rate of individuals reporting when 

they are harassed. A 2015 campus climate survey on sexual assault 

and harassment revealed that only eight percent of victims report 

their experiences. The most commonly cited reason for students not 

reporting the harassment was that they did not think anything 

would be done, and many junior scientists do not report harassment by their more senior colleagues for fear that doing so will 

negatively impact their careers. 

There’s certainly—I understand from my time in academia and 

certainly as a—before that as a graduate student, the unevenness 

and the fear that, you know, everyone has about doing something 

that’s going to damage their career. We cannot effectively address 

the problem of sexual harassment in science without a better understanding of the scope of the problem. One topic I hope we discussed today is how the reporting systems can be made more accessible and responsive. 
11 

The National Academies is conducting a study to review the research on the impact of sexual harassment and to identify successful policy interventions. This is an important step to improving our 

understanding of how best to address sexual harassment to the 

benefit of individuals and the scientific enterprise as a whole. I 

look forward to recommendations the study panel will produce and 

to working with my colleagues on this Committee to implement 

them. 

In the meantime, universities, federal science agencies, and scientific societies all have a role to play in creating a more welcoming, safe, and inclusive environment for STEM students and researchers. Fortunately, promising changes are being made. For example, the National Science Foundation has proposed a change to 

its award terms and conditions, requiring universities to our findings of sexual harassment. NASA recently launched an anti-harassment campaign to assess and improve the training and coordination related to their antiharassment programs. And several scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union, which 

is here with us today, have updated their codes of conduct and 

training programs to prohibit and prevent harassment. 

As a longtime supporter of women in the workplace, I’m encouraged to see progress being made on this issue. I look forward to a 

discussion on the additional cultural and structural changes that 

will foster a safe environment for all students and researchers. We 

cannot afford to lose another brilliant scientist because she did not 

feel safe in her lab, but even more important, no one should stand 

by idly while we have an opportunity to prevent harassment in any 

context. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 
12 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Dan Lipinski (D-IL) 

of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

"A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

February 27.2018 

Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for 

being with us this morning to discuss this very important issue. The stories we have been 

hearing about widespread sexual harassment occurring across different workplaces, industries, 

and seemingly in every corner of our society are sickening. We must do all we can to fight the 

scourge of harassment, sexual and otherwise. There is much we need to do as a society to ensure 

that all individuals are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. I am hopeful that this 

societal moment, in which we are collectively recognizing the scope of this problem, will lead to 

a real significant change. 

Today's hearing is specifically about sexual harassment and misconduct in the sciences. The 

issue of sexual harassment in the sciences is not new. It is a long-standing problem of 

mistreatment that violates individuals' dignity. and it is keeping some of the brightest minds 

from pursuing their ambitions and, thus, impeding the progress of science. It is critical for this 

Committee and this Congress to find new and better ways to address sexual harassment and 

misconduct in the sciences. This conversation has taken on a new sense of urgency in recent 

years due to numerous high-profile revelations involving prominent scientists. Their individual 

stories have helped to bring this issue to light and research shows that their experiences are not 

rare. 

A survey conducted by one of the panelists here today, Dr. Clancy, revealed that 35 percent of 

female scientists have experienced some form of harassment. On this Committee, we often talk 

about encouraging more women to pursue their interests in science. How might a young 

woman's decision to pursue science be at1ected when she learns she has a one in three chance of 

being sexually harassed during her career? I look forward to hearing more about the research 

into sexual harassment in the sciences- including the impact on the recruitment, retention, and 

advancement of women. 

A major challenge is the low rate of individuals reporting when they arc harassed. A 2015 

campus climate survey on sexual assault and harassment revealed that only eight percent of 

victims report their experiences. The most commonly-cited reason tor students not reporting 

their harassment was that they did not think anything would be done. And many junior scientists 

do not report harassment by their more senior colleagues tor fear that doing so will negatively 

impact their careers. We cannot etiectively address the problem of sexual harassment in science 

without a better understanding of the scope of the problem. One topic I hope we discuss today is 

how the reporting systems can be made more accessible and responsive. 
13 

The National Academies is conducting a study to review the research on the impact of sexual 

harassment and to identify successful policy interventions. This is an important step toward 

improving our understanding of how best to address sexual harassment to the benefit of 

individuals and the scientific enterprise as a whole. I look forward to the recommendations the 

study panel will produce and to working with my colleagues on this committee to implement 

them. 

In the meantime, universities, federal science agencies, and scientific societies all have a role to 

play in creating a more welcoming, safe, and inclusive environment for STEM students and 

researchers. Fortunately, promising changes are being made. For example, the National Science 

Foundation has proposed a change to its award terms and conditions, requiring universities to 

report findings of sexual harassment; NASA recently launched an anti-harassment campaign to 

assess and improve the training and coordination related to their anti-harassment programs; and 

several scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union, which is here with us 

today, have updated their codes of conduct and training programs to prohibit and prevent 

harassment. 

As a longtime supporter of women in the workplace, I am encouraged to see progress being 

made on this issue and I look forward to a discussion on additional cultural and structural 

changes that will foster a safe environment for all students and researchers. We cannot afford to 

lose another brilliant scientist because she did not feel safe in her lab. But even more important. 

no one should stand by idly while we have an opportunity to prevent harassment in any context. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 
14 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. And I thank 

you for your leadership role on this and for your unique experience 

because of your background and really understanding this issue. I 

really appreciate your work. 

And I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee for a 

statement, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and also 

thank you for taking the initiative and having this hearing. 

Although federal law prohibits gender discrimination, including 

sexual harassment, a disturbing number of cases of inappropriate 

behavior and harassment of women in science occupations and 

studies have come to light. There must be fair, timely, and consistent procedures for investigating and adjudicating allegations of 

harassment. Unfortunately, we will hear this morning that such 

procedures are not always in place and are not uniformly administered. These inconsistencies create an environment where harassment and discrimination goes unchallenged in classrooms, labs, 

and workplaces. Individuals affected by such misconduct can suffer 

long-term harm in their education and careers, as well as to their 

mental and physical well-being. 

There are broader implications as well. Engaging more young 

women in STEM studies and STEM careers is essential to meeting 

our global competitive challenges in science and technology. Despite representing half of college graduates and half of the total 

U.S. workforce, women account for less than a quarter of America’s 

STEM workforce. 

In the last few months, the Committee and the full House approved several bipartisan bills aimed at boosting interest in STEM 

subjects and opportunities among women, our military veterans, 

and other underrepresented groups. But efforts to boost STEM opportunities for women might be greatly hampered if there is a culture in science that does not respect and support them. It is the 

responsibility of the science community, universities, and federal 

science agencies to ensure there is a fair, functioning process under 

the law in place for harassment complaints and resolutions. It is 

their responsibility to take steps to ensure that classrooms, laboratories, and workplaces are safe. 

No taxpayer dollars should be awarded to a university researcher 

who engages in harassment and inappropriate behavior toward a 

colleague or a student under their charge. Regardless of the merits 

of a particular research project, all scientific research is undermined if misconduct is allowed to go unchallenged. And if there is 

a finding of research or workplace misconduct by a federally funded 

researcher, that information should be made public so that every 

research institution, federal agency, and student is aware of the 

finding. 

Last month, Ranking Member Johnson and I requested that the 

Government Accountability Office conduct a full study of federal 

grant-making agencies’ compliance with relevant laws and policies 

for harassment, how agencies share relevant information, and identification of recommendations for better enforcement. I look forward to that report, in addition to the recommendations from today’s witnesses. 

And I’ll yield back. 
15 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
16 

COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, SPACE, & TECHNOLOGY 

Lamar Smith. Chairman 

For Immediate Release 

February 27,2018 

Media Contacts: Thea McDonald. Brandon VerVelde 

{202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) 

A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science 

Chairman Smith: Although federal law prohibits gender discrimination. including sexual 

harassment, a disturbing number of cases of inappropriate behavior and harassment of 

women in science occupations and studies have come to light. 

There must be fair, timely and consistent procedures for investigating and adjudicating 

allegations of harassment. 

Unfortunately, we will hear this morning that such procedures are not always in place 

and are not uniformly administered. These inconsistencies create an environment where 

harassment and discrimination goes unchallenged in classrooms, labs and workplaces. 

Individuals affected by such misconduct can suffer long-term harm to their education 

and careers, as well as to their mental and physical well-being. 

There are broader implications, as well. Engaging more girls in STEM studies and more 

young women in STEM careers is essential to meeting the global competitive challenges 

in science and technology. 

Despite representing one-half of college graduates and one-half of the total U.S. 

workforce, women account for less than a quarter of America's STEM workforce. 

In the last few months. the committee and the full House approved several bipartisan 

bills aimed at boosting interest in STEM subjects and opportunities among women, our 

military veterans and other under-represented groups. 

But efforts to boost STEM opportunities for women might be greatly hampered if there is 

a culture in science that does not respect and support them. 

It is the responsibility of the science community, universities and federal science 

agencies to ensure there is a fair, functioning process under the law in place for 

harassment complaints and resolutions. It is their responsibility to take steps to ensure 

that classrooms, laboratories and workplaces are safe. 

No taxpayer dollars should be awarded to a university researcher who engages in 

harassment and inappropriate behavior toward a colleague or a student under their 
17 

charge. Regardless of the merits of a particular research project, all scientific research is 

undermined if misconduct is allowed to go unchallenged. 

And if there is a finding of research or workplace misconduct by a federally funded 

researcher, that information should be made public so that every research institution, 

federal agency and student is aware of the finding. 

Last month Ranking Member Johnson and I requested that the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a full study of federal grant-making agencies' 

compliance with relevant laws and policies for harassment. how agencies share 

relevant information, and identification of recommendations for better enforcement. 

I look forward to that report in addition to the recommendations from today's witnesses. 

### 
18 

[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Johnson follows:] 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

"A Review <!{Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

February 27,2018 

Thank you Chairwoman Comstock and Ranking Member Lipinski for holding this very 

important hearing on sexual harassment and misconduct in science. And thank you to the 

witnesses for being here this morning. This is an exceptionally qualified panel of experts to help 

inform a discussion on this topic and !look forward to your testimony. 

As my colleagues have noted, one-third of female scientists overall report having experienced 

some form of sexual harassment. The problem is especially acute for women of color, who bear 

the burden of both sexism and racism. A 2017 survey of astronomers and planetary scientists 

found that 40 percent of women of color reported feeling unsafe in their workplaces. Women of 

color still face so many cultural and institutional batTiers to successful careers in STEM. I am 

saddened to know that concern for their personal safety remains one of them. 

Several factors contribute to an environment in which sexual harassment is pervasive. Most 

tields of science remain male dominated. Even fields that graduate large numbers of women 

have few women in senior positions. Students and post-docs depend almost exclusively on their 

faculty advisors in the early stages of their scientific careers. This intrinsic power imbalance 

between predominantly male faculty and their trainees puts young women at particular risk. 

Another tactor is the large amount of money and prestige that faculty in STEM fields bring to a 

university. There have been some highly publicized cases in recent years in which it seems to 

many of us that the universities in question did the v.Tong thing before they did the right thing in 

handling a case involving a high profile male faculty member. 

I recognize the difftcultics that university administrators face in providing due process for all 

parties while minimizing their legal liability and protecting their reputation. However, I also 

believe that we are entering a new era in which following the letter of the law- in this case Title 

IX- is not sufticicnt. We must develop and implement new policies that go further to protect 

women and reduce the scourge of sexual harassment. 

While I applaud NSF for their recent steps to strengthen oversight of universities, I also want to 

recognize the agency for its nearly two-decade old ADVANCE program. ADVANCE awards 

grants to support institutions in their efforts to identify and eliminate structural barriers to the full 

participation and advancement of women in academia. 

I believe that a mix of incentive-based interventions and improved enforcement of Title IX- a 

carrot and stick approach - will be required to achieve our goals. I also look forward to a 

discussion about the challenges and merits of including sexual harassment in official definitions 

of research misconduct. 
19 

I hope that today·s hearing represents the beginning and not the end of this Committee's role in 

fostering a public discussion of this critical issue. Every time we help chip away at a barrier to 

the full participation of women in STEM, we help strengthen the U.S. scientific enterprise 

overall. 

I yield back. 
20 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Now, let me introduce our witnesses. 

Our first witness today is Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head of the Office of 

Diversity and Inclusion at the National Science Foundation. Ms. 

Davis joined NSF in 2010 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, where 

she served in several positions, including Acting Associate Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. She holds a master’s of science degree in agriculture economics from North Carolina Agriculture and 

Technical State University and a bachelor’s of science and agriculture economics from the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. 

Our second witness today is Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Illinois. Dr. Clancy’s research integrates life history, evolutionary 

medicine, and feminist biology to understand how modern environments influence women’s health and well-being. She and her colleagues have empirically demonstrated the continued problem of 

sexual harassment and assault in the field sciences astronomy and 

planetary science. She also serves on the National Academy of 

Sciences Committee to address sexual harassment in the sciences. 

She was named one of Nature’s ‘‘10 Most Influential Scientists’’ in 

2013, and has received local leadership awards from the Girl 

Scouts and YWCA. She received her PH.D in anthropology from 

Yale University, and a joint honors bachelor’s degree in biological 

anthropology and women’s studies from Harvard University. 

Ms. Kristina Larsen, our third witness, is an attorney in private 

practice. She has over 20 years of experience in higher education, 

human resources, and employment law, including serving as an Assistant Vice Chancellor at a university where she oversaw all aspects of human resources for academic employees. She has represented and advised individuals at numerous universities and academic institutions including UCLA, Stanford, the Smithsonian, 

Scripps Research Institute, and many more. Ms. Larsen received 

both a Bachelor of Arts in political science from the University of 

California San Diego, as well as her juris doctorate from the University of San Diego. 

Our final witness today is Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union, an international scientific society that represents 60,000 scientists seeking to promote 

discovery in earth and space science. Previously, Ms. McEntee has 

held leadership positions at the American Institute of Architects, 

the American College of Cardiology and its foundation, and the 

American Hospital Association. She was named CEO Update’s 

‘‘CEO of the Year’’ in 2016 and one of America’s top women mentoring leaders. She graduated from Georgetown University and 

holds a master’s degree in health administration. 

And I would also like to note that Mr. Billy Williams, also from 

the association—from the union—is also joining us today, and he 

is a constituent from Leesburg, so we thank you for joining us and 

for all of your good work. I appreciate you being here. 

So I now recognize Ms. Davis for five minutes to present her testimony. 
21 

TESTIMONY OF MS. RHONDA DAVIS, 

HEAD, OFFICE OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Ms. DAVIS. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Chairwoman Comstock, and Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Rhonda Davis. I’m the National Science Foundation’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion Head. Thank you for the invitation to testify on sexual harassment in science and on the steps 

NSF has taken to ensure equitable and safe access, irrespective of 

gender or background, to research experiences in the STEM disciplines supported by our agency. 

NSF does not tolerate sexual harassment of any—or any kind of 

harassment within the agency at awardee organizations, field sites, 

or anywhere NSF-funded science and education are conducted. As 

the primary funding agency of fundamental science and engineer 

research in the United States, NSF recognized that to enable scientists, engineers, and students to work at the outermost frontiers 

of knowledge, the agency must be a role model for teamwork, fairness, and equity. 

That is why, earlier this month, NSF announced new steps to 

help eliminate sexual harassment from science and engineering. 

NSF will be proposing a new award term and condition to make 

it clear when an awardee organization finds that an NSF-funded 

investigator or coinvestigator has committed sexual harassment, 

NSF expects to be notified of that finding. 

Due to the importance of this issue, NSF is making the change 

a priority and fast-tracking this process. The new award term and 

condition will go into effect after completion of the Federal Register 

process, which includes a 60-day public comment period. Once that 

process is complete, all new awards and funding amendments on 

existing awards will include the new term and conditions, and all 

awardees must adhere to it. NSF expects all awardee organizations 

to establish and maintain clear standards of behavior to ensure a 

harassment-free workplace. 

To mine the best ideas, we’ve also recently instituted a cross 

agency special task force to examine and collect promising practices 

and model codes of conduct. We will be using one web portal, 

NSF.gov/harassment, to make it easier for the research community 

and the public to access important information. These new steps 

and resources will complement NSF’s title IX compliance program, 

which we have bolstered in the recent years. Title IX requires 

schools to take steps to prevent and remedy sex-based harassment. 

If an institution is suspected of not complying with title IX, NSF 

and its federal partners may conduct a review of the institution. If 

an institution is in violation and refuses to take corrective action, 

their funding can be revoked. 

Like similar agencies, NSF conducts title IX compliance reviews 

of at least two funded organizations each year and makes its— 

these reports publicly available. NSF has also enhanced its training program for internal staff to provide guidance for an employee 

who may be notified of a title IX matter. In addition, our program 

offices receive training on sexual harassment during the merit re-
22 

view process training. NSF policies are meant to ensure that the 

actions of one do not negatively affect the careers of all. 

It is vitally important that we do not punish innocent award participants. If an awardee adjudicates a sexual harassment case in a 

way that results in the investigator being unable to fulfill the 

terms and conditions of his or her award, NSF will act to minimize 

the impact on others supported by the project, including students 

and postdocs. 

NSF is committed to doing everything within our power to help 

eliminate sexual harassment in science and engineering. NSF accounts for approximately 27 percent of the total federal budget for 

basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and universities and has 

been vital to many discoveries that impact our lives and drive the 

economy. However, we cannot and will not succeed in our mission 

if we do not eliminate unsafe research environments that upset the 

whole balance of the science ecosystem, harm our scientists, and 

impede the very progress of science itself. 

With the support of this Committee, the research community, 

and outside experts, NSF will continue to work to eradicate sexual 

harassment and to eliminate barriers to gender equity in science 

and engineering. Thank you and I’ll be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:] 
23 

Testimony of 

Rhonda Davis 

Office Head 

Office of Diversity and Inclusion 

National Science Foundation 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

of the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

February 27, 2018 

"A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

Good Morning Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski. and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Rhonda Davis and I am the Head of the National Science 

Foundation's (NSF) Oft1ce of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI). Thank you for the invitation to 

testify today on sexual harassment in science, and on the steps NSF is taking to ensure equitable 

and safe access, irrespective of gender or background, to research experiences in the STEM 

disciplines supported by our agency. 

Established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-507), NSF is an 

independent Federal agency whose mission is "to promote the progress of science; to advance 

the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other 

purposes." With an annual budget of approximately $7.5 billion, NSF's unique mission is to 

support fundamental research across all fields of science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics (STEM) and all levels of STEM education. NSF funds reach all U.S. states and 

territories through grants to nearly 2,000 institutions of higher education (I HE) and other 

organizations. Each year, NSF receives more than 48,000 competitive proposals for funding and 

makes about 12,000 new funding awards. Investing in STEM research and education is essential 

to America's prosperity. economic competitiveness, and quality of life. A vibrant scientific 

workforce and breakthrough discoveries enabled by NSF investments sustain, accelerate, and 

transtom1 America's globally preeminent innovation ecosystem. NSF is a respected steward of 

taxpayer dollars, operating with integrity. openness. and transparency. 
24 

As noted above, NSF makes the vast majority of its awards to institutions of higher education 

and other organizations such as non-profits. Only infrequently and through specialized programs, 

such as NSF's Postdoctoral Fellowship Programs, do NSF funds go directly to individuals. One 

of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and 

education through the programs, projects, and activities that we support at NSF awardee 

organizations. These organizations recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to 

advance the frontiers of science and participate in the US technology-based economy. By 

supporting institutions, these awards touch thousands of researchers from faculty to post-doctoral 

fellows, graduate students, undergraduate students, and even K-12 students and teachers. 

As the primary funding agency of fundamental science and engineering research in the United 

States, NSF recognizes that to enable scientists, engineers and students to work at the outermost 

frontiers of knowledge, the agency must be a role model for teamwork, faimess, and equity. NSF 

does not tolerate sexual harassment, or any kind of harassment, within the agency, at awardee 

organizations, field sites or anywhere NSF -funded science and education are conducted. 

Investing in science, engineering, and education for the Nation's future necessitates a safe 

environment that fosters equal opportunity for all. 

Two years ago, NSF joined with other leading U.S. scientific organizations to emphasize its 

strong commitment to preventing harassment and to eradicate gender-based discrimination in 

science, and issued a press statement 1 to reiterate our unwavering dedication to inclusive 

workplaces. Since then, NSF has significantly stepped up its efforts to help eliminate sexual 

harassment within the science and engineering community by taking a proactive approach to 

promote inclusive. diverse workspaces through new actions and ongoing programs; 

strengthening our Title IX compliance program; and practicing transparency in our guidelines 

and actions. 

New Steps To Combat Sexual Harassment 

On February 8, 2018, NSF reiterated the policy that sexual harassment and misconduct will not 

be tolerated, and announced new steps to help eliminate such transgressions from science and 

engineering. NSF issued an important notice2 to Presidents of institutions of higher education 

and heads of other NSF awardee organizations detailing these new steps. Most importantly, NSF 

has proposed a new award term and condition that would make it clear that when an awardee 

organization finds that an NSF-funded investigator or co-investigator has committed sexual 

harassment, NSF expects to be notified of that finding so we can take decisive action, as is 

appropriate, using all the tools at our disposal. NSF employees also received a notice3 clarifying 

how sexual harassment complaints within the agency are to be reported and handled. The 

response to these announcements has been very positive with great support from our colleagues 

in institutions of higher education and awardees that operate our facilities. 

1 The National Science Foundation (NSF) will not tolerate harassment at grantee institutions 

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news summ.jsp7cntn id-137466 2 Important Notice No. 144: Harassment https:L6Y_ww.ns[gov /publications/pub sunlm.jsp'!ods key-in144 3 ODI Bulletin No.lB-01, Sexual Harassment Reporting https:l/www.nsf.gov /od}Jlliij_docs/odil801.pdf 
25 

Specifically, the important notice to the field addressed the following: 

• New Award Requirements: NSF has developed a new award term and condition that 

will require awardee organizations to report findings of sexual harassment, or any other 

kind of harassment regarding a PI or co/PI or any other grant personnel. The award tenn 

and condition also will require the grantee to report the placement of the PI or co-PI on 

administrative leave relating to a harassment finding or investigation. This tem1 and 

condition will make it clear that NSF may take unilateral action as necessary to protect 

the safety of all grant personnel, to include suspending or terminating an award or 

requiring the grantee to replace or remove personnel. NSF will solicit feedback on this 

new award term and condition through the Federal Register process within the next 

several weeks. 

Due to the importance of this issue, NSF is making this change a priority and fasttracking this process. The new award term and condition will go into effect after 

completion of the Federal Register process, which includes providing 60 days for public 

comment. Once that process is complete, all new awards and funding amendments on 

existing awards will include the new term and condition and all awardees must adhere to 

that term and condition. The policy will not be retroactive and will not apply to expired 

awards. 

• Harassment-Free Research Workplaces: NSF expects all awardee organizations to 

establish and maintain clear and unambiguous standards of behavior to ensure 

harassment-free workplaces wherever science is conducted, including notification 

pathways for all personnel, including students, on the primary and supplemental awards. 

This expectation includes activities at all research facilities and field sites and during 

conferences and workshops. All such settings should have accessible and evident means 

for reporting violations and awardee organizations should exercise due diligence with 

timely investigations of allegations and corrective actions. NSF recently instituted a 

cross-agency special task force to examine and collect promising practices for clear and 

unambiguous model codes of conduct. When finalized, these codes of conduct will be 

placed in one location on the NSF website for easy access. 

• Enhanced Web Resources: ODI is tasked with seeking to ensure that NSF-fhnded 

programs and projects are free of discrimination. ODI recently launched a dedicated web 

portal to consolidate policies and procedures, promising practices, and frequently asked 

questions relating to sexual and other forms of harassment with the intent of making it 

easier for the research community and the public to access information. This portal is 

where NSf will continue to add content related to ending harassment. To access the 

portal, please visit NSF.govlharassment. 

