Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why women don’t report sexual harassment: A case study of an elite military institution

Gender Issues volume 21, pages 3–30 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

Sexual harassment affects the lives of women in a variety of organizational settings, and the United States military has been no exception. While several studies have documented the prevalence of women’s experiences with harassment among both the enlisted and officer ranks, little is known about women who are being trained to serve as future officers while attending the U.S. Department of Defense service academies. This paper summarizes the findings of a case study of the U.S. Naval Academy to examine the extent to which women experience sexually harassing behaviors and to analyze women's responses to harassment, focusing specifically on their reasons for not filing grievances. Drawing from survey and interview data, findings reveal that 96.8 percent of Academy women experienced some form of sexual harassment within a six-month period, while 48.4 percent reported experiencing harassment on a recurring basis. Despite the pervasiveness of harassment as well as the Academy’s provision of avenues for filing grievances, only 26 cases were formally reported within a five-year period. Women discussed two potential consequences of filing grievances, both of which prevented them from reporting incidents: the perception that nothing would be done and the possibility of negative repercussions, including social ostracism and retaliation. Moreover, the aforementioned consequences appear to be linked to the following aspects of Academy life: the midshipman chain of command as the dominant form of social organization, an informal code of silence that permeates Academy culture, and women's status as outsiders in a male-dominated institution. These findings suggest that any meaningful attempt to assist Academy students in responding to harassment should include policies that address women's social isolation as well as eliminating the student chain of command as a primary course of action in filing grievances.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Akerstrom, M. 1991. Betrayal and Betrayers: The Sociology of Treachery. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antecol, H., & Cobb-Clark, D. 2001. “Men, Women, and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military.” Gender Issues, 19: 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, W., & Dobrofsky, L. 1978. “Military Socialization and Masculinity.” Journal of Social Issues, 34: 131–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becraft, C. 1992. “Women in the Military 1980–1990,” Women & Criminal Justice, 4: 137–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benokraitis, N.V., & Feagin, J.R. 1995. Modern Sexism: Blatant, Subtle, and Covert Discrimination. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodnar, J.W. 1999. “How Long Does It Take to Change a Culture? Integration at the U.S. Naval Academy.” Armed Forces & Society, 25: 289–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, C. 2000. “How Can She Claim Equal Rights When She Doesn't Have to Do as Many Push-Ups as I Do?’ The Framing of Men's Opposition to Women's Equality in the Military.” Men and Masculinities 3: 131–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, M., & Collinson, D. 1996. “It's Only Dick: The Sexual Harassment of Women Managers in Insurance Sales.” Work Employment & Society, 10: 29–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, A. 1997. “Legal Theories of Sexual Harassment.” In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexual Harassment: Theory, Research, and Treatment (pp. 50–82). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, C.L., & Davidson, M.J. 2000. “The Rights of Passage? The Experiences of Female Pilots in Commercial Aviation.” Feminism & Psychology, 10: 195–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCoster, S., Estes, S.B., & Mueller, C.W. 1999. “Routine Activities and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace.” Work and Occupations, 26: 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFleur, L.B. 1985. “Organizational and Ideological Barriers to Sex Integration in Military Groups.” Work and Occupations, 12: 206–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFleur, L.B., & Gillman, D. 1978. “Cadet Beliefs, Attitudes, and Interactions during the Early Phases of Sex Integration.” Youth and Society, 10: 165–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot, G., & Peniston-Bird, C. 2000. A Soldier and a Woman: Sexual Integration in the Military. New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Disher, S.H. 1998. First Class: Women Joint the Ranks at the Naval Academy. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiTomaso, N. 1991. “Sexuality in the Workplace: Discrimination and Harassment.” In J. Hearn, D.L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff, & G. Burrell (Eds.), The Sexuality of Organization (pp. 71–90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durning, K.P. 1978. “Women at the Naval Academy.” Armed Forces & Society, 21: 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. EEOC Guidelines 29 C.F.R. Section 1604, 193 203.

