Sexual harassment from patrons is one of the ugly realities of working in the public library. Unfortunately, Library World
¹ has been stuck for several decades at the "acknowledgement" phase of this issue. We are aware of the problem, but the best the field has to offer is strategies on how individual library workers might deal with an individual harasser.

as a feminist, a survivor, and a librarian... i don't think that's good enough.

As a response, i did the most Librarian™ thing imaginable: i did some research. this document is the result.

It draws on both the limited extant research/discussion of sexual harassment in public libraries (remember, we've been stuck in the acknowledgement phase for years) and other research on sexual harassment in different disciplines/fields (psychology, higher education, organizational psychology, etc). It's also remarkably transferable, since we're still trapped in a patriarchal hellscape.

In a less worse world, this research would form the basis of a massive research project to document the true extend of sexual harassment in public libraries and a framework to create meaningful and lasting change in how sexual harassment is addressed in Library World. Unfortunately, i'm just some bitch with a website and a studio apartment, so this is all i'm able to do.

i've included links to my sources when i am able and DOI numbers when i am not.

And if you're a library worker reading this... you deserve respect, dignity, and safety at work. i believe you. And i'm so sorry.

“The Effects of Sexual Harassment, Assault, and Objectification on the Self” by Eric D. Wesselmann, Maayan Dvir, Janice R. Kelly, and John B. Pryor. Self and Identity, Volume 20, Issue 7, 2012.

DOI: 10.1080/15298868.2021.1882551

"Sexual objectification is an umbrella term for a diverse range of experiences that make someone feel as if they are merely a body that exists for the use and pleasure of others” (p. 841, emphasis added)
i cannot express in words how deeply violating, humiliating, and alienating it is to approach a patron in good faith and then have it met with inappropriate comments or their hands on my body. these feelings are intensified further when i reach out for help and receive dismissal and/or excuses for my harassers.

“Sexual Harassment at University of California Libraries: Understanding the Experiences of Library Staff Members” by Jill Barr-Walker, Courtney Hoffner, Elizabeth McMunn-Tetangco, & Nisha Mody, College & Research Libraries, 2021

“Men on my staff are allowed to express strong opinions, even if they are counter to the opinions of our administration. When women have done this, they are shut down immediately and written off” (p. 1)
this reflects my own experience of being labeled noncompliant, hysterical, and difficult to work with after speaking up. Meanwhile, men within the library world can express nearly identical positions and be publicly praised for their bravery by managers and directors.

“Within the library setting, there is some evidence that a certain amount of sexual harassment is normalized... 63 percent of public library respondents encountered sexual harassment at work, and the second survey recieved more than 250 responses to a call asking for librarians to submit stories about sexual harassment experiences” (p. 3)

• From Fig. 6 on p. 10-11: “Reasons Why Respondents Chose Not to Report or Disclose Their Experience of Harassment at UC Libraries”
• 11.5%: Fear or worry; fear of retaliation; embarrassed; didn’t want to be seen as a troublemaker
• 17.3%:
  Nothing will change; wouldn’t be taken seriously; don’t trust HR
  • “Nothing will change” is the child of “Nothing we can do.” If all we ever hear when we raise concerns is “Nothing we can do,” why would we ever believe that anything can change?
  • 41.2%: Not egregious enough; not significant; not considered sexual harassment
  • 18.5%: Other reasons; generational or cultural; too much hassle
  • 11.5%: Lack of info or resources; didn’t know where to report; not enough evidence
    • i have spoken to colleagues who have been explicitly told by their managers not to write reports about harassment that they experienced. When the harassment escalated, the lack of previous reports was used as a justification by managers and leaders not to take substantiatial action against their harassers. who does this inaction serve?
    • At no point in my own career in libraries was i ever formally trained on how to write and document incidents. The closest i have ever come to getting this kind of formal training was a slideshow presented in the course of a regular staff meeting. i was able to draw on my own prior experience working as a victim advocate, but not everyone has that experience.

  “While 66 percent of respondents felt that addressing sexual harassment at UC Libraries was very important to them, only 45 percent felt that their UC campus administration considered this issue to be very important, and fewer (43%) felt that their own campus library administration considered this issue very important” (p. 12)
  My experiences in the library world leads me to believe that none of our purported leaders truly take harassment seriously.

  “Administration does not seem to treat complaints from staff as seriously as they do from students” (p. 16)
  In practice, the safety of library workers is at best an afterthought, coming far behind that of patron safety.