NSF is working to make certain that awardee organizations respond promptly and appropriately 

to instances of harassment. A community effort is essential to eliminate sexual and other 

harassment in science and to build scientific workspaces where people can learn, grow and 

thrive. 
26 

One long-standing way NSF has focused on the prevention of harassment has been by working 

closely with awardee organizations to support inclusive, diverse and safe workplaces. To further 

address the issue, NSF has funded a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

studl on the prevalence and impact of sexual harassment in science, engineering, and medical 

departments and programs. When completed, this study will form a foundation for further 

consideration of our policies while providing important information to science and engineering 

institutions and organizations. NSF also recently made an award5 to a group of geoscientists to 

partner with professional societies to develop best practices and training workshops for safer, 

more productive STEM education and research workplaces. This award was made through 

NSF's ADVANCE program, our longstanding etJort to foster gender equity in science and 

engineering through a focus on the identification and elimination of organizational barriers that 

impede the full participation and advancement of all women faculty in academic institutions. 

Title IX and the Complaint Process 

NSF adheres to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which states that Federal 

agencies awarding grants to educational institutions or program activities are obligated to take 

steps to ensure that such institutions do not discriminate based on gender. Title IX also requires 

schools to take steps to prevent and remedy two fonns of sex-based harassment: sexual 

harassment (including sexual violence) and gender-based harassment. If an institution is 

suspected of not complying with Title IX, NSF and its federal partners may conduct a review of 

the institution. 

NSF follows federal guidelines, and every institution of higher education that receives federal 

dollars from NSF must certify compliance with Title IX. Under these guidelines, institutions' 

Title IX coordinators are responsible for handling Title IX complaints and allegations. NSF must 

ensure through its compliance activities that individual cases are not indicative of larger cultural 

issues within these institutions. This means working with the institutions. which takes time. 

NSF may be contacted about potential Title IX issues both fonnally and informally. The 

appropriate action varies with the nature of the contact and issue. When NSF receives a formal 

Title IX complaint, the complaint is evaluated to determine whether an NSF-funded program is 

involved. If an NSF-funded award is involved in the complaint, NSF may accept it for 

investigation. For Title IX complaints not involving NSF-funded awards, to ensure that the 

proper Federal agency will investigate the complaint, NSF may forward the complaint to the 

U.S. Department of Education and/or consult with the institutions who may be tunding personnel 

or activities involved in the complaint. Title IX requires Federal agencies to first provide the 

awardee with an opportunity to take corrective action. If the awardee refuses to take corrective 

action, agencies can take steps to revoke all of the enforcing agency's Federal timds from the 

awardee as a tool to compel compliance. 

4Sexual Harassment in the Scientific and Technical Workforce And its Effects on the Careers of Scientist>, 

Engineers, and Medical Professionals 

Imps: //nsfgov /awardsearch/showAwan!? AWO ID~1644492&Historica!Awards-false 

5ADVANCE Partnership: From the Classroom to the Field: Improving the Workplace in the Geosciences 

htlps: //www.nsf.gv.li.LID:Ys.mlsearch/showAward? AWD ID-1725879. 
27 

For many years NSF referred Title IX complaints to the Department of Education's (ED) Office 

for Civil Rights (OCR) under a delegation agreement between ED and NSF. However. NSF was 

recently informed by OCR that the delegation agreement does not apply to Title IX complaints. 

As a result, NSF has initiated additional protocols to bolster its Title IX Compliance program to 

include Title IX complaint activity. NSF has significantly strengthened its compliance program 

by increasing staff and improving oversight. Staffing in ODI, which handles NSF's Title IX 

compliance program, has been increased to focus more efrectively on implementation of best 

practices and proactive approaches to institutions' Title IX compliance. This includes the hiring 

of an Equal Opportunity Compliance Program Manager. NSF now conducts Title IX compliance 

reviews of at least two NSF-funded organizations each year, and makes reports of Title IX 

compliance reviews publicly available. NSF has already conducted one Title IX compliance 

review this year and has at least one more planned. These on-site reviews are selected based on 

several factors such as known Title IX compliance issues, amount of NSF funding provided to 

the university, and others. These reviews are comprised of students, faculty and staff interviews; 

review of records and statistics; and site inspections of academic departments that receive NSF 

awards. 

NSF has also enhanced its training program for internal staff to include in-person training. 

v.Titten publications. and video presentations. The training provides guidance for any employee 

who may be notified of a Title IX matter. Training is provided to all new employees during the 

onboarding process on Title IX and sexual harassment. Progran1 Officers receive training on 

sexual harassment during the Merit Review Process training. 

With the current spate of incidents of sexual harassment and assault at universities, NSF 

acknowledges that more needs to be done. NSF program participants deserve nothing less than 

learning and research environments free of sexual harassment and sexual assault. NSF is looking 

to other procedural and policy avenues that will hold Pis, and awardee organizations, 

accountable in an expeditious and fair manner. In tandem with the Title IX regulatory approach 

to ensuring awardee compliance, NSF is also using Federal-wide administrative requirements to 

ensure that awardees are fulfilling their award conditions. If award conditions cannot be met, 

then the organization may propose that a substitute PI be named and NSF can accept or reject the 

proposed change. If an awardee adjudicates a sexual harassment case in a way that results in the 

investigator being unable to fulf1ll the tenns and conditions of his/her award, NSF will act to 

minimize the impact of such a decision by the awardee on others suppmicd by the project, 

including students and postdocs. NSF polices are meant to ensure that the actions of one do not 

negatively affect the careers of all. It is vitally important that we do not punish innocent award 

participants because of the actions of one person 

In summary, NSF will continue to provide training on Title IX and sexual harassment 

prevention, and regularly conduct Title IX compliance reviews of awardee organizations and the 

academic research departments funded by NSF. NSF may terminate funding to any institution 

found to be in noncompliance with Title IX regulations and that does not voluntarily come into 

compliance. 
28 

Conclusion 

NSF is committed to doing everything within our power to help eliminate sexual harassment in 

science and engineering. NSF accounts tor approximately 27 percent of the total Federal budget 

for basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and universities and has been vital to many 

discoveries that impact our daily lives and drive the economy. However, we cannot and will not 

succeed in our mission if we do not eliminate unsafe research environments that upset the whole 

balance of the science ecosystem, harm our scientists, and impede the very progress of science 

itself With the suppmi of this committee, educational and research institutions, the community, 

and outside experts, NSF will continue to work to eradicate sexual harassment in scientific 

research and learning environments and to eliminate baniers to gender equity in education and 

research experiences. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testifY today and for your continued support ofNSF. I will be 

pleased to answer any questions. 
29 

Rhonda Davis is Head of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI) in the Office of the 

Director at the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

Ms. Davis joined NSF in 2010 from the United States Department of Agriculture's Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights where she served in several positions 

including Acting Associate Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Davis' experience 

includes establishing and managing nondiscrimination and diversity programs for both 

small and large federal agencies. 

Ms. Davis holds a MS in Agricultural Economics from North Carolina Agriculture and 

Technical State University and a BS in Agricultural Economics from the University of 

Arkansas at Pine Bluff. 
30 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Dr. 

Clancy for five minutes to present her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. KATHRYN CLANCY, 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

Dr. CLANCY. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, and thank you 

for the opportunity to share my research and expertise with you 

today, and thank you for taking on such an important topic. 

I want to start by sharing a bit about what sexual harassment 

is, how it manifests in the sciences, and what I hope you’ll help us 

do about it. Sexual harassment comes in two main forms: come-ons, 

which are unwanted sexual advances and sexual coercions; and 

putdowns, also called gender harassment, nonsexual behaviors that 

are crude or hostile regarding gender. 

While the come-ons are the types of behaviors you see in articles 

about Harvey Weinstein and in sexual harassment trainings, the 

majority of sexual harassment are in fact the putdowns. These are 

the kinds of behaviors most women in the workplace have experienced at least once in their lifetimes and many experience every 

day. The offensive remarks, subtle exclusions, requests to make coffee, yes, but also starting rumors, sabotaging a promotion, or ruining a career. 

One of the more recent cases of sexual harassment in the 

sciences is by alleged perpetrator David Marchant, a Boston University geologist who conducted fieldwork in Antarctica. This case 

involved horrifying and physical gender harassment, blowing volcanic ash into the already snow-blind eyes of a grad student, pushing her down a mountain multiple times, and throwing rocks at her 

if she dared go to the bathroom. 

There are a few conditions that make sexual harassment more 

common in the workplace. When workplaces are male-dominated 

not just in numbers but in culturally how they behave, sexual harassment happens more. When workplaces demonstrate that they’re 

tolerant of sexual harassment by ignoring reporting, retaliating 

against reporters, or not sanctioning perpetrators, sexual harassment happens more. In 2016, the EEOC wrote a report that 

showed that only 1/4 of sexual harassment is reported, and of those 

who report, 3/4 of them faced retaliation. 

I study sexual harassment in the sciences because I am a scientist. I care about science, and I’m interested in the ways in which 

the manifestation of harassment varies by work context. But this 

is a problem not just of science but of American workplaces. In the 

sciences, sexual harassment looks like this: women having less access to their advisors, to the materials they need to conduct their 

research, and withstanding constant questioning of their intelligence and worth. I have stories from my research of sabotaged lab 

equipment, of intentional safety violations, of rumormongering, and 

yes, sometimes of sexual assault and rape. 

What bothers me the most about how it usually looks in science 

is that we wrap sexual harassment up in this package that we 

claim is intellectual rigor and meritocracy. It’s like we think that 

rudeness and cruelty are the same thing as being smart without 

noticing that we direct these cruelties more at women than men, 
31 

more at women of color than white women, more of sexual minorities than straight folk. 

We say that asking a nasty question at a colloquium is how we 

push people to be better scientists. We say when we see an all-male 

research team that it must just be that the best scientists for the 

job are all men. We say that the sole woman in a department is 

the affirmative-action hire. We spent all this taxpayer money supporting recruitment of women to STEM fields and supporting their 

educations only to lose that money when they are forced out by 

damaging behaviors. We also lose their diversity of perspectives 

and thus end up with a flatter, more boring, less complex, and less 

innovative American science. 

Too often I’ve heard that harassment and bad behavior are the 

price we must pay for star scientists, but are they really doing star 

science? When I’m writing my papers or analyzing my data on sexual harassment in the sciences, I’m thinking of the victims and the 

science we’ve lost. We’ve lost their ideas; we’ve lost their perspectives. We scientists do this work because we want to give the best 

of ourselves to the advancement of science. Women keep trying to 

give us their best, and we blow ash in their faces and push them 

down mountains. 

The way we’ve tried to fix this problem isn’t working. We have 

decades of evidence to prove it. Let’s move away from a culture of 

compliance and towards a culture of change. Let’s convince universities to worry less about litigation and more about legacy. Do you 

want to be on the right side of history when it comes to how you 

center victims and how you improve the lives of women? Do you 

want to be the hub for exciting groundbreaking science? Do you 

want to be the place everyone wants to work at or the place all 

women warn each other about? 

I hope you will join me in encouraging universities and other 

science workplaces to take a values-into-action approach to eliminating sexual harassment. That means locational, contextual solutions that create respectful and equitable climates for everyone. 

That means focusing on the behaviors we want to see, not creating 

fear around the legally actionable ones, and that means creating 

confidential avenues for women to speak and to be heard. 

I just want to say one last thing because this testimony is public 

record and it’s important that I say it. In a climate where perpetrators are being centered and where the conversation has been on reporting and speaking up, I want to say today to victims that I see 

you. I see whether or not you report, whether or not you’ve been 

one of my studies. I see when you email me, tweet at me, when 

you stay silent. I see you and I think of you and I thank you for 

getting up every day and I derive strength from you. I hope you 

know how much you mean to those of us who do this work. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Clancy follows:] 
32 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science: 

Written Testimony 

I am an anthropologist who studies workplace climate in the sciences. I am an associate 

professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. My degrees are in anthropology 

(PhD, Yale University) as well as biological anthropology and women's studies (BA, Harvard 

University). With my collaborators, I have published three papers across two projects: one 

survey (n = 666) and interview (n = 26) project on sexual harassment and assault in the field 

sciences (Nelson et al. 2017; Clancy et al. 2014), and another survey (n = 474) and interview (n 

18) project on many fonns of harassment (sexual, racial, etc) in astronomy and planetary 

science (Clancy et al. 20 17). I have completed data collection on two more projects, a survey of 

female undergraduate physicists (n 470) and focus groups of women of color science faculty (n 

= 15). Tn this written testimony I'll be sharing my expertise from these projects and from the 

broader literature on sexual harassment. The main takeaways of this testimony are: 

I. Enforcement efforts and media attention often miss the most prevalent forms of sexual 

harassment in the workplace. 

2. Gender harassment, comprised of non-sexualized forms of sexual harassment, is 

widespread and responsible for the loss of women in science, to the detriment of science. 

3. There are some key features of workplaces and the culture of science that enables this 

behavior to persist and that amplify its damage to the advancement of American science. 

4. There are concrete, evidence-based steps we could take to make healthier workplaces, 

retain more women, and improve the state of our science. 

Defining sexual harassment 

It is unlawful to harass a person 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 

does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks 

about a person's sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making 

offensive comments about women in general.. .. [H]arassment is illegal when it is 

so fi·equent or severe that it creates a hostile or ofrensive work environment or when 

it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or 

demoted).- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers a great working definition of 

sexual harassment, however, in practice this definition is often used to excuse a significant 

number of behaviors that make workplaces inhospitable to women and gender minorities. In 

theory the bar for illegal sexual harassment that is "so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile 

February 27'h, 201811 
33 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

or offensive work environment" is more than adequate. In practice, this bar is so high that a 

significant number of unwanted behaviors that do impact climate. health, and productivity 

continue to be prevalent in the workplace. 

Sexual harassment is comprised of three distinct sets of behaviors: unwanted sexual 

advances, sexual coercion, and gender harassment. The first two fmms of behaviors are sexual in 

nature, and therefore are often considered together in studies of sexual harassment as "comeons.'' Gender harassment, the third category, includes crude behaviors and sexist hostility, or 

sexist behavior that isn't necessarily sexual in natttre. These behaviors are considered ''putdowns." 

Com e-ons are the most frequently reported to Title IX offices (Cantalupo and Kidder 

2017) as well as those most reported by the media (Kantor and Twohey 2017; Ghorayshi 2016, 

2015). However. across several decades researchers have consistently found that put-do\\ns are 

the most frequent sexual harassment behaviors of the workplace (Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat 

2011: Schneider, Swan, and Fitzgerald 1997). Even when perpetrators commit come-ons, they 

almost always also include some form put-down. such that put-dovms comprise over 90% of 

workplace sexual harassment (Schneider, Swan, and Fitzgerald 1997). 

Therefore, in defining and seeking to understand sexual harassment, we must pay 

special attention to gender harassment, or put-downs, as 1) the most prevalent and 

frequent form of sexual harassment and 2) a set of behaviors that can precede sexual forms 

of sexual harassment. 

Examples of gender harassment. Gender harassment can include crude behaviors such as 

offensive sexual teasing, sexual insults, obscene gestures, or pornographic images posted at 

work, or sexist hostility such as degrading remarks about bodies, sexist insults, harassment of 

feminists, harassment of mothers, or outright sabotage. These put-dO\\TIS may seem less extreme 

than the come-ons, but they encompass non-sexual forms of both verbal and physical harassment 

targeted towards women. When gender harassment is frequent, and/or the perpetrator has power 

over the victim, gender harassment has the same level of job and mental health outcomes as 

more sexual forms of harassment (Langhout et al. 2005). 

The recent case against David Marchant at Boston University provides several horrifying 

examples of gender harassment. Marchant is a geologist who docs field research in Antarctica; 

two of his alleged victims have recently come forward. waiting years to report him because they 

believed doing so would destroy their careers. The two complainants on this case alleged that 

Marchant called them "slut," "whore," ''bitch," and "cunt." One complainant revealed: 

"His taunts, degrading comments about my body, brain, and general inadequacies 

never ended .... Every day was terrifying." 

Another complainant alleged having rocks thrown at her by Marchant whenever she urinated 

while conducting fieldwork, being thrown three times down a mountainside, and having volcanic 

ash blown in her already-damaged eyes (Wadman 20 17). 

Februal)· 271

h, 201812 
34 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

In my own research, I have seen additional examples of women being punished for 

urinating while in the field, and being punished for eating. In our samples women have also been 

given fewer interesting tasks in the field compared to men, have been denied access to materials 

or locations necessary for their research, or were forced on extended hikes for non-scientific 

reasons, then taunted when they tired (Nelson eta/. 2017). None of these behaviors are about 

wanting to have sex with someone: they are about exerting power, causing humiliation, 

derailing careers, all because of the victim's gender. This is about sabotaging women in 

science. 

Intersecting tonns of harassment. Women of color, as well as people who are sexual 

minorities or gender minorities (LGBTQIA+ folk) face additional obstacles. Women of color 

and/or sexual minority women experience more sexual harassment compared to straight, white 

women, women from these groups experience a much higher rate of intersecting fonns of 

harassment, such as racial-gender harassment or hcterosexist harassment (Berdahl and Moore 

2006; Cot1ina, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow 2002; Silverschanz eta/. 2008). Our research also 

suggests that women of color have worse workplace outcomes even when experiencing similar 

rates of sexual harassment, suggesting the type of harassment they receive may be more severe 

(Clancy et al. 2017). 

Causes of harassment. Sexual harassment tends to be more prevalent in workplaces 

defined by two factors: male dominated work environments and organizational tolerance towards 

harassment (Wiliness, Steel, and Lee 2007). A male dominated work environment is defined as 

when a workplace has more men than women: has more men in leadership: or is a historically 

male job. Male domination is a key variable in understanding sexual harassment because most 

perpetrators are men, and most victims are women. Therefore conditions where women are 

outnumbered in general or in leadership, or are considered to be outside the norm for that job, are 

places where they are at greater risk of harassment. Increasing women in science is not a 

straightforward problem: male and female scientists hold implicit biases against women that 

aflect their grades as well as their ability to be hired and paid adequately for their work 

(Grunspan et al. 2016; Moss-Racusin eta!. 2012). 

Organizational tolerance towards harassment is used to describe an organization that fails 

to take complaints seriously; fails to sanction perpetrators; or fails to protect complainants fi·om 

retaliation (Wiliness. Steel, and Lee 2007; Bergman eta!. 2002). When a victim is harassed, she 

is unlikely to report her experience if she has the impression or has been warned that her 

workplace doesn't care about harassment. Organizational tolerance of harassment not only 

influences the risk of harassment, but the downstream experiences a harassed person has, as she 

is likely to feel unsupported and be retramnatized if she dares report her experience. Many 

science workplaces are tolerant of a number of unsavory or outright unsafe behaviors in the 

name of producing science. Interview respondents shared stories of field sites where it was 

common to not boil their water long enough to kill parasites; where scientists were bitten by 

animals and not provided adequate first aid; where they lived in tents that did not protect them 

from the elements (Nelson el al. 2017). 

February 27'h, 2018J3 
35 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Many American workplaces could be argued to be both male dominated and 

tolerant of harassment, from politics, to the military, to the sciences. In the sciences, these 

factors often manifest as a disregard for safety and feelings, sabotage and other unhealthy forms 

of one-upmanship, and a prioritization of the research over all else. In some settings, scientists 

are expected to ignore bodily signals of hunger or the need to urinate, to ignore family 

commitments, and to tlout rules if it means getting the data they want. At the same time 

hierarchy is strict and authority is expected to be obeyed at all times: to obtain the best possible 

science ·'pedigree" students and junior scholars must often work with a single supervisor whose 

regard tor their work is the sole predictor of career success. Interview respondents often shared 

times they were yelled at by their supervisor to conduct their research using a particular 

technique that was outdated, incotTect, or lead to a loss of data, but disobeying meant only more 

abuse (Nelson et al. 20 17). Authority that does not listen and engage, or hostile workplace 

environments that are about competition rather than cooperation. do not lead to the production of 

better science (Tepper 2007). 

These impressions, and these behaviors, are harmful to scientists and to the advancement 

of American science. Therefore another significant roadblock to scientists being able to work 

unhindered by a hostile workplace is our fundamental misconception that scientists should 

endure horrible working conditions out of love for their science. 

In our research on field site science, many of our interview respondents never reported 

their experiences because they were confident they wouldn't be believed, based on what they had 

already observed of problematic behavior at the site. In general only about one quarter of 

workplace harassment is reported, and three quarters of those who report are retaliated against 

for doing so (Feldblum and Lipnic 2016). Therefore it's likely that a large number of American 

workplaces, including science workplaces, are tolerant of sexual harassment. 

But, in our sample, some did try to report the behavior they experienced. One respondent 

shared her story of staying in her tent one day because she was ill. A tell ow field site worker 

tried to forcibly rape her while she was sleeping. She managed to light him oti, and she reported 

the incident that same day. That respondent said: 

''[The director] believed my story but he didn't really know what to do. He was like, 

'in different cultures that's not abnormal.' .... He did talk to the guy, he just said that 

he needed to stay away from me and that I was feeling uncomfortable and I don't 

know how much it worked, it was still weird. Because at night we'd have a fire, and 

he'd still find his way to come and sit next to me and sit there and try to put his arm 

around me and I'd tell him to stop and leave or I'd move so that I'm never around 

him." 

Despite having to light off a rapist in a remote field site, this respondent had to continue to live 

and work with her aggressor for months (Nelson eta/. 20 17). Allowing the perpetrator to 

February 27'", 2018 I 4 
36 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of !llinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

continue to work at the site not only opened up the victim to more mental and physical trauma, it 

sends a signal that this type of behavior is tolerated in science. 

The scope ofthe problem in science 

The descriptions above are worrisome features of certain science workplaces. In our 

samples, we have found high numbers of women reporting sexual harassment in the field 

sciences (71% across their careers), and astronomers and planetary scientists regularly observe 

sexist remarks from coworkers (79% from peers, 44% from supervisors, 85% from others in the 

workplace over just the last 5 years) (Clancy eta/. 2017; Clancy eta/. 2014). In the field 

sciences, women in our sample also experienced more frequent harassment from perpetrators 

with more power in the hierarchy compared to men, who more often were harassed by peers 

(Clancy eta/. 2014). Peer to peer harassment is in general the most common form of workplace 

sexual harassment (Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd 2016), which may indicate additional problems 

in field contexts due to the remoteness of the location and the authoritarian leadership style 

common at such sites. Field scientists in our sample described being encouraged to keep quiet 

about their field experiences with epithets like •·what happens in the field stays in the field" 

(Nelson eta/. 2017). As one interview respondent stated: 

"I feel like [my field site director] just sees this divide between the field and at 

home. What happens to you in the field, it's just like a different world so the way 

you behave can, it'sjust completely separated from your daily life." 

In astronomy and planetary science, harassment was not more likely to originate from 

supervisors (Clancy et al. 20 17). In interviews with respondents from these disciplines, they 

described a more systemic culture of hostility, intellectual takedowns. and competition that lay 

the groundwork for harassment (Clancy eta/. in preparation). As research continues to 

disentangle the ways in which the cultural and historical context of the workplace affects the 

nature of the harassment that occurs there, one thing is clear: few workplaces are immune to it. 

Impact on science and scientists 

The effect of sexual harassment on workers has been well-studied, from job to mental 

health to physical health outcomes. Workers victimized by sexual harassment report a higher 

intention to quit, and are more likely to withdraw from work, be absent, and be less productive 

(Hcrschcovis and Barling 2010; Langhout eta!. 2005; Nye, Brummel, and Drasgow 2009). 

