Name-and-shame strategy in sexual harassment: Why this feminist tactic is wrong

Sexual harassment is a serious reality in the workplace, but the time has come to ask whether the educated women now coming out in the open to allege harassment by high-profile people ranging from former Supreme Court judges to famous editors are doing the larger cause any good. Two key features of this public fight against sexual harassment are a name-and-shame strategy and the media condemnation it evokes. Despite the fact that no one ought to be presumed guilty till proven so, the general attitude of these activists is to presume guilt till proven innocent. To date, too few women’s organisations or independent analysts have protested about this publish-and-be-damned approach to sexual harassment cases. By not speaking out against this pronouncement of guilt before any case is legally established, these women – who often do not even file formal complaints with the police – run the risk of ruining the cause of justice for women over the long-term. One can’t see the logic or even the ethics of privileged women happily blogging (see here and here and here) about their own sexual harassment or other cases while refusing to file formal cases to bring the people to justice. They are happy to bask in the privileged position of celebrity victims. Was the trial by media unjustified in the AK Ganguly's case? PTI Whether it is the case against retired Justice AK Ganguly, or even Tarun Tejpal, founding Editor of Tehelka, women activists, including no less a person than Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Indira Jaising, have been rushing to damn and condemn from the pulpit of TV studios even while defending the idea of women not approaching the law for justice. One cannot thus disagree with former Supreme Court Justice BN Srikrishna, who told The Economic Times in an interview today: “I'm sorry to say this... but, just because a person is a judge, why do you have to deprive him of his constitutional rights... If you ask me, leaking the affidavit against Ganguly to the media was unethical.” The last part of the statement is, in fact, an indirect condemnation of ASG Indira Jaising, who was instrumental in leaking the intern’s allegations against Justice Ganguly even though the Supreme Court had not done so. Jaising wrote an open letter to Justice Ganguly in The Indian Express, but the page seems to have been removed. (You can, however, read the Firstpost curation from that letter here and a related report here.) Is Jaising doing the cause of women any good by being openly partisan in this matter?  Justice Srikrishna’s point is simple: if those alleged to have sexually harassed women are going to be tried in the court of public opinion, how is justice ever going to be done? It is the media trial that is forcing judges lower down to keep a Tejpal in prison even while serious sexual harassment and rape cases involving poorer and less privileged women are ignored or tackled lackadaisically by the judicial system. While it is possible to say that women have a choice on whether or not to take the legal route in sexual harassment cases, the fact is they are worsening the climate for treating these crimes seriously and fairly for other less privileged women. Here’s why. One, by settling for media trials, they are essentially eating their cake and having it too. The damage done to the reputations of their alleged harassers is real, but they themselves have nothing to lose by making real or false allegations (if that is the case), or having to make their case in court. The usual rationale offered for this strategy is that the judicial process is typically burdensome and often traumatic for victims of sexual violence and harassment. For rape victims, the trial can often be as painful as the assault. But we cannot use the system's flaws as an excuse to bypass it entirely. And when we do so in the form of name-and-shame strategies, we undermine any hope of reforming the judicial process, and violate it's basic tenet which is the presumption of innocence. Two, if even one such case turns out to have been made with malafide intentions, it will have repercussions for the conduct of such cases filed by women everywhere. If the courts and the police – never too friendly to rape victims, leave alone sexual harassment victims – start believing that women unfairly get the upper hand in this battle, they will shift the burden of proof even more onto women litigants. Women who really receive the worst of both worlds are the underprivileged. They have no access to media or the police or the courts. This system will start turning hostile to such women – as it already has in the cases of domestic violence and dowry, two crimes that have very tough laws and where judges are now beginning to discount allegations by women due to misuse of the law. (See what Justice Srikrishna has to say on this here). Another Economic Times report quotes a senior sitting Supreme Court judge as saying that in the case of Ganguly, the intern’s “blog was too well-crafted for her age” – implying that the allegations need to be taken with a pinch of salt merely for that reason. Three, while better off women may not pay a price – no one is going to deny them a job just because they made some allegations – one cannot but assume that the overall climate for jobs will sour for women. While Cabinet Minister Farooq Abdullah was roundly condemned for his statement about not employing women for fear of future complaints, the fact is he was voicing concerns that many employers feel about how such complaints may be handled by the media. If you can be smeared without fear of consequences, who will take the risk of employing women, however competent? Thanks to this, a Tejpal continues to languish in jail for alleged sexual harassment even though other types of fraudsters and criminal are out on bail pending trial. Whatever be the crime of Tejpal, the point is to establish this fact in court with evidence, and not keep him in jail till public interest in his case waves, or judicial whim dictates. While it is difficult for men to take up the cause of other men -- more so when they are likely guilty of crimes against women since they then seem like apologists or defenders of the wrongdoing -- I believe right-thinking women have to start speaking up against this gross injustice of trial-by-media in cases involving better off sections of women. By being partisan, these activists may be damaging the larger cause of justice for women, and that ought to be cause for concern for all citizens, irrespective of gender.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/india/name-and-shame-strategy-in-sexual-harassment-why-this-feminist-tactic-is-wrong-1336669.html?utm_source=ref_article