  • Firestone, J.M., & Harris, R.J. 1994. “Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military; Environmental, and Individual Contexts,” Armed Forces & Society, 21: 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1997. “Organizational Climate, Leadership, and Individual Responses to Sexual Harassment in the Active Duty Military.” Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 25: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1999. “Changes in Patterns of Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: A Comparison of the 1988 and 1995 DOD Surveys.” Armed Forces & Society, 25: 613–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. 1973. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grauerholz, E. 1996. Sexual Harassment in the Academy: The Case of Women Professors. In Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies (pp. 29–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grauerholz, L., Gottfried, H., Stohl, C., & N. Gabin. 1999. “There's Safety in Numbers: Creating a Campus Advisers' Network to Help Complainants of Sexual Harassment and Complaint Receivers.” Violence against Women, 5: 950–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, J.E. 1988. “The Impact of Male Work Environments and Organizational Policies on Women's Experiences of Sexual Harassment.” Gender & Society, 12: 301–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, J.E., & Bjorn, L. 1986. “Women's Responses to Sexual Harassment: An Analysis of Sociocultural, Organizational, and Personal Resource Models.” Social Science Quarterly, 67: 814–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B.A. 1985. Sex and the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R.J., & Firestone, J.M. 1997. “Subtle Sexism in the U.S. Military: Individual Responses to Sexual Harassment.” In N. Benokraitis (ed.), Subtle Sexism: Current Practices and Prospects for Change (pp. 154–169). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, W.P. 1992. “Police Who Snitch: Deviant Actors in a Secret Society,” Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13: 253–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J.O., & Sandler, B.R. September 1988. Peer Harassment: Hassles for Women on Campus. Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American College.

  • Kanter, R.M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. 2000. “Saving the Males: The Sociological Implications of the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel.” Gender & Society, 14: 494–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFontaine, E., & Trudeau, L. 1986. “The Frequency, Sources, and Correlates of Sexual Harassment among Women in Traditional Male Occupations.” Sex Roles, 15: 433–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leemon, Thomas A. 1972. The Rites of Passage in a Student Culture: A Study of the Dynamics of Transition. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, J.A. 1982. “Responses to Sexual Harassment on the Job: Legal, Organization, and Individual Actions.” Journal of Social Issues, 38: 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, L. 1998. “Women in the Military.” In C. B. Costello, S. E. Miles, & A.J. Stone (eds.), The American Woman 1999–2000: A Century of Change—What's Next? (pp. 345–56). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L.L. 1998a. “Feminism and the Exclusion of Army Women from Combat.” Gender Issues, 16:33–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1998b. “Not Just Weapons of the Weak: Gender Harassment as a Form of Protest for Army Men.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 16: 33–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskos, C. 1971. “Minority Groups in Military Organizations.” In R. Little (ed.), Handbook of Military Institutions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niebuhr, R.E. 1997. “Sexual Harassment in the Military.” In W. O'Donohue (ed.) Sexual Harassment: Theory, Research, and Treatment (pp. 250–262). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Connell, C.E., & Korabik, K. 2000. “Sexual Harassment: The Relationship of Personal Vulnerability, Work Context, Perpetrator Status, and Type of Harassment to Outcomes,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56: 299–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill, W.L. 1998. “Sex Scandals in the Gender-Integrated Military.” Gender Issues, 16: 64–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pershing, J.L. 2001. “Gender Disparities in Enforcing the Honor Concept at the U.S. Naval Academy.” Armed Forces & Society, 27: 419–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. “Whom to Betray? Self-Regulation of Occupational Misconduct at the United States Naval Academy.” Deviant Behavior, 23: 149–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. “To Snitch or Not to Snitch? Applying the Concept of Neutralization Techniques to the Enforcement of Occupational Misconduct.” Sociological Perspectives, 46: 149–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pershing, J.L. 2001. Forthcoming. “Men and Women's Experiences with Hazing in a Male-Dominated elite Military Isntitution.” Men and Masculinities.