Workers victimized by sexual harassment also report more depression, anxiety, and even 

physical pain, compared to those who are unaffected (Li eta/. 2016; Stock and Tissot 2012; 

Miner-Rubino and Cot1ina 2004; Richman et al. 1999). Sexual harassment can even adversely 

impact cardiovascular health (Thurston and Kubzansky 2017). 

February 27'", 2018 I 5 
37 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Commitlee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommitlee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Sexual harassment reduces scientific productivity and drives scientists from the 

field. In our sample of field scientists, those who experienced sexual harassment felt far greater 

ambivalence about their field, stalled out in their careers, made lateral career moves to avoid 

their perpetrator, and in some cases left science altogether (Nelson eta!. 20 17). Those who 

experienced harassment in the field also observed that the effects of that harassment reverberated 

throughout their careers. For some, they felt physical resistance to working on the project once 

home; for others they were forcibly removed from projects, particularly if they had rebuffed the 

advances of anyone with control over their field site, materials, or collections (Nelson et a!. 

2017). 

Forty percent of the women of color in our astronomy and planetary science sample 

reported they felt unsafe in their workplace due to their gender. Twenty seven percent of 

white women also reported they felt unsafe due to their gender (Clancy eta!. 2017). Those who 

were harassed were more likely to skip work events, ranging from seminars to meetings to data 

collection at observatories, due to feeling unsafe. One respondent shared her story of social 

withdrawal after being raped by a fellow student. 

"Yeah, and then at some point we were working at his house, at 3:00a.m. on a lab 

report, and he just made a move on me. I rejected him, but he just-it wasn't violent 

or anything, but he just wouldn't stop pushing me. It was just horribly 

uncomfortable, and then he spread a rumor that we were in some consensual thing. 

I was like, 'No, no. you basically raped me.· .... I really withdrew from the [physical 

science] department after that. I did my work, but my social group after that was 

[a different physical science] department." (Clancy et al in preparation) 

Perpetrators often have the power to dominate the narrative, and present a different face to the 

rest of the world. In some of the major cases covered by the news media, the alleged perpetrators 

have been allies for women in science ( Ghorayshi 20 15), or superlative teachers and mentors 

(Wadman 2017). This leaves victims feeling disempowered and unable to reintegrate into the 

workplace, which in tum lessens the contributions they can make as diverse team members. 

Women, and in particular women with multiple marginal identities, must regularly push 

against a culture that does not feel welcoming to them. While today they are less likely to 

experience overt discrimination, research has shown that implicit bias still influences social 

distance, eye contact, and other ways of including or excluding fellow workers (Hebl, Madera, 

and King 2008). Diversity resistance is still an obstacle in the sciences, where many are 

enamored with the idea that the sciences operate as a meritocracy. This leads many scientists to 

believe that the lower number of women generally, and women of color specifically, must be 

related to aptitude or desire. However the data overwhelmingly point to implicit bias, 

discrimination, and sexual harassment as forces driving women out of science (Wassennan 2000; 

Xie and Shauman 2004; Caplan 1993; Gutierrez y Muhs eta/. 2012). 

February 27'\ 201816 
38 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of lllinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

The false notion that career success in the sciences is objective and the best scientists 

have the most success drives out women and others who, despite intelligence and 

persistence, face substantial barriers to success. These scientists would diversify our 

workforce and thus allow for more rapid solutions to today's complex problems (Hong and Page 

2004; Hajro, Gibson, and Pudelko 2017; Jackson. Joshi. and Erhardt 2003; Roberge and van 

Dick 201 0). Instead, those who arc sexually harassed not given the full oppmiunity to make 

contributions to scientific advancement and discovery. 

Hope for the future. That said. there are many individuals, laboratories, field schools, and 

professional societies who have decided to take steps to eliminate sexual harassment from their 

workplace and discipline. In our tield sciences project, I interviewed several people who had 

either had positive field experiences. or were themselves taking steps to create positive field 

experiences for their students (Nelson eta!. 20 17). Our interview respondents identified several 

factors that made their science workplaces healthy, helped them produce the best science, and 

made them want to persevere in a challenging discipline. These were: having rules for 

appropriate conduct, implicit or explicit; swift consequences for those who transgress the rules; 

an egalitarian workplace structure; and commitment to a healthy workplace from the leadership 

(Nelson eta!. 2017). 

Recommendations for improving the culture of science 

The main ways to overcome sexual harassment in science are directly tied to the ways in 

which male domination and organizational tolerance manifests in these workplaces. While the 

answer lies in increasing the number of women in science and creating stronger mles and 

enforcement structures against bad behavior. we cannot continue to operate our diversity and 

anti-harassment initiatives the way we always have. At this point, we have ample evidence 

stemming from nearly every American college and university that the ways we are trying to 

increase diversity and decrease harassment arc not working. It is time f()r something new. 

Making room for women. Women in science initiatives have long operated between a 

rock and a hard place: trying to advocate for change while not wanting to advocate too hard and 

alienate their largely male coworkers (Phipps 2006). These initiatives are also typically under- or 

un-funded, and do not take into account the varying experiences women from different 

backgrounds have in science. A focus on recruitment brings women into a workplace that is 

hostile to them, and tends to put them on the lowest rung where they are most vulnerable to 

harassment. Girls and women are blasted with the rhetoric that they can do anything, so when 

they encounter hostile behavior and/or sexual harassment, they often internalize these 

experiences and assume they are not worthy of science. We need to stop asking women to adapt 

to science. Instead, science has to adapt and make room for women and gender minorities. 

Science culture. Several elements of science culture need to be addressed to make it more 

hospitable to a wider range of scientists. First is the way in which academia generally, but 

science specifically, sets up single advisor-student relationships where the student must depend 

February 271

h, 20 18! 7 
39 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

fully on the support and good will of a single person to determine their educational and career 

success. lfthat advisor is not supportive when the student is encountering a problem, or if the 

advisor themselves is the problem, that student can easily find herself with no path to graduation 

or no recommendation letters or networking to help her land a job. Because advisors still tend to 

be male and the majority of the women in science are students, problematic mentoring 

relationships block women from career success in the sciences. 

Next, scientists need to reevaluate how they define rigor: in many disciplines hostility, 

incivility. and one upsmanship parade as thoroughness, care, and objectivity. Many scientists 

believe that this is a culture that affects everyone equally, that everybody has to get used to it and 

accept that this is what it takes to do the best science. What few realize is that the evidence has 

demonstrated. again and again. that when there is a seemingly overall disrespectful environment, 

the reality is that those daily incivilities operate selectively against women, people of color, and 

specifically women of color (C01iina eta/. 2013). Scientists may think they are toughening up 

the workplace, but what they are doing is targeting people from underrepresented groups and 

making them unwelcome. 

Creating incentives and expectations around a respectful and equitable workplace is 

probably one of the greatest changes that will improve science culture. This will lead to a greater 

respect for basic safety practices, work against the exclusion and isolation that many women in 

science face, and make room for questioning leadership styles that are authoritarian without 

being thoughtful. 

Respectful and equitable workplaces. An equitable workplace- one with clear guidance 

on appropriate workplace conduct, consequences for bad behavior, and a cultural emphasis on 

cooperation and inclusion is the way to ensure Americans continue to lead in the sciences. 

Additionally workplaces that acknowledged the differential production of reproductive and 

domestic labor would lead to the retention of more women, and would lead to the more rapid and 

innovative production of science. 

What Congress can do. Here are some changes within Congress's power to reduce or 

eliminate sexual harassment in science: 

• Mandates: 

o Universities and other science workplaces need adequately sta!Ied and accessible 

ombudsperson oHices where victims could confidentially discuss their experience to 

plan next steps without necessarily having to fonnally report. 

o Encourage universities to adopt victim-led resolution policies. This means centering 

the experiences of the victim and making sure they feel heard and respected, but also 

that their wishes for resolution are considered. 

o Encourage swift sanctions for those who commit abuses. Most Title TX-reported 

abuses take months if not years to be investigated. While due process is important, 

swift resolution is crucial to keep the workplace intact and make workers feel as 

though their safety and respect matter to the leadership. 

February 27'h, 2018 I 8 
40 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropolo&'Y 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

o Encourage a values-driven approach to eliminating sexual harassment. This means 

being willing to evaluate policy, trainings, and procedures, and being willing to 

change them based on that evaluation. This also means developing training programs 

that focus on the creation of a respectful workplace, rather than the elimination of 

only the most egregious unwanted behaviors. 

o Encourage extralegal solutions. For too long we have abdicated responsibility of 

workplace culture to the court system. The legal standard only addresses the end 

game and the most egregious cases of sexual harassment. Create opportunities for 

mediation as well as confidential or even third party reporting. 

• Funding (e.g., NSF, NIH, NASA, NOAA): 

o Provide funding for research on sexual harassment in the workplace. 

o Provide funding for organizations who propose novel ways to change their 

workplace structure and evaluate outcomes for women. 

o Provide funding for research on methods for improving recruitment and retention of 

women from underrepresented groups in science (e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, 

sexual minorities). At this time the main increases in numbers of women in science 

are those of white, cisgender, straight, able-bodied women. This is also the only 

group to have consistently benefitted from affirmative action policies. 

o Financial incentives and awards for collaborative research, graduate and 

undergraduate mentoring, service to one's discipline or society. This acknowledges 

the important work of being cooperative, ethical, and thoughtful scientists. 

To my mind, what's most important is to move away from symbolic compliance and towards 

real change. It is not enough for universities to comply in name only with Title IX with trainings 

we know don't work, with policies we know aren't followed, with reporting structures we know 

arc harmful to victims. Universities and other institutions that employ scientists must want real 

change. and be willing to do the work, for this change to happen (Grossman 2003). 

While the study of sexual harassment in the particular context of the sciences is new, the 

study of sexual harassment in the workplace is not. We have several decades of research, and 

ample empirical evidence, to suggest a new way forward in the elimination of discrimination in 

the workplace. It is time to move away from unfunded mandates tor trainings that worsen 

gcndcred beliefs (Tinkler, Li, and Moll born 2007), from reporting structures that disincentivize 

guilty convictions (Bergman el al. 2002), and from a culture of compliance rather than 

willingness to change (Grossman 2003 ). It is time to move towards a true commitment to 

healthy, respectful, equitable workplaces in the sciences, in order to advance innovative practices 

in Americm1 science. 

February 27'h, 201819 
41 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

References 

Berdahl, Jennifer L., and Celia Moore. 2006. "Workplace harassment: double jeopardy for minority women." The 

Journal of applied psychology 9! (2):426-436. doi: lO.l 03710021-901 0.9!.2.426. 

Bergman, ME, RD Langhout, PA Palmieri, LM Cortina, and LF Fitzgerald. 2002. "The (un)reasonableness of 

reporting: antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment." Jounral of Applied Psychology 

87 (2):230-242. 

Cantalupo, Nancy Chi, and William C Kidder. 2017. "Mapping the Title IX Iceberg: Sexual Harassment (Mostly) in 

Graduate School by College Faculty." Journal of' Legal Education 66 (4):850. 

Caplan, Paula J. 1993. Lifting a ton ojfeathers: a woman's guidefi>r swTiving in the academic world Toronto; 

Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. 

Clancy, K.B.H., K.M. Lee, EM Rodgers, and C Richey. in preparation. "Disrespect is a background process: 

experiences of harassment in astronomy and planetary science." 

Clancy, Kathryn B.H., Robin Nelson, Julienne N Rutherford, and Katie Hinde. 2014. "Survery of Academic Field 

Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault." !'LOS ONE 9 (7):el02172. 

Clancy. KBH, KMN Lee, EM Rodgers, and C Richey. 2017. "Double jeopardy in astronomy and planetary science: 

women of color face greater risks of gendered and racial harassment." JGR l'lanets 122 (7): 1610-1623. 

doi: 10.1002/2017JE005256. 

Cortina, Lilia M, Dana Kabat-Farr, Emily A Leskinen, Marisela Huerta, and Vicki J Magley. 2013. "Selective 

incivility as modern discrimination in organizations evidence and impact." Journal o[Afanagement 39 

(6): 1579-1605. 

Cortina, Lilia M., Louise F. Fitzgerald, and Fritz Drasgow. 2002. "Contextualizing Latina experiences of sexual 

harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model." Basic & Applied Social Psycholog\' 24 (4):295-311. 

doi: 10.1207/SI5324834BASP24045. 

Feldblum, ChaiR., and Victoria A. Lipnic. 2016. Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. 

Ghorayshi, Azeen. 2015. "Famous Berkeley Astronomer Violated Sexual Harassment Policies Over Many Years." 

B uzzleed, October 9, 20 15. hWih"-i~•'l)~j'-''EII~c<tc<~m.Jl!'!;cngll <}r.a.: sjlL)il.<ll!l'l:i .. :a.'itr.QIIlQil\ci:illLSl''-<Jl::: 

Ghorayshi, Azeen. 2016. ""He ." Bzcfced. 

bJ.ll2? ://ww\\ . buz;zfee<;L.£QtlGl.een ! .. dlmllih i m i c hae l:....kJ.ltze-.: 

i!Jj:_CS1i!!ation2JJ.!-Dl.l£!JJJC"-.h!.W &30\\_:i .maAq 'vV /\5([ .. 

Grossman, Joanna L. 2003. "The culture of compliance; The final triumph of form over substance in sexual 

harassment law." Harv. Women's LJ26:3. 

Grunspan, Daniel Z. Sarah LEddy, Sara E Brownell. Benjamin L Wiggins, Alison J Crowe, and Steven M 

Goodreau. 2016. "Males Under-Estimate Academic Perfonnance ofTheir Female Peers in Undergraduate 

Biology Classrooms." P/oS one J I (2):e0148405. 

Gutierrez y Muhs, Gabriella, Yolanda Flores Niemann, Carmen G Gonzalez, and Angela P HmTis, eds. 2012. 

Presumed incompetent: The intersections (~(race and class for li'omen in academia. Logan, UT: Utah State 

University Press. 

Hajro, Aida, Cristina B Gibson, and Markus Pudelko. 2017. "Knowledge exchange processes in multicultural teams: 

Linking organlzationaJ diversity climates to teams~ effectiveness.'! AcademJ' qflvfanagement Journa/60 

( 1 ):345-372. 

Hebl, Mikki, Juan M Madera, and Eden King. 2008. "Exclusion, avoidance and social distancing." In Dive!O,il)' 

resistance in organisations, edited by Kecia M. Thomas, 127-150. New York, NY: Lawrence Ehlbaum 

Associates. 

Herschcovis, MS, and J Barling. 2010. "Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic 

review of outcomes from different perpetrators." Journal of Organizational Behavior 31 ( 1 ):24-44. 

Hong, L., and S. E. Page. 2004. "Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem 

solvers." !'roc Nat/ Acad Sci US A 101 (46): 16385-9. doi: IO.l073/pnas.0403723101. 

Jackson, Susan E., Apama Joshi, and Niclas L. Erhardt. 2003. "Recent Research on Team and Organizational 

Diversity: SWOT Analysis and Implications." Journal of Management 29 (6):801-830. doi: 

https:i1doi.orQ/ I 0.10 J61SO 149-2063(03)01)QJill:l. 

Kantor, J, and M Two hey. 2017. "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades." The New 

York Times. h1U!_L}~~JY~\,.EYJl11!~~.,_~Qllt~JO 1 7" l (}'05 'usiharve\'-weinst.~lD.:.hD.Et~.S!llCnt-illlsmJ..ill!J~bl!nl. 

February 27'h. 20 I 8 I I 0 
42 

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Langhout, Regina Day, Mindy E Bergman. Lilia M Cortina, Louise F Fitzgerald, Fritz Drasgow, and Jill Hunter 

Williams. 2005. nsexual harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal determinants and 

outcomes." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35 (5):975-1 007. 

Leskinen, Emily A, Lilia M Cortina, and Dana B Kabat. 2011. "Gender harassment: Broadening our understanding 

of sex-based harassment at work." Law and human behavior 35 ( 1 ):25-39. 

Li, Jian, Hui Ding, Wei Han. Lei Jin, Ung-Na Kong, Kang-Na Mao, Hong Wang. Jiang-Ping Wu, Ying Wu, Liu 

Yang, Yu Zhou, You-Xin Wang, Wei Wang, Adrian Loerbroks, and Peter Angerer. 2016. "The association 

of work stress with somatic symptoms in Chinese working women: a large cross-sectional survey.!! 

Journal of Psychosomatic Research 89 (Supplement C):7-IO. doi: 

https:•.doi.or~ I 0.1016 j.jps\chores.20 16.08.00 1. 

Miner-Rubino, Kathi. and Lilia M. Cortina. 2004. "Working in a context of hostility toward women: implications for 

employees' well-being." Journal of occupational health psychology 9 (2): 107-22. doi: 10.1037ii076-

S998.9.2.1 07. 

Moss-Racusin, Corinne A, John F Dovidio, Victoria L Brescoll, Mark J Graham, and Jo Handelsman. 2012. 

"Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students." Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 109 (41):16474-16479. 

Nelson, RG, K Hinde, JN Rutherford, and KBH Clancy. 2017. "Signaling safety: characterizing fieldwork 

experiences and their implications for career trajectories." American Amhropologist 119 (4):71 0-722. doi: 

I O.lllliaman.l2929. 

Nye, Christopher D, Bradley J Brummel, and Fritz Drasgow. 2009. "Differentiating gender discrimination and sexist 

behavior: An examination of antecedents and outcomes." Military Psychology 21 (3):299. 

Phipps, Alison. 2006. "·J can't do \\·ith whinging women!' Feminism and the habitus of ·women in science' 

activists." Women's Studies fntemational Forum 29 (2):125-135. doi: 

http:/.'dx.c!Qi.org_'.LQ.J..Q.LQj&,jJ;2!)06.03 .0 I 0. 

Richman, Judith A. Kathleen M Rospenda, Stephanie J Nawyn, Joseph A Flaherty, Michael Fendrich, Melinda L 

Drum, and Timothy P Johnson. 1999. "Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among 

university employees: prevalence and mental health correlates." American Journal of Public Health 89 

(3):358-363. 

Roberge, Marie-Elene, and Rolrvan Dick. 2010. "Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and how does 

diversity increase group performance?u Human Resource !1-fanagement Review 20 (4):295-308. doi: 

!ll~l<tioorg_IJ)J_QJJi.JJJimL;:_oo9.09 .oo2. 

Rosenthal, Marina N, Alec M Smidt, and Jennifer J Frey d. 2016. "Still second class: Sexual harassment of graduate 

students." Psychology of Women Quarter!r 40 (3):364-377. 

Schneider, Kimberly T., Suzanne Swan, and Louise Fitzgerald. 1997. "Job-related and psychological effects of 

sexual harassment in the workplace: empirical evidence trom tv..'o organizations." Journal ofApplied 

Psychology 82 (3):401-415. 

Silverschanz, Peny, Lilia M Cortina. Julie Konik, and Vicki J Magley. 2008. "Slurs, snubs. and queer jokes: 

Incidence and impact ofheterosexist harassment in academia. u Sex Roles 58 (3-4): 179-191. 

Stock, Susan R, and France Tis sol. 2012. "Are there health effects of harassment in the workplace? A gendersensitive study of the relationships between work and neck pain." Ergonomics 55 (2): 147-159. 

Tepper, Bennett J. 2007. "Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda." 

Journal ofmanagement 33 (3):261-289. 

Thurston, Rebecca C .. and Laura D. Kubzansky. 2017. "Multiple Sources of Psychosocial Disadvantage and Risk of 

Coronary Heart Disease." Psychosomatic medicine 69 (8):748-755. doi: 10.1 097/PSY.ObO 13e31815772a3. 

Tinkler, Justine Eatenson, Yan E. Li, and Stefanic Mollborn. 2007. "Can Legal Interventions Change Beliefs? The 

Effect of Exposure to Sexual llarassment Policy on Men's Gender Beliefs." Social Psychology Quarterly 

70 (4):480-494. doi: 10.1177/019027150707000413. 

Wadman, Meredith. 2017. "Disturbing allegations of sexual harassment in Antarctica leveled at noted scientist." 

Science Maga:ine. October 6. 2017. 

Wasserman, Elga. 2000. The door in the dream: conversations n·irh eminent women in science. Washington, D.C.: 

Joseph Henry Press. 

Wiliness. Chelsea R, Piers Steel, and Kibeom Lee. 2007. "A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of 

workplace sexual harassment." Personnel P~vchology 60 (1): 127-162. 

Xie. Y., and K.A. Shauman. 2004. "Women in science: Career processes and outcomes." Social Forces 82 

(4):1669-1671. 

February 27'h. 2018 Ill 
43 

Dr. Kathryn Clancy is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois, with additional 

affiliations in the Program for Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation, the Beckman Institute for Advanced 

Science & Technology, and Women and Gender in Global Perspective. She received her doctorate in 

Anthropology from Yale University, and a joint Honors bachelors degree in Biological Anthropology and 

Women's Studies from Harvard University. Clancy's research integrates life history, evolutionary 

medicine, and feminist biology to understand how modern environments influence women's 

reproductive physiology, health, and well-being. Clancy's main field sites are the Mogielica Human 

Ecology Study Site in rural Poland, where she has worked since 2002, and the Girls Adventures in Math, 

Engineering, and Science (GAMES) summer camp in Urbana, Illinois, a longitudinal research project in its 

fifth year. 

Clancy's critical research on the culture of science has also received widespread attention. She and her 

colleagues have empirically demonstrated the continued problem of sexual harassment and assault in 

the field sciences, astronomy, and planetary science, and she serves on the National Academy of 

Sciences Committee to Address Sexual Harassment in the Sciences. Clancy was named one of Nature's 

"10 most influential scientists" in 2013, and has received local leadership awards from the Girl Scouts 

and YWCA. She has a significant online presence, with a popular Twitter feed at @KateCiancy, a website 

and blog at www.kateclancy.com, and Period Podcast, a podcast about women's health in its second 

season. She has two daughters, two pets, and a roller derby addiction. 
44 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you very much. And I now recognize Ms. Larsen. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. KRISTINA LARSEN, 

ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICE OF KRISTINA K. LARSEN 

Ms. LARSEN. Thank you. Chairwoman Comstock and Ranking 

Member Lipinski, thank you so much for having this hearing and 

for giving me the honor to talk to you today about sexual harassment and misconduct in the sciences. 

We are all here today because we are committed to the common 

goal of ensuring that women are able to succeed in STEM fields. 

Despite our collective efforts, we too often send these brilliant individuals barreling into a brick wall. And this wall is formed by a 

complex set of conditions, many exacerbated by the decentralized 

and individualized nature of science and many still inadequately 

addressed by our current discrimination laws and university policies. 

Gender-based discrimination and harassment predicated on sex 

stereotyping remains pervasive in science, yet it is nearly impossible to prove cause and effect because of the incremental ways in 

which these biases occur and then are laundered through so-called 

objective evaluation processes which are in turn given great deference by our courts. 

In addition, with very few checks and balances on individual faculty power, this power is easily abused. Abuse of power takes many 

forms: bullying, intimidation, spreading rumors, humiliation, 

changing feedback coupled with unreasonable expectations, just to 

name a few. Not all of these abusive conducts are considered illegal 

under our current discrimination laws even though, in my opinion, 

they are perpetrated because women and underrepresented individuals are more often perceived as safe targets. 

Even when the conduct is clearly prohibited under title IX, title 

VI, or title VII, significant problems remain in how these issues are 

reported and adjudicated. There are too many to talk about here 

today, but there are three that stand out to me as significantly important in women choosing to leave science or being forced out. The 

first is confusion over where to get help. The confusing organization of most universities, the splits between administrative functions and academic functions, and the added complications of 

shared governance make the complexity of finding the right person 

to help, if there is even one, especially daunting, especially given 

how many times a woman will be told by someone ‘‘I’ll take care 

of it,’’ ‘‘Don’t tell anyone else,’’ or ‘‘I’ll talk to him’’ only to have 

nothing happen except perhaps they will be retaliated against even 

more. 