  “When I told my supervisor the response was ‘Oh, that’s just how they act; no need to worry’ or ‘Okay, I will pass on the info’ with no follow-up'” (p. 17)
  these two are Certified Library Leader Classics™. If i had a dollar for every time i'd heard these two falling from the lips of an administrator with no other meaningful support, i'd be able to put a significant dent in my student loan debt.

  “In the case of our study, if a UC campus does not recognize the importance and impact of sexual harassment, it can be difficult to foster trust and accountability throughout the system, requiring these qualities to stem from leadership beyond the library organization” (p. 19)

  "We Can Do Better—Best (And Worst) Practices for Managers Responding to Sexual Harassment Claims" by Katie Horner, Public Libraries Online, 2021

  “Managers have a responsibility to create a safe work environment for their staff, and we cannot recuse ourselves from that ”
  Statements such as “there’s nothing we can do” and “that’s just how it is in public service” are an attempt to shirk that responsibility. Who does that serve?

  "“... libraries are able to set their own guidelines and consequences for patron behavior, and a patron’s behavior doesn’t have to meet a legal definition for it to be inappropriate”

  “... anyone can be subject to harassment from patrons, regardless of gender”

  "It doesn’t matter who the staff member is, or who the patron is. If a patron makes a staff member feel uncomfortable, managers have a responsibility to take the situation seriously”

  "“If you trust your staff to interact professionally with patrons, why would you immediately jump to the conclusion that your staff member is at fault when they report harassment?... Your staff are not responsible for managing a patron’s behavior, especially not with their clothes”
  You might be reading the quotes above with a sinking feeling, and i hate to be the one to inform you that, yes, there are library workers who get to experience the delightful double whammy of being sexually harassed by patrons and then blamed, implicitly or explicitly, for that harassment by their managers. it's not always the dress code, either. sometimes it's subtler-- you weren't following your Ryan Dowd training, you weren't maintaining sufficient boundaries, you weren't professional enough... the list goes on. somehow, the patron is not responsible for the action they took.

  “... if I’m uncomfortable with someone hugging me, touching me, or making comments about my appearance, then that takes precedence over the patron’s desire to say or do those things to me”
  The "customer service" model pushed in much of Library World makes it that much harder to maintain any type of boundary. Setting a boundary of any kind means putting yourself first. Customer service in practice means putting the customer first. It's diametrically opposed to even simple boundaries like "do not touch my body" or "do not comment on my appearance."

  “... our patrons are perfectly aware of what era they’re living in. Times change, and people are expected to change with it”

  “... in the ‘document everything’ mantra, documenting incidents, even minor ones, creates a written record in case a patron’s behavior continues or escalates or in case multiple staff members report the same problematic behavior from the same patron”
  The "Document Everything" strategy is a great start-- indeed, i would argue that it's the absolute bare minimum of any response to harassment. but to ensure that this works in your corner of Library World, you need to ask yourself three major questions:
  

  1. Do all of your workers have access to your system for reporting harassment? This includes not just access to the digital or physical platform² used for incidents, but time off the floor and away from patrons to do the reporting.
  2. Do all of your workers have training for how to report harassment using those systems?
  3. Do all of your managers and supervisors encourage workers to report all incidents of harassment? This goes beyond not actively discouraging reports³; what are your managers and supervisors doing to actually support workers in this process?

  “... it is critically important that all library managers and administrators proactively educate themselves on how BIPOC and LGBTQ people experience harassment, and to create a safe environment for any current and future staff to report these issues without fear of repercussion, judgement, or being outed”

  “Before making any changes to safety procedures or protocol, get input from the staff that will be affected... when it comes to staff safety, you can’t cut corners just because you don’t have to directly deal with the repercussions"
  Leaders do not have any accountability for the decisions they make. The conditions of our work are set by people who do not have to do it and are not interested in doing so.

  “... you matter, and your safety is important. Even if you don’t feel like your administrators are supporting you, it’s essential for you to prioritize your wellbeing and remember that you deserve to be treated with respect at work

  “Out of Bounds: Sexual Harassment from Patrons in the Public Library” by Maggie Grabmeier, MLIS candidate at University of Wisconsin – Madison (2023)

  “... sexual harassment from patrons is a significant issue that is distinct from other types of harassment because of the culture surrounding public libraries and their workers... the public perception of the library as a feminized space, or a space stewarded by women, can make some patrons feel entitled to take advantage of library workers’ customer service attitude and willingness to help by violating our boundaries”...No matter how great a library’s policies, or how strong a worker’s boundaries, there may be people who will continue to harass or endanger staff” (p. 1)
  Acknowledging this reality is not an invitation to give up and accept these behaviors as normal.