  • Priest, R.F., Prince, H.T., & Vitters, A.G. 1978. “The First Coed Class at West Point.” Youth and Society, 10: 205–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Law 94-106 (01 U.S.C. 6954).

  • Ragins, B.R., & Sandura, T.A. 1995. “Antecedents and Work-Related Correlates of Reproted Sexual Harassment: An Empirical Investigation of Competing Hypotheses.” Sex Roles, 32: 429–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, L.N., & Martin, L. 1997. “Sexual Harassment, Cohesion, and Combat Readiness in U.S. Army Support Units.” Armed Forces & Society, 24: 221–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, M.W., & Hansen, A.F. 1992. “Value Rationales in Policy Debates on Women in the Military: A Content Analysis of Congressional Testimony.” Social Sciences Quarterly, 73: 296–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, D.L. 1991. Sexual Harassment: Research and Resources. New York, NY: National Council for Research on Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, P.M. 1988. “Sex Roles in the Military.” In C.C. Moskos, & Woods, F.R. (Eds.), The Military; More Than Just a Job? (pp. 99–113). New York, NY: Pergamon-Brassey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood, W.L. 1989. The Naval Academy Handbook. Litchfield Park, AZ: Beacon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, G., and Gardner, S. 1987. “But Can She Command a Ship? Acceptance of Women by Peers at the Coast Guard Academy.” Sex Roles, 16: 181–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiehm, J.H. 1996. It's Our Military Too! Women and the U.S. Military. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A.L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer, S.A. 1949. The American Soldier: Adjustment during Army Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. 1993. Naval Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. Document #GAO/NSIAD-93-54. Washington D.C., U.S. General Accounting Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1994. DOD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual Harassment. Document #GAO/NSIAD-94-6. Washington D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1995. DOD Service Academies: Comparison of Honor and Conduct Adjudicatory Processes. Document #GAO/NSIAD-95-49. Washington D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Naval Academy. 1989. Reef Points 1989–1990: The Annual Handbook of the Brigade of Midshipmen. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1991. Communication and Planning for Leaders: NL 301. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1996–1997. United States Naval Academy: 1996–1997 Catalog. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. 1983. Controlling Unlawful Organizational Behavior: Social Structure and Corporate Misconduct. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Violanti, M.T. 1996. “Hooked on Expectations: An Analysis of Influence and Relationships in the Tailhook Reports.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 24: 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, M.S., & Williams, C.J. 1972. “Fieldwork among Deviants: Social Relations with Subjects and Others.” In J.D. Douglas (ed.), Research on Deviance (pp. 165–86). New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C.L. 1997. “Sexual Harassment in Organizations: A Critique of Current Research and Policy.” Sexuality & Culture, 1: 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J., Sharkansky, E.J., Read, J.P., Dawson, R.E., Martin, J.A. & Quimette, P.C. 1998. “Sexual Harassment and Assualt as Predictors of PTSD Symptomatology among U.S. Female Persian Gulf War Military Personnel”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13: 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarbrough, J. 1985. “The Feminist Mistake: Sexual Equality and the Decline of the American Military.” Policy Review, 33: 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J.D., Adams, J., & Prince, H.T. 1983. “The Price of a Token.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 11: 325–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Jana L. Pershing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Jana L. Pershing is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at San Diego State University. Her recent articles have appeared in Sociological Perspectives (2003), Deviant Behavior (2002), and Armed Forces & Society (2001). The present article is based on a larger research project that examines social control within elite military institutions. She can be reached at jpershin@mail.sdsu.edu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pershing, J.L. Why women don’t report sexual harassment: A case study of an elite military institution. Gend. Issues 21, 3–30 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-003-0008-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-003-0008-x

Keywords

search

Navigation