When ineffective processes are highlighted by the media or by 

faculty, a university often reacts by creating even more places for 

people to go, which only adds to the confusion. The amount of energy to simultaneously do as much as everybody else, fight back 

against the abuses you’re facing, and try to find someone to help 

make the abuse stop is time-consuming and emotionally and physically draining. A dedicated legal advocate for those who are targeted for abuse, somebody not affiliated with the university but 

available to empower an advocate from the very beginning rather 
45 

than at the end when most attorneys are involved may help shift 

the substantial power imbalance and reduce that sense of exhaustion, isolation, and betrayal and hopefully lead to quicker resolutions. 

The second is the secrecy of the proceedings. Without exception, 

every person I have advised or represented wanted only for the 

conduct they were experiencing to stop. They don’t want to get anyone fired; they are not looking for retribution. They simply want to 

get on with their work and spare others from facing the same obstacles that they experienced, yet at every step they are encouraged not to formally report, not to disclose what they formally reported to others. The complainant may not be told what the outcome was or, more important for them, what the consequences that 

will be imposed are. 

The pressure not to report comes from peers, chairs, deans, even 

by title IX officers. Some are threatened by the abusers, who will 

flaunt their power and their money, or by the university’s administration, who will almost always have more to fear from the powerful faculty bringing grant money than from the student or more 

junior faculty. Those targeted for abuse deserve to be able to tell 

others what happened to them. Under the cloak of secrecy, abusive 

conduct almost always becomes serial conduct. 

The third is the harm to the abused even when there is a successful finding. Even in the rare instances where the process has 

worked and a faculty member is found to have committed a violation of the policy, by the time that happens the complainant is exhausted. They are demoralized, isolated, and behind on their work. 

Others may have taken advantage of their vulnerability, and many 

of their peers in the field will fall into two categories: those who 

sympathize with the abuser because he is a great scientist or a 

good person and those who avoid her because they’re not sure what 

to say, don’t believe her, or wish to stay neutral in what they consider an interpersonal dispute. 

There is very few obligations to advocate or to rehabilitate the 

careers of women who have actually suffered this type of abuse, 

and they are often left entirely on their own to pick up the pieces. 

It is not hard to see why many of these incredibly smart women 

choose to take their talents elsewhere into a more supportive setting. For this to change, more resources and peer support needs to 

be targeted to those who were abused, in addition to the energy put 

into what the consequences are for the abused—abuser. And I hope 

that with the help and the leadership from both the funding agencies and the professional societies, we will be able to accomplish 

that. 

Thank you very much for your—allowing me to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Larsen follows:] 
46 

Testimony of 

Kristina K. Larsen 

Attorney and Former University Administrator 

Before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

"A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

February 27, 2018 
47 

Good morning Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Kristina larsen. I am an attorney, and a large part of my private 

practice is advocating for women and underrepresented individuals in STEM and in 

academia who are experiencing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. I have 

represented and advised undergraduate students, Masters students, Ph.D. students, 

Postdocs, and faculty at all levels. Prior to entering private practice I was a Human 

Resources administrator at the University of California, San Diego for more than 20 

years. 

I would like to thank you for holding a hearing on this important topic and for the honor 

to appear before you today to discuss sexual harassment and other workplace 

misconduct in science. 

Before I begin, I would like to address a few important points. First, although many 

University policies address both sexual harassment and sexual violence, the processes 

and problems with reporting and adjudicating sexual violence are different than those 

for addressing sexual harassment, and I would not do justice to either issue if I 

attempted to discuss them both here today. Today my comments focus solely on sexual 

harassment. I have represented and advised many survivors of sexual violence and in 

focusing on sexual harassment and other misconduct at this hearing, it is not my intent 

to ignore or minimize the substantial obstacles still faced by survivors of sexual violence 

on college campuses. 

Second, for the purposes of brevity it is necessary to sometimes speak using general 

terms. While I may refer to challenges or barriers faced by women in science, it is 

important to acknowledge that not all women will experience the same challenges or 

barriers, and some may not experience any at all. 

Having represented many women of color, I would also like to recognize the significant 

additional challenges and barriers often faced by women and persons of color in science 

(see Double Jeopardy? Gender Bias Ag<Jin~t V\fQ!TJ.eniQ~~i~nc::e). 

Finally, to illustrate how certain policies or processes detrimentally impact individuals, I 

have been given permission to share the personal stories of several courageous and 

brilliant women. In all cases I will identify the University where the events occurred, but 

I will not name my client unless they have explicitly given me permission to use their 

first name. 
48 

We are all here today because we are committed to the common goal of ensuring that 

more women are able to succeed in STEM fields. 

To this end I want to acknowledge the important work those on this Committee and in 

Congress are doing to increase interest among and exposure to STEM fields for young 

girls, including recent legislation like the Code Like a Girl Act and the Building Blocks of 

STEM Act. 

Increased interest and access are critical. As Assistant Vice Chancellor at UC San Diego I 

was involved in efforts to increase the numbers of female graduate students and 

postdocs in STEM fields. I am also proud of my contributions toward increasing the 

number of female and under-represented faculty in STEM departments. I continue this 

work as a board member supporting the important efforts underway at the Center for 

Di\IE!t:?~_Lead~rs_hiQj_ll_ScieT}C_~ at UCLA. 

But despite all of our collective efforts to increase interest, access, and hires in STEM 

fields, we are still failing to achieve our goal because too often we are sending these 

brilliant individuals barreling headfirst into a massive and sometimes impenetrable 

"brick wall". 

This "wall" is not any one thing; it is a complex set of conditions, many unique or 

exacerbated by the decentralized and individualized nature of academia. 

That said, I acknowledge that the term sexual harassment is commonly used by all of us 

-including in the media- as a "catch all" term to describe a more complex set of 

conditions and obstacles faced by women in the workplace. But I have also observed 

that many, including the peers of "notorious" faculty, their department chairs, deans, 

other administrators and leaders- despite having had mandatory sexual harassment 

prevention training- continue to default to an outdated and often stereotyped notion 

of what sexual harassment looks like, and these notions are often reinforced by popular 

culture and in the media. In fact if you Google "sexual harassment" you will find pages 

of images, many showing a man with his hand on the shoulder or leg of an, attractive 

woman in a business suit. 

As a result, centering a conversation around sexual harassment often leads to a 

frustrating disconnect between what women are experiencing- the actions and 

inactions that detrimentally impact them, and what those around them believe the 

problem to be. 

By starting with a more comprehensive examination of how gender biases impact 

women in science more acutely than in other workplaces, and the range of abuses that 

occur in academia, it becomes clearer why the current laws, policies and reporting 

processes have been- to date- so ineffective. 

In turn I hope this will allow us to identify creative solutions that will result in the 

outcome this Committee and all of us want- an unfettered career path to success for 

women and all underrepresented individuals who are interested in STEM. 
49 

Invisible Hand Discrimination -·-----------·-·-·-·--------··---··----~-· 

Gender and racial biases are not unique to academia; we know from 40 plus years of 

research that all of us carry implicit and explicit biases. But in academia these biases 

flourish behind the seemingly ironclad curtain of department autonomy and individual 

academic freedom. This is because anyone with the responsibility to stop gender bias is 

usually in the administrative side of the university and does not have any authority to 

pierce the department autonomy and take action, and those with the authority to 

address the issue do not believe they have any responsibility to do anything about it. 

The result is what Pamela Haag terms "Invisible Hand Discrimination": 

Such discrimination is real in its effects but elusive in the law. It falls between the 

twa major legal theories of discrimination: It does not happen because an 

individual consciously intends to discriminate (the theory of disparate treatment}, 

or because a policy or practice discriminates {the theory of disparate impact). 

Instead, it happens because decision makers unwittingly discriminate in applying 

otherwise valid policies. Invisible-hand discrimination isn't irrelevant or fanciful--

just hard to prove, given that sex-discrimination law is ill equipped to handle 

subconscious bias. {Navigoting1_/]i? NewSubtletiJ>?Q[)ex-D)?crimjrwtion ~ase5_Ln 

/J.c:g_de.mia, Chr()f]icle of J-ligherEducation, P. Haag, February11, 2005} 

In 1999, MIT conducted a study focused on the treatment of female faculty members as 

compared to their male counterparts. They found that while gender bias was not 

necessarily conscious or willful on the part of men, it was very real: " ... it operates in a 

'stealth-like way,' ... Unintentional as it may be, though, it can have devastating effects 

on women's careers". The MIT study concluded that the gender bias experienced by 

women amounted to "many small factors that work slightly against women and 

accumulate over time, so that a little less ends up being a lot less". (/J./'1_]1!1/T Profe_~sor's 

SuspjciolloJJ3iCI~Legcis}()ajJe_~tylg\'f!rne_ntJorfJ.cCidernJc _1;\/omenJ Chronicle of Higher 

Education, R. Wilson, December 3, 1999) 

This invisible hand discrimination is prevalent in large part because of the 

entrepreneurial nature of scientific discovery. Each person desiring to advance in STEM 

must constantly negotiate to succeed: their lab space, renovation budget, funding 

sources, office space, start up funds, teaching load, personnel support, committee 

service, and the list goes on. 

Yet we also know from the extensive research on gender biases that many of the 

attributes needed to do this successfully do not conform with the stereotype of how 

many (men and women) will expect women to behave. 

In addition, movement up the academic ranks by those more junior is largely 

predicated on the perceptions of those more senior, yet processes that rely on 

personal perception will open the door to implicit and explicit biases being 

introduced. Even when more than one opinion is sought, these opinions are 
50 

influenced by the informal sharing of these perceptions among those with influence 

in the field. 

These biased perceptions are then "laundered" through the evaluation process both 

within the university and within the field, and are touted as objective and neutral. 

Yet as I have seen time and time again, the most objective and neutral evaluation 

results in a bias infused decision. This is the first challenge many women will face, 

and our current discrimination laws are ill equipped to address it, as are current 

university policies and procedures. 

Abuse of Power 

In a recent piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education, K.A. Amienne made an astute 

observation: 

Anytime you have a highly competitive system in which a single person has the 

power to make or break someone else's career- whether it's the crowded, 

greasy pole of Hollywood or a flooded Ph.D. pipeline - you will have abuse. 

Not only rape and overt sexual aggression, but also the many complicated and 

twisted forms of abuse that can sink a woman's chances of succeeding in an 

already biased business. (~flrO!lici~Qf High~r_f:cil1c:atiQil_,_N_Q\/~11li2ei"L1Q_l],_K._A_. 

.1\rllienne) 

Ms. Amienne is absolutely correct, and this is particularly true in scientific training and 

discovery because it is, by design, founded upon this individualized hierarchical power 

structure in which one or a few academics may entirely control the fate of the aspiring 

scientist. 

Abuse flourishes in this environment, and almost every conversation I have had with a 

person on the receiving end of abuse in academia will include with some version of 

"I am afraid to speak up/report/fight back" because [NAME] is "really powerful" or 

"a big presence/superstar/well respected in the field" or "very influential". 

The first time I heard a faculty member tell me they would "ruin" someone more 

junior to them was 24 years ago, only months after being hired as the Human 

Resources manager for a department in the School of Medicine at UC San Diego. I 

was shocked when a senior male professor bragged to me that he would "destroy" 

a more junior (and the only female) professor in the department. 

The only thing that has changed in those 24 years is that I am no longer shocked 

when I hear someone say this. Twenty four years ago, this male professor did 

successfully drive the only female faculty member out of the department, and out 

of academia (although I am happy to report that in her case, she did return to 

academia and is now a senior professor at another University in the Midwest); I 

have several clients today experiencing something very similar to what she did 24 

years ago. 

To be clear, abuse of power can happen to anyone regardless of race, ethnicity or 

gender; I have seen men be targeted too. But, in their book "Faculty Incivility" 
51 

authors Twale and DeLuca share research going back to the 1970s concluding that 

those targeted for abuse in academia are most often those individuals who are 

"different than the others or who threaten the status quo" and this aligns with my own 

experiences. (Faculty Incivility: The Rise of the Academic Bully Culture and What to Do 

About It, 1st Edition, Q_arla lJwale and (3~qr:bara M. De Luca, Jossy-Bass, 2008) 

Even with the understanding that those who are "different" are more likely to become 

targets for abuse, this doesn't necessarily explain why any one individual becomes 

targeted. It is a question I am asked a lot. When I'm short on time my answer is simply 

because the more senior person can. Of course it is more complex than that, but quite 

frankly not much. 

like systematic bias, the many ways in which power is abused against those with less 

power are difficult to address under our current laws, policies or reporting processes. 

Even the conduct that in theory is reportable under Title IX and VI is too often not 

adequately resolved for the reasons presented below. 

How Science Agencies c:I~IIgJt~~g~!Ic_bJnstitl,!1ions H_a_n~I~<;Qmplaint~_i:lll~_Condl!£~ 

Training under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972_c:~_nd T!~~-QHfl~ 

~ivillljghts Act of 1.2_Q~-~I'l-~LQtb!!L~Jg_v_ant£Qiic!!!_!! 

There are more than 2,600 accredited Universities and Colleges in the United States and 

this does not include independent research institutes or other government sponsored 

research facilities. This means there are thousands of different policies and procedures 

for handling complaints of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in scientific 

institutions. 

The Organization of, and Definitions Used in Institution Policies are Not 

Consistent 

How a university's policies are organized can impact how effective they 

are addressing the discrimination, harassment or retaliation when 

reported. 

The University of California has one policy defining "Se_)(lJ_al\fi_()len~:~e_anc!Sexual 

Harassment", and another, entirely separate policy addressing Discrimination, 

Hara_ssl11_ef1t2 an_cl Afflrf1latiy;e Action in the \Aforkfllilf;e. The definition of sexual 

harassment in the UC policy does not include any language distinguishing between 

sexual harassment and gender-based harassment predicated on sex-stereotyping. 

If one believed they were being "sexually harassed" they would be directed to the 

campus Title IX office, but if they believed they were being "discriminated against or 

harassed", they "are encouraged to submit complaints through their local Human 

Resources office, Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity office, Academic 

Personnel office, Labor Relations office, or the University Whistleblower Hotline." 

It is nearly impossible for someone to "categorize" what they are experiencing into 

either sexual harassment or discrimination or harassment based on gender or other 
52 

protected category. As we have said above, it is most often a messy combination of all 

these things. 

In contrast, Caltech has one effective policy that broadly defines all forms of gender 

discrimination and harassment as Sexual Mis<;OD_duct, and it explains clearly the 

difference between gender based harassment and sexual harassment: 

Gender-Based Harassment is harassment based on an individual's actual or 

perceived sex, including harassing or bullying conduct based on the individual's 

gender expression, gender identity, transgender status, gender transition, or 

nonconformity with sex stereotypes. 

Sexual Harassment is pervasive and/or severe unwelcome sexual advances, 

requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature when ... 

Caltech's Sexual Misconduct also makes clear that behavior does not need to rise to 

the level of "unlawful harassment to be determined inappropriate" 

In addition Caltech also has a comprehensive UnlawfuiHarassment policy and both 

policies are administered by, and reported to the Assistant Vice President for Equity, 

Accessibility, and Inclusion Initiatives, who is also designated as Caltech's Title IX 

Coordinator. 

Challenges Because of the University's Organization 

There is typically a sharp divide between administrative and academic 

structures within a university. Within the academic structure, there is an 

added split between faculty governance and academic administrative 

functions (shared governance). The result is too often those with official 

responsibility (usually on the administrative side of the university) rarely 

have authority to do anything meaningful about what is reported to 

them about faculty, and those who could have authority to take 

meaningful action (on the academic side of the house) believe they do 

not have any authority or responsibility to do so. 

It Can Be Very Hard to Figure Out How to "Formally" Report 

There are often too many places to report and too few requirements to 

act for those receiving the complaint. 

Individuals hearing complaints are very often "mandatory reporters." But many 

times they either don't report on it or, if they do, nothing is done as a result of the 

report because Title IX will almost never begin a formal investigation without a 

"named complainant" agreeing to file a formal report. 

In every single case I have been involved in, by the time the abused individual gets 

to the right office in order to file a formal complain they have told their story dozens 

if not hundreds of times; they are already exhausted and demoralized and they 

haven't even started to resolve their complaint yet. 

There are no consequences for failing to report incidents to Title IX 
53 

When one of my clients at Duke informed her dean about the abuse she was 

experiencing, the dean ordered her to tell no one. Over the next year this made 

matters worse, she was further isolated and blocked from accomplishing the 

research she needed to. She was eventually fired from Duke and with no one willing 

to write her a letter of recommendation, effectively pushed entirely out of the field. 

When she sought advise as to whether she could litigate against Duke, she was told 

that since they had done something for her (they moved her office away from the 

abuser), the fact that their actions rendered her "unemployable" in the field did not 

matter; they had not been "deliberately indifferent". 

The complainants are often pressured into "informally resolving" their complaints 

Almost all the processes for both sexual misconduct and discrimination push 

informal resolution, and informal resolution is often discussed as a way to resolve 

the issues with both sides assuming some of the blame and having to compromise, 

even though one side is being abused and the other side is abusing. Most 

importantly, it leaves no formal trail of the reported misconduct. 

The above issues are all present with one of my clients at UCLA. She has 

relentlessly endured discrimination, harassment and retaliation from 

powerful senior male faculty in her department. Over a three-year period 

she made over 90 attempts to report what she experienced to more than 

20 different administrators at UCLA; not one of which was considered a 

formal complaint. When she would meet with one person, she was 

almost always directed to another office. 

She learned that a number of the faculty in her department had attempted to 

convince others to vote against awarding her tenure (despite a record considered 

by some to be the strongest ever for tenure), because she had not "expressed being 

sufficiently contrite" and was considered by these senior men to be "arrogant" and 

"aggressive." She sought help from UCLA's Discrimination Complaint Office. Over a 

period of several months she met multiple times with the Discrimination Complaint 

Officer, but was told her claims appeared to be more "gender based" than "race 

based", and was referred to the Title IX office. 

Seven months ago she filed what was finally recognized as a "formal" complaint, 

and just last week we were informed they will finally conduct an "intake" interview 

to determine whether an investigation is warranted. When I reminded the Title IX 

officer that her claims were discrimination and harassment based on both gender 

and race, he told us that they normally didn't handle race based claims, but would 

see if they could make an exception in her case. 

The Title IX Coordinator 

Title IX Coordinators often lack the authority to be effective. 

Over the years I have met with, and worked with many campus Title IX 

coordinators. Without exception they have all been very good people who want to 
54 

do the right thing, but very often have little power to do anything to actually stop 

the abusive conduct of faculty. When they do take action, they are often overruled 

by someone above them after a "powerful" faculty member hears about the 

complaint, and in turn complains to someone higher up on the academic side of 

the university. 

For example, in the spring of 2017 Nga, a Masters student at the Florida 

Institute of Technology (FIT), and a research assistant for the onsite Applied 

Behavior Analysis program director, went on a research trip with a professor 

to Sierra Leone. 

Before departing Nga was "warned" about this professor by more than one person, 

though no specifics were provided. In Sierra Leone this professor became extremely 

controlling and at one point effectively forced Nga to share a hotel room with him; she 

ended up sleeping on a chair and at one point, after the professor climbed into the bed 

while she was sitting on it, she ended up staying in the lobby of the hotel. When she 

decided to move to a different hotel and informed him she was uncomfortable with his 

treatment of her, he effectively fired her as a research assistant on the spot in Sierra 

leone. He ordered her to immediately stop speaking with the other researchers on their 

project, ordered the female associate to obtain any materials or data she had, and made 

her pay the female associate for her accommodations in Bo prior to moving to the new 

hotel. He then basically abandoned her in Bo, Sierra leone. This young woman, in a 

dangerous country for the first time, had to figure out travel arrangements on her own 

and pay for transportation back to Freetown in order to catch her flight home. 

As you can imagine, her experience in Sierra leone was traumatic. Instead of learning 

valuable career skills and building collaborative relationships with others in her field, she 

came back in financial debt, feeling isolated, abused and betrayed by her professor's 

conduct. 

Nga formally complained to Title IX in May of 2017. In August of 2017 she received a 

letter from FIT's Title IX officer advising her that she (the Title IX officer) had reviewed 

her complaint and the professor's response and, "as a result, [professor] received a 

reprimand and other sanctions." 

That fall my client learned that her former professor, known throughout the whisper 

network as someone emotionally manipulative and abusive to his female students in 

addition to his "legendary" "boundary issues", had been invited to speak at a women's 

conference. I spoke to another student of his and she described there being a collective 

"gasp" when many of female students learned this (by the way I reached out to another 

of his students and she said she was still too traumatized by how he treated her to talk 

with me). 

On October 11th Nga wrote the following to the conference organizers: 
55 

"I wanted to respectfully inform you that [NAME] had a title 9 claim filed against him 

this summer, which resulted in FIT reprimanding and implementing sanctions on him. In 

August, he attempted to appeal this ruling. However, he was denied. [NAME] is 

prohibited from contacting me. 

I felt that it was important you knew this before you allowed him to be the speaker at 

WIBA. WIBA is a place for women and for those that support women in their careers 

and private lives. I considered not speaking up, but I didn't want other women to 

possibly go through what I went through .... I sincerely hope that WIBA will seriously 

reconsider him as an invited speaker at this point in time." 

The committee organizers thanked her for having the courage to reach out and the 

professor was uninvited as a speaker at this conference. 

On October 30th, 2017 Nga was ordered to the Title IX office. For almost two hours she 

was admonished by the Title IX officer for having spoken of her complaint to others, she 

was informed that her doing so constituted "retaliation" because she was "endeavoring 

to harm the career of the respondent and prevent him from further pursuits such as 

presenting at conferences", and if she continued to "retaliate" against her advisor she 

would be expelled from FIT. 

Before leaving she was presented with a formal Letter of Warning in which she was 

advised to immediately "cease and desist from actions that could be construed as, or 

appear to be, retaliatory against the respondent". She was also handed a "No Contact 

Order", issued by the FIT's Director of Security. The NCO listed the "Incident Type" as 

Nga's "alleged University Code of Conduct Violation #4 Harassment". Finally, after two 

hours, with her visibly upset and still crying, she was made to sign a document stating 

she understood the "allegations" against her and that it was her responsibility to "abide 

by FIT's policy and procedures". 

A little more than two months later Nga received a certified letter from FIT dated 

January 3, 2018. It was written by Dr. Monica Baloga, FIT's Senior Vice President for 

Academics and Provost and in this letter Dr. Baloga effectively overruled the Title IX 

office: "I am writing to rescind and clarify an August 24, 2017 letter sent to you by Dr. 

Joni Oglesby regarding a complaint you filed regarding [NAME]. Specifically, following an 

investigation into your complaint, the University did not determine that [NAME] 

violated the University's Title IX Policy. To the extend Dr. Oglesby's letter suggests 

otherwise, it is incorrect.. .. [NAME] was provided a warning that he should exercise 

better judgment in subsequent out-of-country trips. He was also instructed to take a 

course on Title IX and Sexual Harassment, which is required of all faculty members." 

Challenges with the Investigation Process 

In almost every case I am aware of, the respondent's response to a complaint of 

bias is that the accuser was simply not producing good quality work, or some other 
56 

variation of she's just a weak scientist. But the only individuals that are usually 

consulted to corroborate whether this is true are often other people who are paid 

by the accused's grant funding, or in some cases their "weakness" is set up. 