  “’Feminized professions—including nursing, social work, and paralegals—are predominantly service-, support-, and care-oriented, and often require more intensive affective labor’” (Higgins, quoted on p. 2)

  Emotional labor: “’editing your emotions in order to have an effect on the emotions of other people” (Reese, quoted on p. 3)

  "Emotional labor is often also used as a strategy to deescalate experiences of harassment, reinforcing uncomfortable behavior in patrons”(p. 3)
  Is it reasonable to expect us to deescalate and manage the emotions of the people that are harassing us?

  “If workers come to expect harassment, or internalize a belief that harassment is just part of the job, patrons may come to feel comfortable that they will not face repercussions for harassing us... If library workers are not adequately prepared for the reality that we may be victims of sexual harassment at any moment, we may not have the tools, resources, and responses to take care of our emotional and physical needs in traumatic situations” (p. 3)

  “The culture and policies at public libraries must encourage advocacy and boundary-setting so employees feel supported and prepared to handle issues of sexual harassment. Because frontline library staff often don’t have institutional power, it is up to a library’s leadership to strongly embody values of boundaries and safety, communicate policies clearly, and listen empathetically to victims of harassment to ensure workers feel seen and supported when issues of sexual harassment arise” (p. 6-7)

  “With the mindset that any report of sexual harassment is valid... leaders can begin to enact changes in policy and culture to support their workers” (p. 7)

  "“Frontline staff should also be consulted on the creation of policies that affect their safety, as they know intimately what dangers and discomfort library workers face” (p. 7)
  Library workers know what we face every day. When do we have the opportunity to be treated as experts on our own experiences?

  “... an institution should make it a priority to document in detail what happened and store incident reports. By encouraging the creation of incident reports, leadership sets the example that speaking about sexual harassment is welcome and that managers are listening and setting consequences into motion when boundaries are crossed” (p. 7-8)

  Trauma stewardship “explores the intersection of deeply engaging in a helping profession with caring for the emotional toll this kind of work can take” (p. 8)
  Here are some examples of supports that might be beneficial for library workers:

  • Therapy available to all workers
  • Ample & unquestioned sick/vacation time
  • Encouraging & enforcing manageable workloads
  
  How many of them are available to the average library worker?

  “Drawing the Line: How the Workplace Shapes the Naming of Sexual Harassment” by Phoebe Strom, Christopher J. Collins, Ariel C. Avgar, & Katherine Ryan. Personnel Psychology, 2023.

  “... workplace sexual harassment has strong negative effects on individuals as those affected by it are more likely to experience a wide range of adverse health outcomes, work disengagement, decreased performance, and turnover” (p. 114)

  DOI: 10.1111/peps.12496

  "Workplace sexual harassment also negatively impacts organizations, leading to lower productivity, impaired team functioning, decreased employee morale, extensive turnover-related costs, reputational damage, and potentially expensive litigation” (p. 114)

  “Sexual harassment ‘naming’-- the process by which individuals identify and label experiences as sexual harassment... We distinguish naming research from research on both sexual harassment reporting— which focuses on what happens after one has identified sexual harassment and decided to pursue redress—and from research on sexual harassment occurrence—which is interested in the frequency of sexual harassment in the workplace and its antecedents, outcomes, and potential interventions” (p. 114)
  Naming must happen before reporting and intervention can meaningfully happen. We cannot report and intervene on what we cannot name.

  “It is likely that individuals’ understanding of what ‘counts’ as sexual harassment is shaped by their workplace experiences... research on sexual harassment occurrence has indicated to the role of several key organizational factors: Climate of tolerance for sexual harassment; Gendered work environment" (p. 114)

  “... expectations set by prior work experience in a highly sexually harassing industry have lasting negative effects on individuals’ identification of sexual harassment” (p. 115)
  Are we creating a feedback loop when our workers move on to other workplaces?

