In recent months, we have heard many stories from women about their encounters with sexual harassment in the workplace. Some of these stories have been gruesome, disgusting and painful to hear — but not nearly as painful as the actual harassment and assault these women endured. The most famous case, that of Harvey Weinstein, was followed by hundreds of cases of harassment and assault that permeated the national media.
But the stories of sexual harassment don’t end there. This behavior has even encroached on higher education, including allegations that surfaced from Boston University research programs. Several women on a BU research trip to study climate change in Antarctica later came forward with disturbing stories about their interactions with the lead scientist on the team, professor David Marchant.
These research trips are funded in part by the National Science Foundation, the federal agency responsible for issuing grants to researchers from universities who strive to make discoveries and further science. As more and more of these allegations come out, the National Science Foundation recently announced that they will now be requiring universities to report any sexual assault claims against a grant recipient. In other words, as a result of findings about a researcher’s inappropriate behavior, the university could lose its research funding.
While scientific contributions are necessary to see growth and to advance our knowledge of the world, this measure is most definitely a positive one. Not only would this make these allegations more transparent to the organization that finances the researchers, but it would also incentivize universities like BU to take action. Moreover, even though taking away funding may seem like an extreme measure, it’s important to institute negative consequences. Those scientists who have manipulated women and have used inappropriate sexual behavior, often men in positions in authority, should feel the weight of their actions. Pulling their research projects can be an effective way for them to get retribution and maybe even reflect upon their actions.
The main concern for this measure is the fact that they could hurt innocent people not involved in these claims, as a result of a lead scientist displaying inappropriate behavior. However, in the grand scheme of things, this could be beneficial in erasing the disproportionate gender numbers found in field of STEM. It might help women feel more encouraged to enter the field. A common misconception about the lack of women in the field is stemmed from their disinterest in the sciences. But this is not the case. In fact, there are many women who do not enter the field because they feel intimidated by the number of men in the field, and the sexist comments and encounters that may bring.
Ultimately, this measure could help to counter the gender biases found in the scientific community. Hopefully, even the idea there will be consequences for these men will make more women in science feel comfortable in the field. In addition, withdrawing funding from the predator could result in funding opportunities opening up for those who don’t often receive them — maybe even more women. And creating more leadership opportunities for women in research is certainly a step in the right direction.
While there are many universities who have the potential to lose funding as more of these stories come out, this is a critical issue. A severe consequence like this could be the most effective way allegations of this nature should be dealt with, even if it is at the cost of others. Ultimately, this ruling is a decision that makes universities more accountable for sexual harassment claims filed against their faculty and potentially establish clearer firing policies when allegations like these surface.
