Sexual harassment—broadly defined as unwelcome sexual conduct that affects an individual’s employment, education, or living environment—remains a persistent and pernicious problem in both workplaces and institutions of higher learning. Scholarship over the past five decades has established sexual harassment as not only a violation of individual dignity but also a structural form of sex discrimination that reproduces inequalities in opportunity, career progression, and educational attainment (MacKinnon, 1979). Recent syntheses emphasize that, despite legal advances and policy attention, prevalence remains high and prevention efforts are often fragmented, underscoring the need for comprehensive, evidence-based frameworks tailored to organizational contexts (Crusto, Hooper, & Arora, 2024).
Definitions, Typologies, and Conceptual Foundations
Scholarly and policy treatments typically distinguish three overlapping categories of sexual harassment: (a) gender harassment (hostile, derogatory or objectifying conduct), (b) unwanted sexual attention (repeated or invasive sexual advances), and (c) sexual coercion (quid pro quo conduct tied to employment or academic rewards) (National Academies; cited in Crusto et al., 2024). These categories capture both subtle forms (e.g., jokes, comments) and overt conduct (e.g., coercive propositions, assault), allowing empirical work to map effects across a behavioral spectrum and to connect individual experiences with institutional dynamics (Crusto et al., 2024). The foundational legal and theoretical argument that sexual harassment operates as sex-based discrimination was articulated in early feminist legal scholarship, which reframed harassment from an interpersonal problem to a systemic manifestation of workplace inequality (MacKinnon, 1979).
Prevalence and Contextual Variation
Empirical studies demonstrate that sexual harassment persists across sectors and educational settings, albeit with considerable variation by context, identity, and methodological approach (Crusto et al., 2024). Higher-education environments are frequently identified as high-risk sites because of entrenched power asymmetries (faculty-student, supervisor-trainee), precarious employment structures (adjuncts, postdoctoral scholars), and organizational cultures that can normalize boundary violations. Crusto and colleagues observe that sexual harassment in institutions of higher education remains “an intractable problem that harms the students, community, culture, and success of institutes of higher education” (Crusto et al., 2024, p. 501). This observation aligns with broader literature documenting sizable proportions of students and staff who report exposure to harassment, with especially elevated risk among women and marginalized gender identities.
Institutional Dynamics and Power Relations
The mechanisms that sustain sexual harassment are primarily institutional. Power differentials (hierarchical authority, gatekeeping over career advancement), organizational tolerance (implicit norms that minimize complaints), and opaque reporting processes create environments in which harassment is underreported and inadequately remedied. MacKinnon’s seminal work reframed these dynamics by arguing that sexual harassment must be understood through the lens of structural sex discrimination: practices and norms within institutions can render certain groups vulnerable, thereby reproducing gendered disadvantage (MacKinnon, 1979). Contemporary analyses build on this foundation by situating harassment within ecological and prevention frameworks that account for individual, relational, organizational, and societal layers of causation. Such multi-level analyses highlight that interventions focused solely on individual education or complaint procedures are unlikely to produce durable reductions without concurrent institutional reform (Crusto et al., 2024).
Consequences for Individuals and Organizations
The adverse outcomes of sexual harassment are well documented. Individuals subjected to harassment commonly report psychological distress (anxiety, depression), diminished academic or work performance, career interruptions, and increased turnover intentions. Organizations likewise incur tangible costs: lower productivity, higher attrition, legal liabilities, and reputational harm. These consequences compound over time, producing both immediate harms to victims and long-term institutional deficits in equity and talent retention. Because these harms disproportionately affect women and gender minorities, sexual harassment operates as both an individual welfare issue and an obstacle to organizational diversity and inclusion goals (MacKinnon, 1979; Crusto et al., 2024).
Legal and Policy Frameworks: Strengths and Limitations
Legal recognition of sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination has been a crucial development, facilitating remedies and signaling institutional accountability. However, legal and policy instruments are necessary but not sufficient. MacKinnon’s early legal scholarship illuminated the limits of doctrinal remedies when organizational structures and cultures tacitly endorse harassment; law may offer recourse for discrete incidents but struggles to transform institutional norms (MacKinnon, 1979). More recent policy critiques echo this concern, noting that compliance-oriented strategies (e.g., mandated trainings, complaint forms) can be superficial if not embedded within sustained prevention designs that address root causes and measure outcomes (Crusto et al., 2024).
Prevention and Institutional Response: Evidence and Best Practices
Moving from remediation to prevention requires a strategic, evidence-based approach. Crusto and colleagues propose applying prevention science to higher education: a multi-step, ecological framework that identifies risk and protective factors across levels, tests interventions experimentally or quasi-experimentally, and prioritizes cultural competence, trauma-informed practice, and sustainability (Crusto et al., 2024). Core elements of an effective institutional strategy include leadership commitment, transparent reporting and sanctioning mechanisms, regular climate assessment, bystander intervention programming that targets normative change (especially among dominant groups), and integration of prevention into broader organizational missions. Importantly, prevention frameworks must be adaptable to institutional diversity (e.g., small colleges, research universities, workplaces) and attentive to intersectional vulnerabilities that amplify risk.
Research Gaps and Methodological Considerations
Despite substantial progress in defining and documenting sexual harassment, methodological gaps persist. These include heterogeneity in operational definitions, reliance on cross-sectional self-report surveys, limited longitudinal and experimental evidence on causal mechanisms, and underrepresentation of marginalized populations in many samples. The translation of prevention science into rigorously evaluated interventions remains especially underdeveloped; Crusto et al. (2024) emphasize the relative paucity of empirically supported, scalable prevention programs tailored to higher-education contexts. To advance both knowledge and practice, researchers should prioritize standardized measurement, longitudinal designs, and randomized or high-quality quasi-experimental evaluations of multi-level interventions.
Conclusion
Sexual harassment in workplaces and educational institutions is a structurally embedded problem that implicates law, organizational culture, and public health. Classic theoretical interventions—most notably MacKinnon’s argument that harassment constitutes sex discrimination—remain foundational for understanding the systemic character of the problem (MacKinnon, 1979). Contemporary work urges a shift from reactive, compliance-based responses toward prevention science frameworks that systematically target risk and protective factors at multiple ecological levels (Crusto et al., 2024). For institutions committed to equity and safety, the task is to integrate leadership, evidence-based programming, measurement, and cultural change so that prevention is not episodic but institutionalized. Continued collaboration among scholars, policymakers, and practitioners will be essential to develop, evaluate, and scale interventions that meaningfully reduce harassment and its harms.
References
- Crusto, C. A., Hooper, L. M., & Arora, I. S. (2024). Preventing sexual harassment in higher education: A framework for prevention science program development. Journal of Prevention, 45, 501–520.
- MacKinnon, C. A. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex discrimination. Yale University Press.