In one case at UCSD, my client, a post-doc researcher in the lab of a faculty member 

known "widely" for being abusive, vindictive and sexist, filed a sexual harassment 

complaint against him after having endured years of abuse. Before she was granted 

a green card he would remind her frequently that he could fire her and get her 

deported, and to avoid deportation he expected her to work late into the night, and 

on weekends and holidays. When a faculty FTE was approved in the department he 

informed my client he was proposing his male postdoc, because "he had a family to 

feed" (she too was a parent). 

At one point he asked her to do something she considered research misconduct and 

she told him no. Despite an excellent performance record up to that point, almost 

immediately he declared her a "poor researcher", ordered her to switch to another 

project she was less familiar with and began hounding her on a daily basis with 

requests for updates and data, then criticizing her when she wasn't able to produce 

it in his timeline. 

In response to her complaint the respondent claimed she was a "bad scientist" and 

to corroborate this the Title IX officer interviewed other people in the lab. 

Unfortunately for my client, the others were also paid by the accused person's 

funding, and understood clearly they would be "next" to lose their funding if they 

didn't agree with the version of the story told by their boss. The Title IX officer did 

not find sexual harassment. 

Incidentally, the Title IX officer did find that he had retaliated against my client after 

she filed her complaint, and referred the matter on for discipline. Less than a month 

later she received a letter from the Title IX officer informing my client her finding 

had been "rescinded" and the matter would not be reviewed by an investigator at 

the Office of the President; she decided to drop the matter rather than go through 

the traumatic investigative process again. She also took a substantial demotion and 

left his lab. She is now a staff researcher and will likely never rise any higher than 

this. The man who discriminated, harassed and retaliated against my client 

continues to get grant funding and awards from his peers. 

Two other clients, both postdoc fellows, were kicked out of a PI's lab after they 

informed him they were pregnant. He told both women they would never succeed 

in science as mothers and he didn't want to waste his resources on them. Both filed 

complaints in Title IX but the office would not consider the complaints together. 

Instead they are being handled separately even though they establish a pattern of 

behavior. Again the PI's excuse was they each was a "weak" scientist. In 

investigating this matter those interviewed to corroborate were all funded by this 

same Pl. 
57 

While most policies have timeliness requirements, there are no consequences for 

not meeting those timelines, nor is there any requirement that Title IX offices be 

sufficiently staffed to handle the volume of investigations they receive. The result is 

very often a frustrating delay in starting or completing investigations with no 

recourse for the accuser. 

In the very rare instance there is a finding against a faculty member, there is a 

strong incentive to informally {and secretly) settle with the faculty member. The 

disciplinary process is managed entirely by faculty peers, who are very often not 

legally trained or advised. This can introduce a level of uncertainty that most 

administrators want to avoid. 

There is also little or no effort placed into helping the target of abuse recover from 

the physical, psychological and professional damage done by what will almost 

certainly by the time of a finding be years of abuse. 

Every person I know who reported abuse by faculty member did so for the sole 

purpose of trying to ensure this never happened to anyone else. In the case of 

several young women at Cornell, they learned quite accidentally that all of them 

had had an almost identical and completely inappropriate experience with a faculty 

member. 

Together they filed a complaint with Title IX. While initially appreciative of the 

complaint, Title IX eventually stopped communicating with them and when they 

finally inquired many months later about what had happened, they were told Title 

IX could not tell them what had happened. Neither, does it seem, that anyone in the 

department was told formally, including students. 

This secrecy leaves students and junior scientists vulnerable and is the primary 

reason that so much of the conduct becomes serial conduct. It also leaves those 

who have suffered significant abuse with little closure, most especially assurances 

that their sacrifice may have saved someone else from experiencing the same. 

:rhe Impact of How Sci~nc~_JYtf!I!~!f!!i_anJIR~!;I:!!!rf_bJnstitl!lli!mJi<!ndle Complaints 

oll Wo_rnen'? Participation in Science 

Without exception, the hundreds of amazing women I have met with, advised and/or 

represented over the years tell me what happened to them after they attempted to 

report harassment, discrimination or retaliation was far more traumatic and damaging 

than the harassment, discrimination or retaliation itself. 
58 

Most suffer from the effects of PTSS, brought on by their constant state of being unsafe and 

the knowledge no one will do anything to stop the conduct from impacting them. Most 

have reported significant health effects from the prolonged abuse they have 

experienced coupled with the inaction of anyone else witnessing what is happening 

to them, including weight gain, physical illness, insomnia, depression, anxiety; two 

reported having miscarriages brought about by the stress. 

Many decide to, or are at this moment contemplating whether to stay in 

science given how they have been treated. 

For example, with only one semester remaining before she earns her 

Masters degree, Nga's immediate and understandable reaction to learning 

that her University valued a serially abusive faculty member over a 

vulnerable student abandoned in a third world country, she considered 

dropping out of her program. She told me she did not want a degree from a 

University that did not live its values. I am grateful that Nga ultimately chose 

not to drop out, but I very much understand her sense of betrayal. This is a 

very common feeling among the amazing women I have had the privilege to 

represent. 

In cases where abuse against students is reported, especially if it is reported to 

have occurred in the field, universities should be required to interview other 

students, both former and present to ascertain if there are others who have 

experienced similar conduct. 

Universities should be required to develop procedures for investigating systemic 

gender and racial biases including measure to be taken in response. 

Universities should not be permitted to have statute of limitations on reporting 

of abuse. 

In cases where a faculty member is found to have abused students or others in 

the field, especially when a pattern of behavior is found, universities should be 

required to inform the complainants as well as the department and all other 

students of the conduct found to be inappropriate as well as the consequences 

imposed to ensure no other persons are harmed by the conduct. 

• Universities should be required to disclose findings to future employers and 

should not be permitted to agree to total confidentiality regarding the 

circumstances of the complaint. 

• Even when the process works as it is supposed to, the accuser is almost always 

so irreparably harmed they will ultimately decide to leave the field or science 
59 

altogether. When there is a finding of abuse, faculty member should be 

responsible for making reparations, including repairing any damage to the 

accused reputation and they should be required to be personally responsible for 

financial reparations. 

• The University should be required to pay for counseling or other medical 

services or other services required to help rehabilitate the career the 

complainant. 

I am grateful to NSF for their bold requirement that Institutions report findings of 

sexual harassment to them. 

However by the time an individual has waded through the intense pressure from 

multiple sources to "amicably resolve" the harassment, discrimination or retaliation 

directed at them, finally figured out how and to whom to formally report sexual 

harassment or discrimination, and survived the glacially slow investigation and 

finding process (during which they are often relentlessly bullied and ostracized by 

their peers), it has almost always taken too great a toll on the individual's personal 

and professional reputation, physical health, or their psyche (or all), and they may 

still choose to leave science, even if the process results in a "finding" against their 

abuser. 

In addition, given the already hard fit between the types of biases and abusive 

conduct women experience and an institution's sexual harassment and 

discrimination policies and processes, the requirement to report findings of sexual 

harassment to funding agencies may actually create a greater incentive for 

universities to "find" that an abuser did not violate the letter of their policy. 

Finally, as the stakes are raised for finding sexual harassment or discrimination, Title 

IX officers- who are keenly aware of how powerful faculty are and how easy it is for 

them to be overridden may want to take even more time to complete 

investigations, further slowing an already frustrating slow process. 

• So, in addition to holding universities responsible for reporting findings of sexual 

harassment, funding agencies and professional societies might also consider 

establishing direct reporting processes to allow individuals- both those being 

abused and peers observing the abuse to report any form of "abuse", even that 

which may fall short of legally defined sexual harassment or discrimination, but 

that is clearly still inappropriate. I acknowledge that some already do this; I hope 

this trend continues. 
60 

I want to recognize AGU as one of the most innovative and progressive professional 

societies working to combat the barriers impacting women and underrepresented 

individuals. This is a testament to their great leadership. 

I encourage all professional societies to consider revising their codes of conduct, 

using as a foundation feedback from female and underrepresented graduate 

students and junior professors about the types of conduct they experience that 

creates unnecessary barriers and obstacles for them. I also encourage 

professional societies to continue their efforts to expect all members of 

professional societies to enforce codes of conduct, not just those experiencing 

violations of these codes. 

I recommend that funding agencies or professional societies consider creating a 

fund to pay for legal advocates to advise graduate students or junior faculty who 

are contemplating reporting sexual harassment and discrimination, or even just 

for those seeking help addressing harmful abuse of power. More than any other 

feedback I am told over and over that I am almost always the first person who 

has just validated that what they were experiencing was wrong- even if it 

wasn't illegal, it is wrong and for the first time they feel they have someone on 

their side and who will speak for them. As a lawyer with 20 years of experience 

in and around universities, it is challenging for me to figure this out sometimes; 

it can be nearly impossible for a graduate student. 

While I believe junior faculty also need this type of support, it is vital for 

graduate students. I am contacted by at least one graduate student every single 

week asking for my help and advice. Unfortunately I cannot advise the all, but 

every graduate student case I have taken, I do pro bono. I am proud to say that 

in at least three of these cases the student has reconsidered leaving the field 

because of my advocacy. It could make a big difference in terms of individuals 

feeling supported and deciding to stay in science. 

• I also recommend that funding agencies and professional societies review their 

processes for granting awards and honors, with an eye toward eliminating 

opportunities for implicit or explicit bias. For example, creating a two-part 

funding review process, the first of which would be blind. For awards, consider 

whether current requirements for letters of recommendation are creating 

barriers for some to be considered for awards. 

Consider introducing new awards to highlight those who have had the courage 

to stand up to abusers, and incorporate as a factor in earning all prestigious 

awards, abiding by the code of conduct, and reviewing how and from whom 

recommendations are required before someone can be considered for an 

award. 

Thank you again for the honor to appear before you today. 
61 

Kristina K. larsen is a lawyer, activist, and advocate for those facing discrimination, harassment, 

retaliation or other challenges in academia and the workplace. She is passionate about 

educating and empowering individuals so that they can communicate effectively, make 

informed decisions confidently, and ultimately succeed in their respective fields. 

With more than twenty years experience in higher education, human resources, and 

employment law, Kristina's unique perspective allows her to successfully assist individuals as 

they identify the root causes of conflict, understand applicable laws and policies, determine risk 

tolerance and goals, and create and implement appropriate solutions using forward-thinking 

strategies that avert or minimize harm. 

Upon receiving her Bachelor of Arts in political science from UC San Diego she began her career 

in higher education as a departmental human resources manager. She became interested in the 

legal aspects of her position and the close connection between the law and human resources. 

Acting upon this passion Kristina attended law school at the University of San Diego and 

became a member of the California bar in 2003. Upon earning her Juris Doctor, she dedicated 

herself to conflict resolution and litigation prevention. With these goals in mind, Kristina was 

appointed as the inaugural Director of Academic Employee Relations at UC San Diego, 

transitioned into the role of Senior Advisor and Director of Academic Policy Development, and 

ultimately served as the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel overseeing all 

aspects of the human resources program for UC San Diego's academic employees, including 

compensation, equal opportunity, employee relations, policy development, appointment, 

advancement and training. 

Kristina is a formally trained mediator, a skilled presenter and instructor, and has led numerous 

trainings and appeared as a speaker at workshops both within the university setting and for 

external organizations. 

She has represented and advised individuals at numerous universities and other academic 

institutions including UCLA, UC San Diego, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, NASA, the Scripps Research 

Institute, the Smithsonian, Florida Institute of Technology, Cornell, Duke, and many more. 
62 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Ms. 

McEntee for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. CHRISTINE MCENTEE, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION 

Ms. MCENTEE. Chairs Comstock and Smith, Ranking Members 

Lipinski and Johnson, and Members of this Committee, thank you 

so much for inviting the American Geophysical Union to testify on 

efforts we are taking to address sexual harassment in the scientists—in sciences. AGU is an international scientific society representing 60,000 members from 137 countries, and our mission is 

to promote discovery in earth and space science for the benefit of 

humanity. 

Harassment in academic environments, especially in scientific 

disciplines with limited diversity, is real and confirmed by research, as you have heard today. Research has also shown that 

harassment puts scientific careers at risk. The lack of support networks and well-defined resources for reporting and responding to 

harassment increases the vulnerability of those who have felt 

harmed and often fear reprisal for reporting. 

For AGU, this is an issue that cuts close to home. The earth and 

space sciences typically involve remote field settings. In the field 

whereas—accepted workplace norms are difficult to enforce. When 

coupled with a male-dominated environment and power structures, 

these situations can amplify the problems, making women and 

underrepresented groups even more vulnerable to harassment. 

Right now, the earth and space sciences only have 27 percent of 

the field that is women, more than it was 40 years ago but drastically below the U.S. population as a whole and other STEM disciplines. While women today account for nearly 50 percent of our 

members under the age of 30, AGU recognizes the need to be more 

proactive to continue this trend. 

As a scientific association that represents our members and tries 

to chart a vision for the future, we have a responsibility to promote 

a safe, inclusive, and professional environment. A failure to uphold 

these principles harm scientific credibility, the well-being of individual scientists, and the entire scientific enterprise. 

AGU first took up the issue of sexual harassment as scientific 

misconduct in 2015 and 2016 when several cases broke in the news 

media. As a result of discussions that AGU held with our board 

and members on harassment and our community, we convened a 

task force and ultimately in 2017 formally adopted a revised ethics 

policy. The new language defines harassment, bullying, and discrimination as scientific misconduct and redefines established 

norms of acceptable scientific behavior. Violations of this policy can 

now be addressed through professional sanctions such as ineligibility for or loss of honors, awards, and volunteer opportunities and 

also membership. Our members have voiced their strong support 

for this new policy, and they have praised us for our efforts. However, this is just a first step in addressing this very serious issue. 

We commend other scientific societies like the American Astronomical Society and the American Geosciences Institute who have 

put in place similarly strong policies. We also thank the other 

members of this panel for their hard work and the National 
63 

Science Foundation for creating a new policy that we believe will 

provide a strong incentive for institutions to take sexual harassment seriously. 

Here are some additional measures we believe will be needed. 

One, universal policies against sexual harassment with clear and 

transparent reporting and follow-up procedures with consequences; 

two, providing an environment in which individuals are free to report and speak out against harassment without fear of retribution; 

three, smart training beyond that required for legal compliance, 

training that encourages bystander intervention and culture 

change rather than resentment and backlash; four, positive approaches such as awards or certifications for those institutions that 

publicly measure their progress towards positive work environment 

and gender equity issues. Lastly, legislation can be a powerful incentive and should include both positive and punitive measures to 

hold harassers accountable and encourage a safer, more inclusive 

environment for all scientists. 

We very much appreciate the Committee holding this hearing to 

understand and address some of the important steps we can collectively take and to bring attention to this critical and important 

issue. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have and look 

forward to working with you and your colleagues to put an end to 

sexual harassment in science. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McEntee follows:] 
64 

Written Statement of Christine McEntee 

Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer 

American Geophysical Union 

Before the Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

27 February 2018 

Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Johnson and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the 

American Geophysical Union to talk about our efforts to address sexual harassment and 

scientific misconduct. My name is Christine McEntee, and I am the Executive Director and CEO 

of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). AGU is an international scientific society with 

roughly 60,000 members in 13 7 countries. Our mission is to promote discovery in Earth and 

space science for the benefit of humanity. 

Harassment in the sciences. and in fact, in any industry, is not a new issue. But, it is an 

issue that has become much more prominent as more victims have taken the brave step of 

coming forward. Research confirms the extent of harassment in academic environments and 

especially in disciplines with low diversity, where the lack of established support networks can 

lead to feelings of vulnerability and professional insecurity. Another problem identified by 

research on harassment is the scarcity of well-defined resources for reporting and responding to 

inappropriate behavior, including the perceived risk that the victims' careers may be jeopardized 

if they speak out (Clancy, ct. AI, 2014). 

The Earth and space science community has a lower representation of women compared 

to both the general U.S. population and many other science, technology, engineering and 
65 

mathematics disciplines. While the demographics of AGU's members and the Earth and space 

science community have evolved over the years, we know more work is required to ensure 

diverse perspectives are represented in our sciences. In 1975, AGU's membership comprised of 

just 15% women; by 2016 that had grown to 27%, with women accounting for nearly 50% of our 

members under the age of30. 

Additional considerations specific to the Earth and space sciences are that careers 

typically involve remote work experiences in the field or on ships where accepted work norms 

may be hard to enforce. When coupled with a male-dominated environment and power structure, 

these isolated enviromnents can amplify the issue and make women more vulnerable to 

harassment. Collectively, these factors demonstrate an urgent need for scientific institutions to 

address their role and obligations regarding harassment and workplace climate. 

AGU leadership affinns the international principle that the free, open, and responsible 

practice of science is fundamental to scientific advancement and human and environmental wellbeing. As a member ofthe scientific community and enterprise, AGU also affirms its desire to 

foster and support a safe and professional environment in order to learn, conduct research, and 

communicate science with integrity, respect, fairness, trustworthiness, and transparency at all 

organizational levels and in all scientific endeavors. This includes all professional interactions 

within the scientific community and with members of the public. We recognize that failure to 

uphold these principles harms our profession, our scientific credibility. and the well-being of 

individuals and the broader community. 

Based on the above, and after in-depth discussion on the topic of harassment impacts in 

our scientific community with AGU Council, AGU Board, and an AGU Member Town Hall 

Meeting, in June 2016, AGU leadership, under the direction of our Past President Margaret 
66 

Leinen, convened a task force to review the AGU ethics policy and practices. The task force was 

charged specifically with addressing code of conduct expectations related to harassment, 

bullying. and other professional misconduct impacting our scientific work-climate. This policy 

update was to set clear expectations for the behavior of AGU members and those participating in 

AGU-sponsored activities. 

In September 2017, AGU formally adopted a revised ethics policy with new language 

that defines harassment, bullying, and discrimination as scientific misconduct. The update 

expands the ethics policy's coverage to include code-of-conduct implications for all AGU 

programs, including Honors and Awards as well as Governance. In addition, it identifies 

conditions under which the policy's provisions may apply to actions that occur outside of AGU 

programs. It also outlines clear procedures for repmiing and follow-up on ethics issues. This 

updated policy was a significant advancement from the previous policy for two reasons. First, 

by defining scientific misconduct more broadly to include professional misconduct beyond the 

typical research misconduct definitions of plagiarism and falsification of data, we help establish 

norms of what is acceptable scientific behavior. Secondly, this change acknowledges the severe 

impact that sexual harassment has in our scientific workplace. and we can now address it with 

professional sanctions- such as in our professional honors and awards progran1s. 

We believe we are on firm ground in defining the behaviors in this way because of the 

damage they inflict on the entire scientific enterprise. Our members vocalized their support for 

stronger policies, and research has shown the profound destructive effects of harassment not only 

on the people directly involved, but also on the research, institutions, students, faculty and 

colleagues surrounding the misconduct. 
67 

I am proud of the steps that AGU, our leadership, staff, and members are taking to 

address this important and hannful issue. Our new policy aims to set new and strong 

expectations for the culture we will accept, but it is only one step towards desperately needed 

culture change. 

AGU understands that no one organization can do it alone. We commend the other 

scientific societies, such as the American Astronomical Society and American Geosciences 

Institute, who have instituted similarly strong policies on harassment, and the other members of 

this panel for their work. In particular, we believe the new NSF policy will provide a strong 

incentive for institutions to take sexual harassment seriously. 

However. we know ultimately, we will need the help of the entire scientific community to 

work together to protect scientists from unwanted advances and intimidation and ensure a 

harassment-free environment for the future. This is why AGU is establishing an ethics resource 

center by collaborating and partnering \Vith other institutions on programs which will include 

developing new and leveraging existing resources. and providing tools, trainings and research to 

help address ethics and harassment in science. 

We very much appreciate the Committee holding this hearing to understand and assess 

some of the important steps we can collectively take. Here are some of the actions that we 

believe will make a difference: 

I. Strong policies against sexual harassment with clear and transparent reporting and 

follow-up procedures with consequences can play a large role in changing the culture 

around this issue. It is important to also provide and support an environment where 

individuals can report and speak out against harassment without fear of retribution. 
68 

2. Training, education and building awareness arc essential to combating this issue. 

However, training that is simply in place for legal compliance reasons is known to be 

insufficient, and, in some cases, may even be counter-productive. AGU has sponsored 

bystander intervention training over the past one year with very positive feedback from 

participants. 

3. Consideration should also be given to positive approaches for supporting the necessary 

culture change such as awards or certifications for those departments and institutions 

that publicly measure and track their progress towards positive work-climate and gender 

equity issues. 

4. Lastly, legislation can be a powerful incentive to ensure that organizations take sexual 

harassment seriously and that all of us are moving forward to provide a harassment-free 

environment. Any legislation that is proposed should include not only robust reporting 

requirements and clear, strict consequences for harassers, but should also incorporate 

training, education, and the positive approaches I mentioned earlier. By using a 

combination of both positive and punitive measures, we can not only hold accountable 

those who are engaging in this bad behavior, but also encourage a safer, more inclusive 

environment for the next generation of scientists. 

Again, I would like to thank the committee for convening this hearing and bringing 

attention to these important issues, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. I am 

happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to continuing to work with the 

committee and others to put an end to sexual harassment. 
69 

Brief Narrative Biography of Christine McEntee 

Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer 

American Geophysical Union 

Before the Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

27 February 2018 

Christine McEntee is Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), 

an international scientific society that represents 60,000 Earth and space scientists and seeks to 

promote discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of humanity through publishing 

scientific journals and other technical publications, sponsoring scientific meetings, supporting 

education and outreach programs designed to increase public understanding of and support for its 

science, and a variety of other activities. 

Over 25 years, Ms. McEntee has made her mark as an association leader and innovator. building 

a steady record of achievement in leading large organizations through changes in governance, 

membership and the fluid public policies that confront them. 

Ms. McEntee has previously held leadership positions at the American Institute of Architects, the 

American College of Cardiology and its Fmmdation, and the American Hospital Association. 

She also has served on numerous non-profit boards. Among her honors. Ms. McEntee was 

named CEO Update's CEO of the Year (2016) and one of America's Top Women Mcntoring 

Leaders. She is a graduate of Georgetown University and holds a Masters in Health 

Administration-Health. 
70 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you so much. And I thank the 

witnesses for their very powerful testimony and your very important work. I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. 

Dr. Clancy, you talked about the victims and the science we’ve 

lost, and that’s so powerful and you seeing those people and giving 

them a voice and knowing the work you’re doing. One of the things 

that we are doing in Congress is having a workplace survey. What 

type of workplace surveys have you found to be most effective? I 

talked to a woman who implemented policies in the Navy that actually dramatically reduced things, and they really went in and 

thoroughly looked at first the whole culture everyone was kind of 

swimming in, both the workplace but then, you know, for them it 

was a base. You know they went to restaurants, they went to the 

bars, they went to the dorms, everywhere where people were to understand—and understanding they’re very young people often, 

which is something you have in the situation with young scientists. 

The military has it. We have it here in Congress. How can we intervene before these things happen, and what are some of the policies you’ve found have been the most aggressive in prevention? 

Dr. CLANCY. Sure. I mean that’s a great question. I think that 

there are a number of ways that you can go at this sort of depending on the context. Like you pointed out, you know, when you have 

a bunch of young people together or when you’re thinking about a 

military context versus, say, an astronomical observatory versus, 

you know, a field—an anthropology field school, there are different 

contexts that actually have to be considered. So the most important 

thing is to make sure that you’re involving a subject matter expert 

in the creation of the survey. A lot of folks think that a survey is 

just, hey, it’s a bunch of—let’s just put a bunch of questions together and figure out what happens, but just like with any experimental protocol, bad questions lead to the development of bad data, 

and then it’s actually hard to assess over time whether you’re really seeing improvement or not. 

So climate surveys are a really great first step, especially if 

you’re using subject matter experts. There are a couple of validated 

questionnaires already out there that people often sort of use and 

fold into their existing survey, and you can pick and choose them 

depending, again, on what you know about your context. 

