Each of the paragraphs below uses information from Stephanie Riger’s "Sexual Harassment: When Is Offensiveness a Civil Offense?" (in Writing Arguments, pp. 607-622). More specifically, each paragraph takes information from pp. 609-611 of the article. Note how each paragraph uses the source. Note especially the differences between the last paragraph and the others. Where do the plagiarized and inaccurate paragraphs go wrong? (NOTE: All the paragraphs use MLA-style documentation.)

The differences between men and women in the interpretation of the definition of sexual harassment is the first way that bias affects sexual harassment policies in the workplace (Riger 609). The definition most used in harassment policies is that provided by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and courts employ "the reasonable person rule" when deciding whose standards to use to judge cases of alleged harassment (Riger 609-610). But according to Riger, gender differences make it difficult to apply the reasonable person rule (610). Women are more likely to see more subtle behavior as harassment than men, but men have more power typically than women in organizations (610-611). So, men’s definition of harassment is more likely to predominate (611).

One way in which there is discrimination in the handling of sexual harassment is in the definition of harassment itself. Most organizations rely on the definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and most court cases use "the reasonable person rule" to decide if sexual harassment has indeed occurred in a particular case (Riger 610). But people of different genders might look at the same case of alleged harassment and come to opposite conclusions about whether harassment has occurred. A reasonable man and a reasonable woman might come to opposite conclusions when looking at the very same case. But male norms of sexual harassment are more likely to be used in the workplace, because men are usually the ones in positions of power.

Riger says that sexual harassment policies are discriminatory, because men do not understand harassment (610). She says that the definition of harassment is a male definition, dictated to us by the Equal Employment Opportunity Program and by the courts (610-611). The courts use "the reasonable person rule," but, Riger argues, the reasonable person rule is really just the reasonable man rule (610). Since men do not understand harassment, women alone should decide when harassment has occurred (Riger 611). Riger maintains that men just think a woman was asking for it if she is harassed (610).

Riger argues that "gender bias affects sexual harassment policies" because of "differences between men and women in the interpretation of the definition of harassment" (609). Organizations usually use the definition of harassment "provided by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1980) guidelines" (Riger 609), and "courts employ the reasonable person rule" (Riger 610). "The variable that most consistently predicts variation in people’s definition of sexual harassment is the sex of the rater. . . . These gender differences make it difficult to apply the reasonable person rule" (Riger 610). So, women’s views as "sexual teasing or looks or gestures" aren’t viewed as harassment (Riger 610), but in the article, it says, "men’s judgments about what behavior constitutes harassment, and who is to blame, are likely to prevail" (611). As the following quote shows, the definition of sexual harassment is not objective. "Definitions of sexual harassment are socially constructed, varying not only with characteristics of the perceiver but also those of the context and actors involved" (Riger 610).

One way in which Riger sees discrimination in the handling of sexual harassment is in the definition of sexual harassment itself. Most organizations rely on the definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and most court cases use "the reasonable person rule" to decide if sexual harassment has indeed occurred in a particular case (Riger 609-610). But as Riger points out, "[t]he variable that most consistently predicts variation in people’s definition of sexual harassment is the sex of the rater. . . . These gender differences make it difficult to apply the reasonable person rule" (610). Two people of different genders might look at the same case of alleged harassment and come to opposite conclusions about whether sexual harassment has occurred. A woman, according to Riger, is much more likely to identify "sexual teasing or looks or gestures" as sexual harassment, for example (610). But male norms of sexual harassment are more likely to be used throughout the workplace, because "men typically have more power in organizations" (Riger 611).

Click here to go to the course syllabus.