Sexual harassment has become a major topic of discussion and concern recently not because it is a new problem, which it is not, but because of the notoriety given the subject by the Senate confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas and the allegations of Anita Hill raised at those hearings. This event made the nation more aware of the problem and initiated a debate on the subject that continues today. Many businesses have instituted policies regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and what to do about it both before it occurs and after, but many other companies have avoided taking the necessary steps and have either pretended that the problem does not exist or have simply failed to address it. Most business analysts today find that this is not the best approach; that some policy should be developed, implemented, and communicated in the organization both to prevent the problem from developing and to show a commitment to dealing with it if it does.
The Senate hearings that brought this issue to the fore were a mixture of manipulation and honesty, with great uncertainty on the part of the viewing public as to which was which. Joe Klein (1991) noted one effect of the hearings, however unintended: "Obviously, the office watercooler will never be the same--legions of men who thought their come-ons were cool or clever, or welcome, will think twice before they pat their next tush or crack their next joke" (p. 31). In truth, this is not certain at all, and the argument that has proceeded since shows that there is no certainty that the business community has been sufficiently sensitized to the nature and scope of the problem so that it will be controlled in the future.
Solomon (1991) notes that the hearings started a passionate debate across the country and even around the world: "They served to show just how differently men and women experience certain key events" (p. 32). Solomon finds in several companies that what ...