As an anthropologist, I also really like a mixed-methods approach, so I think it’s really important to make sure that you interview or do focus groups with folks so that you can learn more again 

about the particular context of that workplace. 

I think that that leads to prevention because of the ways in 

which first assessing what’s going on helps you get a sense at what 

the problems really are, so, you know, for—again, for some workplaces, the culture might be like a real bro culture and for others 

it might be widespread incivility. And across the now three or four 

different work contexts I’ve started to look at, I can say that there 

are different historical and cultural contexts that lead to slightly 

different manifestations. So with a bro culture we might want to 

take on sort of why is it that people think they have to act macho 

to be good scientists? With incivility, we can be asking, well, why 

is it that professional—you know, we’re considering professional 
71 

conduct that is uncivil to be appropriate and respectful? So once we 

can start asking those questions, we can move towards change. 

Ms. LARSEN. May I—I want to add to that that I think—you 

know, a lot of times because of the confusion over what harassment 

is, you know, I often tell people, you know, don’t write a zero-tolerance policy until you’re really clear on what you’re not tolerating. 

And so starting from what is the conduct that is actually damaging 

to them, not worrying about whether it’s legal or illegal under the 

law but really what are the things, what are the actions that are 

occurring that, you know, are really causing women to feel that 

they are being treated and are actually being treated differently, 

but really starting from that point of conduct versus conclusion 

about what that conduct is. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I wonder if there needs to be some kind 

of checklist sort of like when if you’re going out and you’re going 

to be alone and you’re driving home or something and you think, 

okay— you park in a certain place, you take certain actions, you’re 

trying to protect yourself physically from safety and danger, but we 

don’t often instruct, say, our children or young people to protect 

yourself in this type of environment and what to expect, and I 

think—you’re coming in, say, as a college student or a graduate 

student with all kinds of different experiences, particularly in a 

science career where it involves a lot of studying and things and 

perhaps they haven’t been engaged socially a lot and then they’re 

put in these circumstances. 

I’m thinking of this checklist, you know, when you’re socializing, 

say, with your colleagues, go with a buddy. What kind of things 

can we really—just sort of commonsense kind of things that our 

mom might tell us but that we haven’t maybe thought of to prevent 

some of these things because you think culturally somebody from 

one part of the country and they come into a different situation or 

racially if people have different expectations, and it’s just so many 

different approaches here. And I feel like a lot of times when these 

young people are getting into these circumstances, we just haven’t 

prepared them. And how can we do that? 

Dr. CLANCY. I certainly agree that some kind of checklist would 

be really important. I really think it’s on the PI, the principal investigator or the boss or the director of the field site to be the one 

creating that checklist and the one responsible for it. So in our research that was published in 2014, in field sciences we found that 

the majority of our respondents were not aware of a code of conduct 

or sexual harassment policy for their field site and a very small 

number of people who were actually harassed felt—even knew 

what the reporting mechanism was. So to my mind the bigger issue 

is that these behaviors are not—people don’t tend to just spontaneously become harassers. It has to do more with the culture that 

they’re in and whether it’s permissive. So if the director—— 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. And they’re usually—the predators are 

repeat offenders, too. 

Dr. CLANCY. They can be, yes. And I think they often are but 

they’re not always. And it has to do with the fact that if the culture 

is permissive of that behavior, then it’s much more likely to happen. So it really has to be the person in charge demonstrating lead-
72 

ership and making clear what’s acceptable and not acceptable in 

both implicit and explicit codes of conduct. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. And I know one of the things that we’ve 

heard in looking at this in Congress is when you have these new 

policies in place, usually you’re going to see first a spike in complaints because people feel free to come forward now, but then if 

there is, you know, consequences and they see that and they now 

know that there’s going to be action taken, there is then a reduction in both the activity in the first place and sort of the confidence 

that this is going to be handled. Is that consistent with what you’ve 

seen or what you’ve all—— 

Dr. CLANCY. Yes, absolutely across workplaces it’s consistent that 

if you have consequences, not just that you claim to have them but 

that you actually have them, that people face sanctions, then you 

do see a reduction in harassment—or you see less harassment in 

those workplaces at least. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. All right. Thank you so much. And I 

now yield to Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I think I was particularly moved by Dr. Clancy, your testimony, because having been an academic, I understand the hierarchy and the—how those who are lower on the totem pole, those 

who are lower in status are relying on those who are above them 

for their career, for their entire career, whether you’re a grad student or you’re, you know, a faculty member. If you are—have a 

higher ranking, you have a lot of power over those below you. And 

I think that there is a cultural problem in general with those who 

are higher up sometimes being abusive. And that is—it’s a terrible 

problem. 

I can’t say that I suffered harassment at any point although I 

was in situations where things were said to me that were—did not 

make me comfortable. But I certainly heard stories from colleagues 

that were definitely harassment. And, you know, nothing that I 

heard that ever really came of that. And again, it’s because of the 

hierarchy and because, you know, when you are a star, if you’re 

considered a star academic, you are protected. And so this is something that really is—makes this even tougher when we’re talking 

about academia. 

So I wanted to ask Ms. Davis about the—what NSF is doing now. 

So the proposed requirement you talked about says that grantee organizations need to report findings of sexual harassment to the 

agency. We have to make sure in doing this that NSF needs to 

make sure that such a requirement is not going to chill investigations of assault for fear of making a finding that jeopardizes grant 

money. Again, something that is—we need to be very careful about 

that. 

So I want to ask, how will the NSF enforce its requirement— 

well, first, will researchers, technicians, and students be able to report harassment directly to the NSF, and if not, how you ensure 

that grantee organizations have effective reporting mechanisms in 

place? 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. Yes, they will be able to report it directly. 

We have set up a portal so anyone can go to this portal whether 
73 

it’s a postdoc, a student, or if it’s a faculty member and report directly to us. It will come directly to us. 

In regards to the chilling effect, we thought about that, we talked 

about it. We think that we’re in a time now that—for universities 

to take the approach to have a chilling effect could be at their own 

peril if you see what is happening to universities. What we like 

about this new portal that we have is that anyone can report to us. 

So if a university has a finding, or if they have investigated and 

just decided the degree of what has happened, they’re going to put 

the person on administrative leave. If they elect not to notify us, 

it could be the student that was involved, it could be a postdoc that 

was involved, it could be the community, it could be professional 

societies, anyone that could notify us and we would have like many 

compliance reviews of that situation. 

We had a situation recently where we were just made aware of 

something, and within two hours we were able to be on the telephone with the university and to begin addressing it right now before the policy is in place—the difference with the policy is that 

they will be required. But we learned through another means, we 

will still implement it right now. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And how will you enforce the requirement, given 

that many victims sign nondisclosure agreements as part of their 

settlements? 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. We run into that situation, too, with nondisclosure agreements. We’ll have a lot of back and forth, but what 

we’re looking at is if you put that person on administrative leave, 

this is a term and condition. If they’re not able to carry out their 

term as it relates to the research, we can actually have the university replace that PI that is on there, or we would do everything in 

our power to make sure that no student under contract is impacted. The enforcement part of it will be from the perspective of 

can they carry out the terms of the agreement? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. Thank you. Very quickly, Ms. McEntee, 

scientific societies play an important role in shaping the culture in 

scientific communities. How can scientific societies best leverage 

their position within the community to bring about cultural 

change? 

Ms. MCENTEE. Well, thank you. You know, we think we have a 

lot of ability to work both within our society and with others. We 

view this as a community effort. We are establishing an ethics resource center that is providing—in collaboration with other scientific societies and research institutions—tools, resources, research, training that everyone in the community can benefit from. 

It’ll also be a place where we can share best practices and what’s 

working well to change this climate and will allow us to collaborate 

more broadly both within the scientific societies but also with colleagues here that are on this panel. And we also hope that many 

others will adopt policies as strong as ours that call harassment, 

bullying, and discrimination scientific misconduct because it harms 

scientific careers and the entire scientific enterprise. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Marshall for five minutes. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, thank you, Chairwoman. 
74 

It’s hard to believe but 33 years ago today I was a second-year 

medical student and decided to go into obstetrics. I know that because today is my daughter’s birthday, our firstborn 33 years ago, 

and as a medical student trying to figure out what I wanted to do 

and that was certainly a sentinel day. But what I didn’t realize 

when I became an obstetrician was that I’d be spending 95 percent 

of my time with women. And certainly, I saw the world through 

their eyes. I got a glimpse through their world more so than many 

people do. And whether it was spousal abuse, I did over 100 rape 

exams one year as a resident, but certainly, this issue of sexual 

harassment is something maybe I would see more than other people. You know, why is a woman perfectly happy at a job, she sees 

me once a year, and she walked into my office and she quit a really 

good job. And, you know, they would kind of beat around the bush, 

but too often this was the reason. 

You know, I want to talk about being proactive rather than reactive and challenge you all. What can we do to be more proactive? 

I think about culture, and my concern is that there’s a cultural acceptance in an institution this is more likely to go on. And certainly, we control the purse strings, we give grants through the 

NSF. You know, in sports we’ll see if an institution has a constant 

disregard for the rules, like the NCAA, eventually, we give them 

the death penalty and you’re done. You don’t get any scholarships, 

you don’t get any—in this case, any grant money—so it would be 

more than just the single person. You know, where there’s smoke, 

there’s fire. 

What are we doing to kind of get to institutions where this is a 

socially accepted norm rather than just one person? And maybe 

start with Ms. Davis and answer that question. What can we do 

to be more proactive rather than waiting for this complaint to be 

filed? 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. We believe we have several tools in being 

proactive, and one of those tools is our outreach to let them know 

from a title IX perspective when it comes to compliance what our 

expectations are. Beyond those expectations, if we see universities 

where we are seeing repeat problems over and over and over, when 

we go in and conduct these title IX compliance reviews. We could 

address those with the new term and condition that we have. We 

do not give the money directly to principal investigators. We give 

the money to the institution, so we can have these really hard conversations that may be difficult for the universities, which I believe 

we’re at a time right now where even universities who’ve had a lot 

of complaints really can see that everybody—— 

Mr. MARSHALL. Have you had any of those hard conversations 

with any universities or institutions? 

Ms. DAVIS. When we go on our Title IX compliance—yes, we 

have. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Good. 

Ms. DAVIS. We’ve had some of the conversations that—I wouldn’t 

want to go into—— 

Mr. MARSHALL. I understand. 

Ms. DAVIS. —specific names now that have resulted in some results that have made the harassment community a better community. 
75 

Mr. MARSHALL. Okay. Dr. Clancy, you want to take a shot at 

that one, being proactive? 

Dr. CLANCY. Certainly. So there—it turns out there’s actually a 

pretty good literature on this. There are researchers who do work 

on what’s called respect climates in the workplace. They’re also 

called inclusion or diversity climates, some really great social scientists who conduct research to try to figure out how do we actually start with the culture and move forward from there. And what 

a lot of that research seems to show is that we need to do a lot 

more of the hard work, not just, you know, like slapping on a policy 

and saying, okay—— 

Mr. MARSHALL. Exactly. 

Dr. CLANCY. —sexual harassment is fixed but actually coming together as a group, you know, doing workshopping sessions for instance where you get together and ask, okay, what are our values? 

What are our shared values? What’s important to us? What is the 

current culture of this organization? And is this the culture we 

want? So if it’s very hierarchical, you know, which often happens 

in the sciences, is all of that hierarchy justified? So are there times 

where we’re hierarchical for the sake of being hierarchical instead 

of doing it because of expertise or experience? 

And I think if we really encourage more science workplaces and 

more workplaces generally in the United States to ask these questions first, then they can start to put together value statements 

and do more values-into-action trainings instead of sexual harassment trainings, which just tell you don’t do these behaviors. Values-into-action trainings and respect trainings say here’s what we 

want a professional workplace to look like. Let’s encourage each 

other to do these behaviors, and it incentivizes the positive behaviors. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Great. Ms. Larsen, go ahead. 

Ms. LARSEN. Thank you. You know, a couple of things, I agree 

with everything. The challenges in—you know, in change management they often say that people don’t change because they see the 

light; they change because they feel the heat, and there is no heat 

in academics, so there is no way to compel somebody to do exactly 

that unless they feel it. 

And one of the cases that I have been working on for now three 

years with a client, her department has been found over 15 years 

by several external reports to have a terrible climate for women 

and to have it observed that women are leaving, including a NASA 

title IX investigation. There is no one to follow up and enforce the 

department making any changes. The department has done nothing in 15 years. 

Two years ago, a program review within the university done by 

the academic senate, which is where I say that we have a shared 

governance issue, you know, also found that this was still a problem, that women were leaving in large numbers. Two out of three 

of the women in this department went directly to that committee 

and said, you know, we don’t think the department is taking this 

seriously; they’re not doing anything. And the academic senate still 

closed that program review and basically said we’ll review them 

again in three years. The senate has no accountability and responsibility for what goes on in the department, and the administrative 
76 

structure has no ability because there—you know, this idea of departmental autonomy, they can’t go in and compel a department do 

anything. So we have a problem with enforcement. I would like to 

see federal agencies effectively saying if I don’t—we don’t see 

changes, we will pull funding. 

And to the point about money, it is true that the money is given 

to an institution, but it is considered the PIs, and that money is 

abused all the time. I have seen so many cases where equipment 

is withheld from one person because they don’t like them. This is 

happening to a tenured faculty member who was denied access to 

a lab that was paid for by federal money, and there is nothing that 

can be done about that. A reporting structure to say this person is 

abusing the funding that we had, again, whether or not it falls 

under a legal definition, they’re abusing the funding and this happens far too often. And a reminder that it is the university’s 

money, not the PI’s. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, thank you. And I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Ms. 

Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, 

for holding this hearing, and thank you to our very impressive 

panel. 

Over the past several months we’ve seen so many survivors of 

harassment and abuse speak up, and it really is making a difference and I appreciate you’re here to—that you are all here 

today. And no matter what the industry is, everyone deserves to 

work in a safe workplace. 

As policymakers on this Committee, we have to do everything we 

can to make sure that our scientists and researchers are able to do 

their work free from harassment and abuse. We talk a lot about 

getting more women in the sciences, but we need to not only get 

them in the sciences, we need to be able to keep them there when 

they get there. And a working environment that’s free from harassment and abuse and power abuse will mean that researchers can 

focus their full attention on finding the next great scientific 

achievements. I thank Dr. Cordova for her leadership at the NSF 

on this issue. 

A few years ago a fisheries biology—biologist who’s very passionate about her work came into my office with a serious issue. 

She and some of her female colleagues had experienced sexual harassment while conducting research on a ship owned by NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. After reporting 

the harassment, this talented scientist had been effectively grounded from furthering her career. Her research was derailed. Her colleagues and her harasser knew that she had reported the harassment, and she was counseled against going back out to sea for her 

own safety. There seemed to be little investigation into her case at 

the time, her case and other women’s cases. 

I contacted NOAA, including then-Administrator Dr. Sullivan 

who—Kathryn Sullivan, who took this issue very seriously, and 

with Dr. Sullivan’s leadership, NOAA changed their policies and 

practices. They made it easier to report sexual harassment, they 

implemented new training, and they changed their investigation 
77 

protocol. And I just thank Dr. Sullivan for really taking the lead 

on that. 

This investigation into this particular case was completed, and 

best of all, this talented scientist returned to sea. Since then, she’s 

gone on three research cruises and she said, and I quote, ‘‘For the 

first time in my career, I was able to focus entirely on my work.’’ 

So it really does make a difference. 

So we have to do more to both prevent harassment and to make 

sure that victims can seek justice, and all of our agencies need to 

take a close examination of their practices and put into place these 

accountability measures that will focus on prevention and also justice for survivors. 

So, Dr. Clancy, your research talked about how women conducting research in isolated field sites are particularly vulnerable, 

so I want to ask you, Ms. Davis, and Ms. McEntee, can you talk 

about some particular protections that can be implemented at field 

research sites to keep scientists safe? And I want to save time for 

a question for Ms. Larsen as well. 

Dr. CLANCY. Some of the first things are, at least in our most recent research, we had a paper come out in November of 2017 that 

talked about the importance of having both implicit and explicit 

rules at the field site. So generally speaking, I think explicit rules 

are the best, you know, having an actual code of conduct of some 

sort, having a clear line of reporting, especially one that is thirdparty or independent of the PI who’s there or whoever the director 

of the field site is, so I think that that’s really important. But then 

I also think that the implicit rules like just getting everybody together on the first day and saying, okay, so here’s what I think is 

appropriate behavior, here’s what’s inappropriate behavior and 

being very clear about both of those, so articulating those. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I don’t want to interrupt, but, Ms. Davis and Ms. 

McEntee, can you add anything to that for remote sites because I 

want to get to Ms. Larsen as well? 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes, and thank you for your dedication to this issue. 

We took it as a prevention and reporting approach to this issue, 

and so we have instructional videos on—for anybody who’s at a 

field site, a ship, Antarctica, or any of those locations on actually 

how they report. We have a new web portal that we set up where 

anyone at these sites will know how to access information quickly, 

and we have several other steps we’ve taken— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. I’m going to get to Ms. McEntee—— 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. —because I want to save time for Ms. Larsen. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. MCENTEE. So we would add also we think you need training 

not just for those who are leading the expedition or the field but 

also for bystanders so they know how to act and you can—they can 

also implement programs like our Safe AGU where individuals are 

publicly identified as having the training to assist when someone 

is experiencing harassment. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I think a bystander speaking up is important. 

Ms. Larsen, in 2011 President Obama released new guidance for 

the implementation of title IX by universities. It clarified that title 

IX cases are to be decided under a preponderance-of-evidence 
78 

standard and impose a 60-day limit for concluding title IX investigations and introduce an appeals process for both parties. Last 

year, Secretary DeVos withdrew those updates, effectively reverting to the title IX guidance from 2001. The specifics of the 2011 

guidance of course were debated, but ultimately, the goal was to 

make sure that title IX is actually protecting individuals from harassment and abuse. 

So to what extent has the 2009 guidance already led to institutional change, and how will withdrawal of that guidance affect title 

IX cases? And I noted also that apparently NSF used to refer title 

IX complaints to the Department of Education Office for Civil 

Rights, and even that was rescinded, so, Ms. Larsen? 

Ms. LARSEN. You know, I think that—thank you. You know, I 

think that it wasn’t—you know, I used to say that working at a 

university is like dog years; it takes seven years to accomplish 

what it—would normally take a year— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Just like Congress I think. 

Ms. LARSEN. So I think that it was, you know, slow to begin 

with, so by the time the—you know, the rescission happened, I 

think it was—it wasn’t where I would’ve liked to see it in the first 

place, but I think the rescission did add a lot of confusion over, you 

know, what is the process and it reinforced this idea that it is twosided. And I—you know, I absolutely believe in due process, and 

again, I want to be very clear that there’s a difference between how 

we look at sexual assault and harassment, but it is—you know it 

reinforced this idea that it’s a 50–50 problem and that, you know, 

we have to really watch out for both rights in an environment 

where the rights of the powerful are well, you know, protected by 

other ways. It—I think it did reinforce this idea that the victim is 

really not going to be supported well. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. As a member of also the Education 

Committee, we’ll probably follow up with you on that as we approach higher education at reauthorization. I thank you. I yield 

back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. 

Beyer for five minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much and thank you 

very much for being here. As the—I have four sisters and three 

daughters, and so this is a very important issue at home. 

Dr. Clancy, in your testimony you emphasize the importance of 

addressing sexual harassment because it’s the most prevalent and 

frequent form, and it’s often a predecessor to more extreme behaviors, but then we also—there’s been a lot of talk about culture. And 

some of the factors in your testimony, the fact that a student’s or 

postdoc’s career is entirely dependent on their advisor, that principal investigators are given complete control of the research funding, that departments have this autonomy, that I no longer want 

to be a college president. I just want to figure out—I had no control 

over all that money that was coming in. Are these structures— 

structural elements of the scientific community that can be 

changed, can be addressed and are these discussions that have 

been having within the National Academies? 

Dr. CLANCY. So there are definitely some ways in which these 

structures can be addressed. I know that some universities are 
79 

moving to a co-advisor model for instance. In fact in my department that’s primarily what we do is we make sure that there are 

always two primary advisors for most of our students so that if 

there are ever difficulties with one, there’s always a second avenue. 

I think empowering a Director of graduate studies to be able to 

work with faculty who are being a problem is another way to handle it. 

I think also just, you know, in terms of this fundamental culture 

change, I think part of what has to happen is faculty have to be 

willing to call each other out when we see bad behavior a bit more, 

so kind of to speak to Ms. McEntee’s call for more bystander intervention training, just in general we need to be able to say, look, 

I don’t think the way you’re treating your student is appropriate, 

and I don’t think that she should be retaliated against for, you 

know, doing whatever it is she’s doing. And so to me those are sort 

of the big things that we can be doing on the ground. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Good. And that’s sort of university by university or—— 

Dr. CLANCY. Yes. I mean I think there are also ways in which 

professional societies can maybe be addressing this and maybe Ms. 

McEntee or Ms. Davis would be able to address this as well. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you. Ms. Davis, you talked about 

NDAs, the nondisclosure agreements. Do they potentially permit 

serial abusers? And what’s the—you know, when the abuser is not 

identified, what’s the trade-off in terms of using NDAs versus the— 

you know, the good versus the bad there? 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. The nondisclosure agreements are a challenge when you’re trying to get information about what happened. 

We know that’s a challenge that we will probably be getting a lot 

of feedback on when we put our Federal Register notice out there. 

That’s why we approached this from—can they fulfill the terms? 

This bolstered title IX is not a title IX where we’re conducting the 

investigation and we actually need to know all of the particulars 

that happen. We really need to know can they still fulfill the terms 

of the agreement. That’s why we took this first approach, and we 

are actually doing everything that we can do inside of NSF and 

NSF’s control. 

Our second phase, is that the Director put a sexual harassment 

task force together, which is across the foundation. We will be looking at other things we can do inside, but also how we can go out 

and collaborate with our other federal science agencies. To the degree it comes to something that title IX needs to change, we’ll be 

looking at that, too. Nondisclosure agreements can be challenging 

in a title IX setting, but we’re approaching this from can you still 

fulfill the requirements whether we know all the details. 

Mr. BEYER. All right. Thank you. Ms. McEntee, it’s been suggested that one of the things the #MeToo movement may do in a 

pernicious way is that men will simply stop hiring and promoting 

women. You know, I think Sheryl Sandberg wrote that she’s heard 

rumblings of a backlash in the tech industry where women are already significantly underrepresented. We just read that Florida 

legislators and lobbyists have told the Miami Herald that many 

male legislators won’t meet with women privately. So is this a danger in academia also where, you know, one-on-one relationships are 
80 

very important with the advisors or with the principal investigators? Will fear of accusations against male researchers exclude female students from mentoring opportunities? 

Ms. MCENTEE. Well, that fear already exists, and certainly, if 

there’s more fear of backlash, that will just reinforce the culture 

that we all know needs to change. That’s why sanctions are important. We also need to start rewards and recognitions for departments and universities and others who are starting to adopt really 

proactive codes of conduct and are putting in place effective resources and training and mechanisms like co-advisors where we’re 

starting to see a change, and then we need to continue to fund research to track progress and share those best practices. This is 

going to take a community effort, and we can’t allow fear of backlash to stop us from trying to address and create the kind of positive work environment we need for science. 

Mr. BEYER. I agree. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield 

back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. 

Hultgren for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all so 

much for being here today, but more importantly, thank you for 

your really important work and the mentors that you are. This is 

an important hearing so that we can make sure that federal agencies are following the law, and proper protocols are in place to protect students and researchers from abuse. 

I have a STEM Scholars program that we started in our district 

in Illinois, the suburbs of Chicago. This is our second year of our 

STEM scholars. We’ve got 30 high school students from around the 

seven counties that I represent that are part of our STEM scholars 

program. I meet with them once a month. We go to different places 

throughout Northern Illinois to see application of STEM fields in 

our communities. It’s been an amazing time for me to learn from 

them what sparked their interest but then also for them to see 

some great opportunities right close to home for them. 

One of the things I’m most excited about this year with the 30 

students that we have, the majority of our STEM scholars are 

young women, so I’m encouraged by that and I’m learning from 

them and just excited about their passion and want to do everything that we can to encourage all young people that we need them 

in our science and technology fields. I know so much more can be 

done to spark an interest and foster passion for STEM, but all of 

this can be so dishearteningly be undone if young women especially 

find themselves in an academic setting with a culture of sexual 

harassment and abuse. If people leave these fields because of 

abuse, then we are losing the very best and brightest we need to 

be supporting at this time. We need institutional safeguards in 

place so that victims can feel safe reporting abuses, and abusers 

can be identified and removed. 

Dr. Clancy, if I could address my first question to you, we know 

that only 23 percent of women with STEM degrees stay in STEM 

fields. What impact do you think harassment and discrimination 

play in women leaving the STEM fields? 

Dr. CLANCY. Unfortunately, I think it explains most of it. You 

know, for a while a lot of folks tried to make the claim that moth-
81 

erhood is the reason that a lot of women don’t stay in science because the nature of the job is so difficult, and really, that just 

hasn’t been borne out. I had fact have my—I’m a breastfeeding 

mom and my daughter is in the next room right now. I had to 

bring her with me in order to come to this hearing. So I don’t think 

that motherhood is what’s holding women back in the sciences. I 

really think it’s the daily indignities of being told that you are less 

than. 

And again, I want to emphasize that a lot of times these experiences are, you know, small incivilities and small slights, so it’s how 

do you—how exactly do you report a systemic problem where you’re 

always the one asked to take notes at the faculty meeting or you’re 

always the one asked to make the coffee or, you know—or you’re 

always the one who’s ignored or left off the emails or somehow not 

given access to a really important piece of equipment. Those kinds 

of things are really hard, I imagine, to adjudicate and really hard 

to report on the side of the victim. So to me, again, these broader 

prevention measures to encourage women to provide more peer 

mentoring to each other and to work together and for them to feel 

like their work environment actually cares about these issues and 

won’t retaliate against them if they try to speak up, those are the 

things to me that I think are really key. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I think that’s a really good point. And you’re 

right, too, that so much of it is—it might seem at the time, well, 

this isn’t a huge deal, but it is a huge deal, because it’s got to just 

have the cumulative effect of feeling pressed down or excluded, and 

we’ve got to do everything we can to change that, to stop that. 

Ms. LARSEN. May I? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes, that would be great if you would. 

Ms. LARSEN. I just—I want to add, you know, I have been, you 

know, in private practice and also in my years in the university I— 

they may exist but I have never met a woman who told me that 

she chose to get out of science because she just decided that it 

wasn’t for her. But I have a client right now, in fact two in the 

same lab, who were told, I don’t know, 6 months ago when they informed their PI that they were pregnant that mothers couldn’t 

make it in research and he didn’t want to waste his resources on 

them, and they both suddenly lost their funding. And when the 

title IX officers investigated, the people that they asked—because 

the excuse always is they just weren’t good scientists—are all the 

other people who were funded on the same money who know that 

if they actually said anything different than what the PI has said, 

they lose their funding, too, so— 

Mr. HULTGREN. It’s horrible. Ms. Davis, if I can address—I just 

have a minute left or less. The federal definition of research misconduct was last revisited over 20 years ago. It was altered to take 

out detrimental research practices from the definition. Is it time to 

revisit whether sexual harassment and other abusive behaviors 

should be part of the federal definition of research misconduct? And 

then with a few seconds left, I’d love to from you, and if others 

have thoughts, I’d love to hear from you as well. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. We’ve had a lot of discussion around this, 

and fortunately, our Director, actually chaired a working group on 

that issue back in the 1990s. We see sexual harassment as having 
82 

a vehicle to address this, title IX. When they were looking at definitions for fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, there was nothing—no vehicle to address it. We are not taking anything off the 

table. We know—we looked at what’s within NSF’s scope, and some 

of these things will be across the whole federal sector as it relates 

to research. 

The thing that we were concerned about is having a consistent 

way of handling sexual harassment. If you have some parts of it 

in the research misconduct area being handled, and other areas 

where there’s sexual harassment issues handled outside, it could 

possibly strip down the law, so we were concerned about that. So 

those are some of the things we talked about saying right now; it 

seemed like our energies would be better suited doing something 

swiftly that we could do now and then look at what we can do 

across agencies. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, I’ve run out of time. 

Ms. MCENTEE. If I could add, please? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes, real quick, sure. 

Ms. MCENTEE. I would say that we’re extremely proud that our 

policy that was approved in September of last year defines harassment, bullying, and discrimination as scientific misconduct. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. Again, thank you all so much. I’ve 

got probably 10 more questions I would love to ask but just 5 minutes goes by way too fast—or 6 minutes, 20 seconds goes by way 

too fast, but I may follow up in writing if that’s okay. And we really 

do want to help. We need you. We need your brilliance and expertise, and this has to stop. And so we just one all our best and 

brightest young people to see that we want you to excel, and anything that gets in the way, we’ve got to work to stop it. So thank 

you. 

Thanks, Chairwoman, for your indulgence. I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I did want to note how 

important it is that that has been changed. The policy on scientific 

misconduct includes this. It’s really important, and I did just want 

to take a point of privilege to—you know, this issue of backlash and 

worrying about women not getting hired because we start to hear 

a little bit of that. It’s important that everyone understands that 

is illegal. That is already illegal. You can’t say, oh, I’m not going 

to hire women now because of this or that, so it’s important, because I’ve seen this even around here where reporters are asking 

us that, and we know we’ve had problems in the media, so we want 

to make sure that everyone understands, under current law, that 

is illegal and you can’t say now the way you’re going to deal with 

harassment is not to hire women. So thank you for letting me jump 

in on that. 

And I now want to recognize Mr. Loudermilk for five minutes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you 

for having this hearing. 

Ms. Davis, I want to go back to something that Dr. Clancy 

brought up, which was Dr. Marchant with Boston University. And 

during—the first question I have is during that time period, did the 

NSF have the authority to immediately remove him or anyone from 

a grant if someone’s been put on administrative leave or is under 

investigation? 
83 

Ms. DAVIS. The authority that NSF has with the university is we 

would work with the university to find a replacement PI if the PI 

is on admin leave or something, and is not meeting the terms and 

conditions of the grant. The authority—what we’re doing now, the 

authority didn’t change. The only thing that’s different is that they 

have to report to us. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. So during that time period you did have 

the authority to—okay. 

Ms. DAVIS. If I can make that clear—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Yes. 

Ms. DAVIS. —the authority to work with the university for them 

to do the removal. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Right. 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. And thank you for that clarification. 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. I and of course many Members have concerns 

about the recent interaction between Boston University and the 

NSF regarding this matter, and I actually have some emails between NSF and Boston University I’d like to kind of walk through. 

And, first of all, let me say thank you for the NSF and Boston University providing these documents to the Committee during our investigation. That isn’t something that we get a lot of cooperation 

on with a lot of other agencies, so I do appreciate that. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And so, again, this is an email chain between 

the NSF and Boston University regarding the alleged sexual harassment by a prominent Boston University geologist Dr. Marchant. 

The first slide, as you can see, that we already have up, Boston 

University found that Dr. Marchant did sexually harass a graduate 

student while on a research expedition in Antarctica, which Dr. 

Clancy has already brought up here today, and he was immediately 

put on administrative leave, so hats off to Boston University for 

doing the right thing at that time. And Boston University sent an 

email to the NSF on December 5 notifying the NSF that Dr. 

Marchant currently had an NSF grant. 

Then, on December 11, 6 days later after a phone conversation 

with the NSF, the university followed up with an email asking for 

clarification. Apparently during the phone call, there was some information passed along that he could not remain as the principal 

investigator. But they were asking for clarification from why they 

would not allow him to continue as principal investigator on the 

grant. 

[Slide.] 
On Dec 5, 2017, at 11:49 AM, --@bu,edu> wrote: 

Dear-1 

You may be aware that Boston University has 

completed an of accusations made 

against Prof, David Prof, Marchant was 

,Jace on administrative leave pending his 

our Dean's decision to seek 

understand that he has a NSF grant that is 

currently in a no-cost extension vear. We are 

hoping to use the remaining 

the completion of a masters 

graduate students and would like to 

option of naming a replacement PI 

remainder of the project. 

Would you have time to connect by phone this 

week? 

The next two 

(Tues/Weds) are 

Thanks,-

open for me. 

Dear., 

2017 at 12:45 PM 

Marchant NSf grant 

remains at least until his appeal is considere

the institution, Our OSP informed us that because he is on administra

an overdue anothe

have not evidence of March<mt shared a screen

Reports page and the f

report and project 

to let you 

Thanks,. 
85 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So if we bring up the next slide, then December the 18, the NSF stated in this email there is no NSF policy 

that supports the statement, quote, ‘‘That NSF would not allow Dr. 

Marchant to continue as principal investigator while he’s on administrative leave.’’ Even though NSF wanted to remove Dr. Marchant 

from the grant, apparently, it was thought there was no policy to 

allow that to take place. 

[Slide.] 
Dec 11:26 AM, 

Hi-. 

l apologize for the 

you question 

Institution & Award 

• As mentioned before I would be 

supp01tive of change in PI, a request submitted, so 

that the MS student you discussed get the immediate 

onn needed to complete his/her work with the 

Regarding final reports, 

at 

• 

--

Instrumentation 

Office of Polar Programs 

N-ational Sdence foundatio-n 

NSFMo le 

Personal Mobile: 

Roomin the grant pending final 

From: hJ.L.esiu> 

Date: Monday, January 22,2018 at 4:51PM 

To: @Jlli,gQJL> 

Subject: Re: David Marchant NSF grant 

Dear., Thanks .• 

at as P
87 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Further, and a little bit disturbing, on January 

22 the university then indicated that—in this email—that due to 

NSF’s inability to force them otherwise, the university would keep 

Dr. Marchant on the grant, which is what Dr. Marchant wanted 

and kind of disturbing to me is that he continued to want—in this 

email—he wanted to continue to mentor another graduate student. 

[Slide.] 
!rrtpooam: Oa•JiJ t·!.itft:haY!t t·&F 1246319 

[i4tf.>: Jan:ltl'lf'j25,2018at62'i ?f'J! •••• o,,,,,,/ •• 

k -·· -: 

have receiv<:d fro!'ll because Dr. 

Marchant has been placed on administrative leave, Boston University is requlrec• 

to <!ppo!nt PI In addition, we will need immediate 

confirmation that Dr. Marchant is not receiving salary from any grants while 

on administrative leave. 

The substitute PI must be appointed delay. there are questions 

please SRO contact me immediately. would appreciate conftnnation 

of the receipt and confirmation the change of Pl been 

in Eastlane. 

Sincerely, 

• 

--

Antan::tic Instrumentation 
89 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So then if we go to the last slide, it wasn’t 

until January 25 that the NSF got clarification from upper management that Dr. Marchant was required to be removed as the 

principal investigator of the grant. This was almost 2 months after 

the initial December 5 notification by Boston University to the NSF 

that he had been placed on administrative leave. 

So my first question is why did it take so long to determine that 

Dr. Marchant needed to be replaced as PI? 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. What you just shared with us here is 

what we have been addressing. This is unchartered territory. We 

have typically tried to handle title IX issues within a stovepipe of 

title IX, and so what happened here, is that the communications 

were from the program offices, and the program offices were interacting back with the universities. They were talking to each other 

and they thought that there was nothing we can do. Well, the Director put together a sexual harassment task force, and that task 

force includes people across the whole foundation. What we learned 

in that task force is that communication was taking place between 

the universities and some of our personnel outside of our title IX 

role, and so as a result of that, we have put in a communication 

to all employees if anybody reaches out to you about a title IX matter, you immediately notify my office and we will coordinate it. 

As a result of that and the lessons we learned from this situation 

right here, we are now—last Thursday, we learned of an issue of 

a title IX person being put on administrative leave. Within two 

hours of learning that, we were able to pull together a team, contact the university, and find out what was going on on the issue, 

and as a result of that, we’ve actually made a modification in our 

Federal Register notice that we’re going to put out. This is unacceptable for us, and it’s a lesson learned and we’ve acted upon it. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, thank you for that, and I think you’ve 

just answered my follow-up question on that, does your current policy give you the ability to address this immediately? And it sounds 

like not only can you, you have acted on that as well. 

But a question back to the December 18 email, it actually said, 

‘‘I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I discussed your 

question’’—and when I say your email—— 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —regarding NSF’s, not yours personally, because I don’t know who actually sent it—but it said, ‘‘I apologize 

for the delay in getting back to you. I discussed your question with 

our policy office in the Division of Institution and Award Support,’’ 

and they feel that it is an internal Boston University issue, which 

would depend on the conditions of the administrative leave, and 

then it followed up as there is no policy. Was the problem in that 

policy office that they weren’t aware of the ability to remove? I 

mean, where was the breakdown? 

Ms. DAVIS. The breakdown is that it’s still stovepipe approaches. 

We have typically handled title IX issues within my office, and the 

grants and terms is handled in the policy and the grants division. 

So no one really—it’s almost like what we’re seeing in office of research in title IX. We were not communicating across. We’ve really 

put the brightest minds together to try to talk about how to tackle 

this issue, and in doing that, that’s when we learned, well, wow, 
90 

we have the opportunity in our grants and our award—terms and 

conditions right now to go back to the university and say that this 

is not—if a person is being put on administrative leave and they 

cannot adhere to the terms, we can do something. And so it was 

a matter of communication. 

One was the science office doing it. When they reached out to 

that office they hadn’t been—this is unchartered territory. They 

had not been dealing with issues around sexual harassment in a 

grants and terms way. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Well, thank you. One last question 

and—is the NSF reliant on—totally reliant on institutions to appropriately deem what is considered the beginning of an investigation? 

Ms. DAVIS. Actually, we created the NSF.gov/harassment portal, 

and the reason that is a very key is because we want to do a lot 

of outreach so people can know to reach out to us and let us know 

if an issue is going on. If the university is conducting an investigation, failed to tell us something or failed to conduct an investigation, we can be notified by numerous sources—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Ms. DAVIS. —including the media, and so it’s almost another tool 

we have to have—to catch violators I would say. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And thank you. 

Ms. LARSEN. May I—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. I see my time has long expired. 

Ms. LARSEN. May I please respond? 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Sure. 

Ms. LARSEN. I want to make a really important point about the 

Marchant case. And I actually had dinner not too long ago with one 

of the women who brought forward the allegation, not a client, just 

a friend in San Diego. It took her until she was tenured, years 

later before she felt safe enough to actually bring that allegation. 

And I wonder how many women were out in the field having rocks 

thrown at them in the meantime, and so this is a problem we must 

address, that people have to feel safe to report this. Having rocks 

thrown at you isn’t always thought of as sexual harassment, right? 

It’s not sexual but it is harassment, and I—and that is an issue as 

well. 

I had a third point and I don’t remember it. But I think the time 

that it takes, you know, is really something—oh, I know what I 

was going to say. She changed her field, so she went from researching in the Antarctica to researching in the Arctic to avoid this person. She went to the opposite pole to avoid him. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Wow. That is—thank you all so much 

for your important testimony. I wanted to pick up on some of those 

points in terms of—you know, we’ve talked a lot about the impact 

on the individual women and how their lifetime careers change, 

‘‘polar opposites,’’ and also how they’re losing income over a long 

time. And, Dr. Clancy, I thought your point about, this sort of the 

myth that it was children—and I can’t wait to see your little one 

here, and great that you’re a nursing mom, that’s a great thing, 

too. But it is bigger than the individuals who are losing their career here. As a country and as the science, we’re losing that bigger 

picture and the talent, and the cost to our economy. So I think this 
91 

is such a human rights issue, it’s a sexual harassment issue, but 

we really need to look at this, how it impacts wages and the individuals and the economy in the bigger context. 

So I know we had a hearing last year where we—in another committee that I’m on—where we found that companies with three or 

more women in senior management functions scored higher in leadership, accountability—what we’re all talking about here—and innovation, so that’s innovation, you know, moving our economy forward. 

And Fortune 500 companies with the highest representative 

women on their boards outperformed generally, so this means our 

country would be doing better if these women were advancing at 

better rates, you know, at the rates that they’re going to school. 

And then women CEOs in Fortune 500 companies have 200 percent 

better returns on the S&P 500. So this is costing our economy. I 

know we often say—some people might feel like, oh, we’re going to 

be good and do this. This isn’t just doing the right thing, which is 

first and foremost very important. This is economically an issue 

that is costing our economy if we don’t get this right. So this makes 

a big impact. You know, women live longer. If women aren’t getting 

their—into their careers and getting to stay in them and making 

that money, this is costing the country in so many different ways. 

So I thank you for your just fabulous research and work and insight and how you’re making all of these connections. You know, 

with the example of the woman who had to wait until she was 

tenured, you know, I imagine just with the work that you all are 

doing and having to—the intervention factor, women intervening 

can sometimes be a difficult thing for you even when you’re studying this. So thank you so much for—and please keep in touch with 

us. I appreciate the great work, lots of good representation here of 

women scientists here, so thanks so much. 

The record will remain open for two weeks and written questions 

can be submitted. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(93) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
94 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Ms. Rhonda Davis 
95 

In the Arctic, NSF's prime support contractor, CH2MHILL Polar Services (CPS). 

requires sexual harassment training for all employees, with additional training occurring 

as part of a General Safety Awareness course for field staff prior to deployment to NSF 

sites. For the 2018 Arctic field season, NSF has updated the risk assessment process at 

the start of project planning to include the topic of harassment; incorporated a segment on 

harassment in the Arctic Field Training course offered to researchers prior to going into 

the field; and published the NSF Press Statement 16-002 noting that NSF does not 

tolerate harassment on the 'Know Before You Go' webpage (http://cpspolar.com/f(Jrrcsearchcrs!know-before-voll:RQD. The topic will now be addressed in arrival briefings at 

Kangerlussuaq and Summit Station, Greenland. 

2. Conferences play a major role in the careers of research scientists. They also take place 

away from home, away from supervisors, and often involve intormal gatherings with 

alcohol a perfect recipe tor harassment. How will the NSF policy specifically address 

conferences, where the victim may not be from the same institution as the perpetrator? 

Answer: As you note, conferences play an important role in the careers of research 

scientists as they provide a venue for collaboration with fellow researchers nationally and 

intemationally. This issue is part of a larger discussion of sexual harassment and assault 

occurrences taking place in the sciences that NSF has taken an active role in addressing 

to help prevent and mitigate. To that end. I have established a Harassment Working 

Group at NSF composed of representatives from all Directorates and Oftlces to address. 

and find solutions for, harassment and assault issues in all science settings for NSFfunded awardees. The Working Group is actively examining relevant policy and possible 

adjustments regarding harassment at conferences and workshops. 

Page 2 of4 
96 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

Ms. Rhonda Davis, Head, Office of Diversity and Inclusion. National Science Foundation 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski. House Committee on Science, Space. 

and Technologv 

I. A particularly vulnerable population within the sciences is international students and 

postdocs in the country on work visas. What are the unique challenges international 

students and postdocs face when trying to report sexual harassment? What can be done to 

ensure international students and postdocs are protected? 

Answer: The new term and condition. which was published in the Federal 

Register on March 5'11 for public comment, applies to anyone involved in an 

NSF-funded grant regardless of national origin and/or postdoctoral status. 

The NSF.gov/harassment portal is a resource to provide everyone, including 

international students and postdoctoral researchers guidance, information, 

and contacts to report incidents. 

Title IX protects international students from discrimination or harassment on 

the basis of sex in their participation in any academic or research or other 

education program or activity operated by an NSF awardee. When NSF 

conducts compliance reviews under Title IX, international students and 

postdoctoral researchers are interviewed by compliance review teams. This 

provides an opportunity for NSF to ascertain information about their 

experiences and for these students to advise us whether they have been 

subjected to sexual harassment. If harassment occurs. NSF holds the awardee 

accountable by requiring them to eliminate the harassment and/or hostile 

environment. 

It should also be noted that postdoctoral researchers are considered 

employees of NSF awardee institutions and arc protected by Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex 

in employment. Sexual harassment is a torm of sex discrimination that 

violates Title VII. If a postdoctoral researcher files a sexual harassment 

complaint with NSF, it will be referred to the US Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for investigation as required by 28 C.F.R. 

Part 1691, unless the complaint demonstrates a pattern of practice of 

employment discrimination or harassment, in which case NSF will 

investigate the complaint. NSF will also investigate employment 

Page 3 of 4 
97 

discrimination or harassment complaints if those complaints also allege 

harassment or discrimination to students who study or participate in NSFfunded awardee programs. NSF may conduct a compliance review if general 

information is received that discrimination or harassment or other forms of 

non-compliance with NSF civil rights regulations is occurring in the 

awardee's programs. 

NSF will continue to monitor the effectiveness and impact of the new term 

and condition as it relates to students and postdoctoral researchers. 

Page 4 of4 
98 

Responses by Dr. Kathryn Clancy 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

Dr. Kathryn Clancy, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski, House Committee on Science, Space. 

and Technology 

l. The American Geophysical Union recently updated its ethics policy to broaden the 

definition of professional misconduct to include sexual harassment. In light of the change 

made by AGU, some have called for science agencies to change their definition of 

research misconduct to include sexual harassment. In your view, how would the 

expansion of NSF's deflnition of research misconduct to include sexual harassment affect 

efforts to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual harassment within the sciences? Do 

you endorse such a change in definition? 

Answer: The NSF definition of research misconduct used to be interpreted to include 

sexual harassment. As Ellen Sekreta writes in her 2006 paper on the topic, the definition 

only changed after it was used to rescind the funding of a particular scientist tor alleged 

rape and quid pro quo harassment. The move to rescind funding and bar him from 

applying for NSF fimding for five years led to criticism about this interpretation of their 

definition of research misconduct. The Office of Science and Technology Policy then 

began to use a more narrow definition of research misconduct that did not include any 

room for interpersonal misconduct, and soon after NSF's definition narrowed in a similar 

fashion. In her article, Sekreta writes, 

"By excluding sexual harassment from the definition of "science 

misconduct:' the federal government has reinforced the notion that sexual 

harassment affects neither the integrity of scientific research nor accepted 

sdentific social norms. This suggests that female researchers should be able 

to separate their career in the sciences from any sexual harassment they 

experience as a result of the hierarchal culture in their profession, despite 

the fact that their professional success depends on their ability to succeed 

within that very culture. Thus, a professor can sexually harass someone and 

remain a "good" scientist, while a "good" female scientist who complains 

of sexual harassment and is retaliated against will likely find that her career 

has been derailed. In addition, universities that profit from large amounts of 

federal funding are motivated to dismiss, ignore, or hide sexual harassment 

complaints against their most powerful professors, so that the complaints 

do not interfere with the professors' scientific credibility and their 

reputations remain secure." 
99 

I concur with this interpretation, and endorse a change to NSF's original interpretation of 

research misconduct to include sexual harassment. I would add that it should further 

interpret interpersonal misconduct such as incivilities, bullying, and selective forms of 

harassment such as racial harassment and harassment of LGBT folk as research 

misconduct for the same reason. Interpersonal mistreatment ham1s the enterprise of any 

workplace where it occurs, and the sciences are no exception. 

2. Women of color often bear the double burden of racism and sexism. Your survey 

revealed that 40 percent of women of color in astronomy and planetary science feel 

unsafe at work because of their gender. How does sexual harassment affect women of 

color, specifically? What concrete measures can be taken to ensure women of color are 

not overlooked in the movement to address sexual harassment in the sciences'? How can 

we work to ensure this double burden does not deter women of color from pursuing 

science careers? 

Answer: Women of color face negative workplace experiences in the workplace at 

greater rates than white women (Berdahl and Moore 2006. Kabat-Farrand Cortina 2012, 

Cortina, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow 2002, Cortina eta!. 2013, Clancy eta!. 2017). In the 

sciences, women of color are often a lower rank than white women, and independent of 

rank feel they have less int1uence than white women (Settles et al. 2006). What's more, 

negative workplace experiences have profound negative consequences for women of 

color in the sciences: they are more likely to report feeling unsafe in the workplace 

(Clancy et al. 2017). 

The experiences of women of color can be especially overlooked in cultures where 

hostility is assumed to endemic and experienced by everyone, which is often the case in 

the sciences. Yet, even in workplaces where workers perceive incivilities to be general, 

research has shown that they are in fact targeted at more select groups, most of all women 

of color (Cortina et al. 2013). Racial harassment and anti-diversity attitudes have become 

increasingly subtle in the workplace, sometimes measurable only by the decreased length 

of time a worker looks at a Black colleague, or in the increased physical distance created 

by a white worker towards a !3lack colleague (Hebl, Madera, and King 2008). Many 

people "'know'' they are not supposed to hold racist beliefs, so the way they manifest 

racist behavior is through selective fonns of exclusion. As with incivilities and sexual 

harassment, racial harassment's more nebulous tom1s may not seem severe, but t11ey are 

in fact psychologically distressful, especially when combined with sexual harassment 

(Buchanan and Fitzgerald 2008). 

Stmctural inequalities in academia have been documented across multiple identity 

groups, in terms of service obligations, feelings of int1uencc (Settles et al. 2006), pay 

Page 2 of5 
100 

injustice (Carvajal, Armayor, and Deziel2012, Broyles 2009), and office and laboratory 

space (MIT Committee on Women Faculty 1999). When interpersonal incivilities or 

harassment are tied to physical space, resources, or promotion consequences, they can 

have a profound impact on the careers of women of color science faculty. 

The main way to ensure women of color are not overlooked, and that they continue to 

make important contributions to STEM is to ensure that their voices are heard by putting 

them in positions ofleadership where they have enough resource and support to succeed. 

Many of the social movements in the United States were started by and kept functioning 

by the tireless work of women of color. even if our history books do not recognize their 

contributions and leadership. The best thing many can do is listen, step out of the way, 

and promote their words. This also means creating incentives to admit women of color as 

cohorts in STEM graduate programs, and hire them as cohorts as well. Admitting or 

hiring them one at a time keeps women of color isolated and without a safety net. 

3. A pa1iicularly vulnerable population within the sciences is international students and 

postdocs in the country on work visas. What arc the unique challenges international 

students and postdocs face when trying to report sexual harassment? What can be done to 

ensure international students and postdocs are protected? 

~: International students and postdocs are very vulnerable populations in STEM. 

They are otten paid less than their American peers for the same work, they are pushed to 

work more hours, and they live in fear oflosing their visa status and having to end their 

training. Pay injustices are starting to be resolved, at least at the postdoctoral level, thanks 

to some pay minimums set during the Obama administration. This also decreases a 

postdoc' s reliance on one Pl. But more recently, many cannot travel home for the entirety 

of their training because they are not guaranteed they will be allowed back into the US, 

despite their legal and documented status. 

This particular vulnerability puts international students and postdocs at risk of retaliation 

should they ever report sexual harassment. Issues of international and immigrant workers 

are not my area of expertise, but my inforn1ed opinion is that this vulnerability comes 

from the ways these visas are arranged at universities. I am not sure if it is a national 

trend, but at my university, the PI sponsors an international student's visa, not the 

university itself. This is the nature of the training environment because you are 

technically working "for" that person. The problem is, should you ever have a problem 

with your PI/sponsor, they can fire you and you can lose your visa. This gives the PI 

disproportionate power over international students and postdocs when it comes to 

mistreating them, silencing them, or retaliating against them if they speak up about 

injustices in the lab. 

Page 3 of5 
101 

Therefore, one potential solution might be to figure out a way to have work visas operate 

more explicitly within the confines of the university rather than within each laboratory. 

The work visa signatory could be the university, with then the work visa could specify 

which lab the trainee is in. More buttressing of administrative support would mean more 

steps for the PI to take before they are allowed to fire someone from their lab, which 

would allow for more due process and create better protections against retaliation. And 

outreach towards international trainees would help them learn their options if they ever 

do encounter a problem. 

Page 4 of5 
102 

References 

Berdahl, Jennifer L., and Celia Moore. 2006. "Workplace harassment: double jeopardy for minority 

women." The Journal of applied psychology 91 (2):426-436. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426. 

Broyles, Philip. 2009. "The gender pay gap of STEM professions in the United States." International 

Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 29 (5/6):214-226. 

Buchanan, NicoleT, and Louise F Fitzgerald. 2008. "Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and 

the psychological well-being of African American women." Journal of occupational health 

psychology l3 (2): 137. 

Carvajal, Manuel J, Graciela M Annayor, and Lisa Deziel. 2012. "The gender eamings gap among 

pharmacists." Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 8 (4):285-297. 

Clancy, KBH. KMN Lee, EM Rodgers. and C Richey. 2017. "Double jeopardy in astronomy and 

planetary science: women of color face greater risks of gendercd and racial harassment." JGR 

Planets 122 (7):1610-1623. doi: 10.1002/2017JE005256. 

Cortina, Lilia M. Dana Kabat-Farr, Emily A Leskinen, Marisela Huetta, and Vicki J Magley. 2013. 

"Selective incivility as modem discrimination in organizations evidence and impact." Journal of 

Management39 (6):1579-1605. 

Cortina, Lilia M .. Louise F. Fitzgerald, and Fritz Drasgow. 2002. "Contextualizing Latina experiences of 

sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model." Basic & Applied Social Psychology 

24 (4):295-311. doi: 10.1207/S15324834BASP2404_5. 

IIebl, Mikki, Juan M Madera, and Eden King. 2008. "Exclusion, avoidance and social distancing." In 

Diversity resistance in organisations. edited by Kecia M. Thomas, 127-150. New York. NY: 

Lawrence Ehlbaum Associates. 

Kabat-Farr, Dana, and Lilia M. C01tina. 2012. Selective incivility: Gender, race, and the discriminatory 

workplace. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar. 

MIT Committee on Women Faculty, The. 1999. A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at 

MIT. In 1J1e MIT Faculty Newsletter. Cambridge, MA USA: MIT. 

Settles, Isis, Lilia C01tina, Janet Malley, and Abigail Stcwmt. 2006. "The Climate for Women in 

Academic Science: The Good. The Bad, and The Changeable." Psychologv of Women Quarterlr 

30 (1):47-58. 

Page 5 of5 
103 

Responses by Ms. Kristina Larsen 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

Ms. Kristina Larsen, Attorney, Law Office of Kristina K. Larsen 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski, House Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology 

1. The American Geophysical Union recently updated its ethics policy to broaden the 

definition of professional misconduct to include sexual harassment. In light of the change 

made by AGU, some have called for science agencies to change their definition of 

research misconduct to include sexual harassment. 

Do you endorse such a change in definition? 

Answer: Yes, I do believe science agencies should expand the definition of 

scientific/professional misconduct. 

However, as AGU's Scientific Inteority and Professional Ethics policy does, any revision 

of scientific/professional misconduct policies should address more than sexual 

harassment. 

As I testified, the hostile conditions that many women and underrepresented individuals 

will face is very often far more complex than what the law currently defines (or most 

people understand) ··sexual harassment" to be. 

AGU's policy appropriately considers any fonn of'·unethical and biased treatment of 

people" as scientific misconduct (page 12), which includes discrimination or harassment 

by any means (including sexual harassment), but also bullying and abusive conduct such 

as "threatening, humiliating, coercive, or intimidating conduct that causes harm to, 

interferes with, or sabotages scientific activity and careers. 

This latter form of conduct is especially important for funding agencies to address 

because funding, and equipment and other items purchased with that federal funding are 

often the ''tool" used to sabotage, threaten, or intimidate someone more junior. 

I believe this broader definition is appropriate because, as AGU's policy states, ALL of 

this conduct- discrimination, harassment of all kinds and bullying conduct •·reduces the 

quality, integrity, and pace of the advancement of science by marginalizing individuals 

and communities. It also damages productivity and career advancement, and prevents the 

healthy exchange of ideas'' {page 8). 
104 

In your view, how would the expansion of NSF's definition of research misconduct to 

include sexual harassment affect efforts to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual 

harassment within the sciences? 

Answer: A revision of NSF's policy that expands the definition of research misconduct 

to inclnde any form of unethical and biased treatment of people could be one of the most 

important ways in which to prevent and respond to the fonns of conduct that are, in my 

opinion, driving women and underrepresented individuals out of STEM. 

Funding is not only the life blood of most scientists, it is also the source of a great deal of 

the abuse causing career damage to others, and it is one of the primary ways in which one 

obtains ·'power" and "influence" in their field. 

In order for a policy change like this to be effective however, I believe there would need 

to be a way for individuals to report, and for investigations into allegations of scientific 

misconduct based on unethical and biased treatment of people, to be handled centrally 

rather than at the institution level. 

I am not certain universities would be appropriately motivated to conduct these 

investigations given the potential consequences to the institution, but more importantly it 

would be important to ensure consistency in the standards and practices employed for 

these types of investigations given the serious consequences. 

While l believe this change is critical as both a deten-ent to abuse and a means tor 

remedying it once it has occun-ed, lor this change to be impactful the consequences 

imposed would need to fit the conduct identified, and the consequences should become 

more significant if wamings are ignored or patterns of conduct are identilied. 

2. A particularly vnlnerable population within the sciences is international students and 

postdocs in the country on work visas. 

Answer: Yes, they are. 

What are the unique challenges international students and postdocs face when trying to 

report sexual harassment? 

Answer: There are many challenges. The first is they are extremely isolated. 

They are typically brought here to work in one specific lab and thcretore don't 

have the benefit of a large network of peers or mentors in close proximity to ask 

for guidance or ¥.1th whom to calibrate their experience with others. While many 

universities do what they can to create community for international scholars, 

often these communities are other international scholars. 

Page 2 of6 
105 

This isolation makes navigating the complex processes for reporting even harder, 

not to mention for many a language barrier on top of that makes understanding 

the process and standards of proof near impossible. 

Because of their appointment type. many also fall into a type of"no man's land" 

in which they are not considered employees or students. So, they can get 

bounced around between different offices. Some are even told (etToneously) they 

have no rights at all. 

l represented an international postdoc who was horribly abused by her PI (I 

spoke of her in my Testimony, page 11). When I explained to her she had rights 

she was totally surprised. She had been made to believe by the PI but also by 

others in the department and in other offices on campus that she did not have any 

rights. 

Por the few who may figure out how and to whom to report there is still the 

matter of what to do if discrimination or harassment is found. What should 

happen is the PI told to treat the postdoc better and consequences be imposed on 

the PI to ensure they comply. How·ever almost always the solution is to work 

around the abuser, and so the resolution will be to move the post doc. 

As I mentioned in my testimony though, universities have no obligation to 

rehabilitate someone's career so it will be entirely up to the international student 

to figure out how to move on, and without any incentive it may be hard to 

convince another P! to take on the responsibilities and the costs associated with 

hiring a foreign student or postdoc. 

Given that the end result of complaining is almost always the necessity to go back to their 

home country rather than to be able to continue the work they came here to do, they will 

almost always take the abuse rather than report. 

What can be done to ensure international students and postdoes are protected? 

Answer: This is another area where I believe funding agencies and professional societies 

can play an important role. International students need a dedicated advocate to help them 

understand their rights. But they also would benefit from being able to report abuses to 

the ftmding agencies directly. 

Page 3 of6 
106 

3. While low rates of sexual harassment and assault are often seen as evidence of a healthy 

environment, in some cases, this may be a sign that an institution is failing to provide 

sufficient resources for victims of sexual misconduct, or that it is perceived by victims to 

discourage reporting. 

a. Are low rates of reported harassment and assault perceived as a sign that the 

problem does not exist at a particular institution? 

~: In my personal opinion the low rates ofreporting. at least 

among faculty and students, has more to do with a strong belief 

(unfortunately justified) that doing so isn't going to change anything, 

or, usually based on having seen someone else try and suffer the 

consequences, will likely only lead to more retaliation against them or 

result in them suddenly becoming labeled as a poor perfmmer. 

It is also a result of how hard it is to figure out how and where to repmi 

since it is the sole responsibility of the victim to figure out exactly 

what is happening to her, where to report that specific type of conduct 

(i.e. discrimination to one office, sexual harassment to another, 

retaliation to yet another, and so on), and how to present her case given 

the standards provided for each in that specific policy. 

For example, since the Hearing in February, the client who I spoke about at 

UCLA who has tried to report discrimination, harassment and retaliation more 

than 90 times to more than 20 different individuals or otlices (see Testimony, 

page 8), was told last week- nearly 8 months after she thought she had finally 

figured out how and where to file a formal grievance- that she had filed her 

retaliaiion complaint with the wrong office and now needed to fill out yet another 

form and report that piece ofhcr complaint to another otlice. Her response, which 

I agree with 100%, is that she is experiencing ''death by a thousand processes." 

How should numbers of complaints of sexual harassment and assault be used to 

infonn efforts to reform processes for reporting and investigating sexual 

harassment and assaults? 

Answer: I an1 not optimistic this can be done at an institutional level 

tor the simple reason that institutions do not have a consistent 

definition of what a "complaint" even is, let alone any really good way 

of knowing how many are made. 

This is in pati due to the "disconnect" I described in my testimony (see 

page 3). Women believe they are '·complaining", but the person they 

Page 4 of6 
107 

are complaining to does not interpret it as anything they should/could 

take action against, report up the chain, etc. Even when they do report 

it up the chain usually nothing happens with those reports. 

It is also partly because, while a woman will experience a complex set 

of actions and inactions which are a combination of discrimination, 

harassment, retaliation. bullying, etc. that she cannot necessarily 

separate out easily, institutions often require ditierent types of conduct 

be reported to different offices, sometimes even further divided by 

whether you are student, staff or faculty. 

These offices may not be required to coordinate with each other. So, 

retaliation goes to one oft1ce, discrimination based on race to another, 

discrimination based on disability, another, gender based complaints to 

Title IX, etc. 

Even when you find the right office, the focus on informal resolution 

means that the individual may feel they have reported but the 

institution does not, as was the case at the Smithsonian Institute. In that 

case the victim reported the incident, which involved unwanted 

physical contact. to her advisor the day after the incident, he in tum 

reported it to the EEO office. It >vas only much later that she learned 

her '·report'' had not been considered a '·formal" report, and no 

investigation initiated or any action taken against the perpetrator. 

So, if you ask a person experiencing discrimination, harassment, 

retaliation and/or bullying and abuse of power. they will likely tell you 

they have complained numerous times, whereas the institution may not 

have a record of even one ·'fOimal complaint". 

One idea for determining whether or not reporting and investigation 

processes are working at an institution level is for perhaps a funding 

agency or professional societies to develop surveys for individuals to 

ask if, at an individual level, they feel they have experienced 

discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment or bullying that they 

believe has impacted the content, veracity or meaning of their research 

findings, or that has affected the planning, conduct, reporting or 

application in their professional, research and learning environments (I 

would suggest using AGU's definitions of discrimination, harassment, 

sexual harassment and bullying (page 8) as these definitions accurately 

reflect how these fonns of conduct manifest themselves in academia). 

Page 5 of6 
108 

If the answer is yes, they could be asked if they understand how to 

report at their institution, if they had reported, and was the outcome of 

doing so satisfactory. If they have not reported, it would be interesting 

to understand why they did not. This feedback could be provided to 

institutions in order to help them improve their processes. 

This is an ambitious endeavor and perhaps unrealistic (and versions of 

this already exist in some places), but without really understanding 

how many individuals believe they have something they could 

complain about. and how many times they've tried to do so without 

success, it is impossible to really know if the institution's low numbers 

are because they arc doing a good job, or because individuals choose 

not to utilize confusing or ine!Tective processes. 

One data point that I do not believe is good indicator of success is the 

munber of"findings" of sexual harassment. As I stated in my 

testimony (see Page 15), I applaud the NSF's bold requirement that 

institutions report findings of sexual harassment to them. However, I 

WOITY this may inadvertently result in universities less often "tlnding" 

sexual harassment in the first place. The outcome of the recent sexual 

harassment case at the University of Rochester illustrates how easy it is 

to find conduct that detrimentally impacts many women to still not to 

violate their policy. 

It may be more effective for funding agencies to create reporting 

portals centrally, especially because many serial abusers move from 

one campus to the next before there can be a "formal'' finding. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and experiences, and 

those of my amazing and brilliant clients, with the Committee and hope this 

additional information is helpful in pursuing our common goal of assuring women 

succeed in STEM. 

Page 6 of6 
109 

Responses by Ms. Christine McEntee 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"A Review of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in Science" 

Ms. Christine McEntee, Executive Director, American Geophysical Union 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski. House Committee on Science. Space. 

and Technology 

l. The American Geophysical Union recently updated its ethics policy to broaden the 

definition of professional misconduct to include sexual harassment. In light of the change 

made by AGU, some have called for science agencies to change their definition of 

research misconduct to include sexual harassment. In your view. how would the 

expansion of NSF's definition of research misconduct to include sexual harassment affect 

efforts to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual harassment within the sciences? Do 

you endorse such a change in definition? 

Answer: The National Science Foundation (NSF), as one of the primary sources tor 

research grants for many scientists and institutions. is in an especially strong position to 

help combat sexual harassment in the sciences. AGC commends NSF for its proposed 

policy, which makes significant strides towards addressing and preventing sexual 

harassment. That policy is now open for public comment. allowing stakeholders to 

suggest ways to improve the policy. AGU has encouraged our members to contribute as 

well. 

AGU looks forward to seeing the final NSF policy implemented, and certainly is 

encouraging other organizations and agencies to work toward making similar changes 

soon. With stronger policies in place, we can all be more effective in eradicating this 

damaging behavior. However. the policies that we implement today will need to be 

reviewed over time and updated to ensure their continued effectiveness. /\GU plans to do 

this for our own policy, and we think it would be good practice for other organizations as 

well. Again, we will need everyone to work together if we expect to see the culture 

change we desperately need. 
110 

2. The American Geophysical Union has taken on a leadership role in pioneering a number 

of interventions to address sexual harassment head on. Other societies like the American 

Astronomical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are 

also working hard to implement and promote meaningful change. Most societies are not 

as far along. Can you talk about the communication and coordination between science 

societies on the issue of sexual harassment? Is more coordination needed? Do large 

societies have a responsibility to share infommtion and provide guidance to smaller 

societies on how they address sexual harassment? 

Answer: The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics has 

convened a sexual harassment panel that will be issuing a report with recommendations 

for combatting harassment. AGU is looking forward to the release of the report, which 

we believe will be a valuable addition to the societies' efforts and that insights can be 

applied to our coming Ethics and Equity Resource Center. 

Scientific societies are in a good position to help foster the culture change needed to 

make the scientific community fundamentally more welcoming to women and other 

vulnerable groups. For one, we are a source of resources that are important for scientific 

careers- from journal publications to honors and awards- which can serve as a strong 

motivator of change. For another, we are well placed to provide education and resources 

to individual scientists and other institutions. Societies that are leaders in the space of 

sexual harassment and other workplace climate issues can certainly serve as an example 

and offer guidance to other organizations and communicate to the entire scientific 

community that this type of behavior is unacceptable. 

That said, AGU is not leading by example alone. AGU encourages other agencies, 

societies and universities to review and strengthen their policies regarding harassment 

and discrimination. No one solution will work for every organization, but we can learn 

from each other in tackling this issue as a community. AGU has led conversations and 

responded to inquiries from other science societies across disciplines who want to 

strengthen their own policies. This helped to drive our decision to develop the Ethics and 

Equity Resource Center, a place where organizations can to come together to share 

resources and best practices. 

Page 2 of4 
111 

3. A particularly vulnerable population within the sciences is international students and 

postdocs in the country on work visas. What are the unique challenges international 

students and postdocs face when trying to report sexual harassment? What can be done to 

ensure international students and postdocs are protected? 

Answer: International students and post-docs working in the U.S. do face potentially 

unique challenges in regard to reporting harassment, including language and cultural 

barriers, lack of support networks, unfamiliarity with national laws, and a lack of 

knowledge about their rights when reporting harassment. Therefore, when reviewing and 

updating harassment policies, it is important to get the perspective of individuals from 

diverse backgrounds. 

To update our own policies, AGU leadership, in 2016, under then-AGU President 

Margaret Leinen, tasked a panel with reviewing the organization's ethics policy and 

practices. The Task Force included an AGU Past President, members from AGU Council 

and Board, and members with experience as scientific integrity officers and who had 

experience in authoring ethics policies for scientific organizations. Task Force members 

were from different geographical regions in the U.S. and internationally and represented a 

range ofscientifie disciplines. Through the input of this diverse task force, we were able 

to broadly strengthen our policies. 

The updated policy applies to all AGU members, staft~ volunteers, contractors, and nonmembers who participate in AGU programs-including participants in the AGU Honors 

and Recognition program, meetings. publications, and governance. Therefore, we 

encourage any AGU member, including international students and post-docs. to follow 

AGU guidelines for filing complaints if they feel that someone has violated our policy. 

In addition to strong policies, AGU has implemented programs to combat sexual 

harassment. For example, SafeAGU helps to set standards tor acceptable behavior at 

AGU-sponsored events and provide a safe space for all of our members, including our 

international members, to report harassment at our meetings. With programs like these, 

and other trainings and resources, AGU hopes to change the culture in the scientific 

commtmity and ensure that our scientists, regardless of their background, feel supported. 

Page 3 of4 
112 

Æ 

4. Many of the policy interventions being discussed are reactive- seeking to make reporting 

and investigative processes more accessible, transparent and responsive. In your view. 

what are proactive measures that can help foster a more welcoming culture within the 

sciences to prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the first place? 

Answer: AGU and other scientific societies that adopt strong policies on workplace 

climate issues- including against harassment- can motivate others in the community 

and clearly communicate that these behaviors are a detriment to the scientific 

enterprise and society as a whole. AGU is committed to serving as a leader on this issue 

not only by adopting our ethics policy, but also by working with other groups as they 

review and update their own related policies. 

Providing educational resources and implementing trainings and workshops 

are additional ways science societies can galvanize needed culture change. AGU's Ethics 

and Equity Resource Center, AGU-facilitated workshops, and the SafeAGU program 

which promotes a culture of safety at AGU events- are intended to provide members 

and the scientific community with new tools to help address and eliminate sexual 

harassment. At the same time, they are designed to help raise the visibility of the issue 

within our community and reinforce our expectations for professional behavior. 

AGU also recommends using positive incentives to help drive culture change, such 

as recognition or certifications for institutions or academic departments that publicly 

measure their progress towards positive work-climate and gender equity issues. 

Further, AGU is working to encourage new and ongoing partnerships among scientitic 

societies. These partnerships allow us to share resources and tools to help 

each other identify policies and programs that will be effective in making further progress 

towards eliminating and addressing sexual harassment. 

AGU will also continue to work with other institutions, including federal science 

agencies and Congress, to foster culture change within the scientific community. AGU 

cannot stress enough that we will need everyone at the table if we are to eliminate sexual 

harassment in the sciences and society more broadly. 

Page 4 of4