  "“Specifically, we argue that a bundle of HR practices that includes (1) organizational policies against harassment, (2) employee voice, and (3) empowerment of potentially vulnerable employees sends clear, strong signals that increase individuals’ propensity to name sexual harassment. Further, we argue that individuals’ perceptions of the presence of this bundle of HR practices have the potential to socialize and reinforce expected behaviors leading to a climate that can reduce the negative effects of current industry institutional forces” (p. 115)

  “... individual naming of sexual harassment behaviors influences: Harassers’ willingness to engage in harassing behaviors; Victims’ likelihood of speaking up about or reporting harassment; Third-parties' inclination to intervene to stop harassment and support victims” (p. 115)
  If these behaviors have been normalized as “part of working with the public,” then what reason do we have to intervene?

  “...ambiguity around what constitutes sexual harassment creates plausible deniability for perpetrators, allowing them to excuse or justify their actions” (p. 115)
  This makes me think of the preemptive justifications we often hear about harassing behaviors: “It’s a cultural thing/it’s their age/they mean well, etc.” I have heard these justifications both from supervisors and from my fellow workers. These justifications are a learned behavior. Why do we let them persist?

  “... individuals vary widely in their propensity to name sexual harassment behaviors, despite federal laws... propensity to identify these behaviors may be the product of interpretation rather than mere definitional knowledge. Given the importance of naming, it is imperative that we understand the factors that facilitate or inhibit identification of sexual harassment behaviors” (p. 116)
  Knowing the definition doesn’t translate to recognizing it in the real world. How do we make it real?

  “Patterns of interactions, actions, and lore can build up within an industry to produce shared expectations across organizations, which work to shape and constrain individuals’ understandings of ‘acceptable’ workplace behavior” (p. 116)
  This is part of the chain of transmission for normalizing sexual harassment from the public. It’s discussed casually, as an irritating but inevitable work hazard, like aching feet or paper cuts.

  “Through constant exposure to sexually harassing behaviors, signals that these behaviors are acceptable (from industry mentors, company leaders, and industry publications and associations), and the overall reputation of the industry (as filtered through media, family, and friends), sexually harassing behaviors are rendered part of the daily backdrop of work” (p. 117)

  “... the reinforcement of sexual harassment minimization across multiple industries may make it more difficult to shed their normalization of sexual harassment or recognize that this is out-of-sync with other industry and professional cultures” (p. 118)

  “... individuals who work in an organization with formal policies that are actively enforced will be more likely to identify sexual harassment when they see it” (p. 119)
  How many library workers can describe their institution's sexual harassment policies as "actively enforced" against patrons?

  "... the presence of formalized voice mechanisms, which create opportunities for employees to name harassment and receive recourse, can also influence employee understanding of expected and aberrant behaviors... Organizations can also leverage formal voice mechanism to further define sexual harassment and to signal an openness to hearing employee concerns” (p. 119)

  “... organizational choices about who to employ (specifically in terms of gender and contingent or precarious work) can create environments that foster sexual harassment, a climate for sexual harassment normalization, and employees’ perceptions of the extent to which the company takes sexual harassment seriously... workers in low-status and precarious roles are far less likely to speak up or name sexual harassment"(p. 119-120)
  So much of the daily work of libraries is done by part-time workers, who occupy an inherently precarious position. They receive the least amount of support to do their work, and that lack of support expresses a judgement about who matters. If we are already viewed as replaceable, why would we expect support and safety?

  “... organizational reliance on temporary and/or part-time workers is detrimental to perceptions of employee voice and safety... hiring large numbers of precarious workers can foster an organizational climate that pushes employees to develop a higher threshold for what constitutes sexual harassment, diminishing the extent to which they name behaviors that meet legal definitions... .. organizations that integrate employees more fully into the workforce through full-time and non-contingent work arrangements communicate values of employee empowerment and psychological safety that reinforce the signals of other HR practices demonstrating organizational commitment to combating sexual harassment... ... organizations that integrate employees more fully into the workforce through full-time and non-contingent work arrangements communicate values of employee empowerment and psychological safety that reinforce the signals of other HR practices demonstrating organizational commitment to combating sexual harassment” (p. 120)

  “... organizations that diverge from field-level institutions can actively erode those institutions’ power, overlaying and introducing new norms, thereby transforming or reshaping individual perceptions” (p. 120)
  What if there were a library focused on being an industry leader in workers not being harassed at work? What if we were a library leader in worker safety? What could library workers accomplish if we weren’t carrying the burden of constant and normalized harassment?

  “... by sending strong messages that sexual harassment is not tolerated and providing employees with mechanisms for voice and empowerment, organizations may impact employee sensemaking around sexual harassment and create a climate in which individuals are more likely to identify harassing behaviors” (p. 128)

  “... one of the reasons for the continued prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace may be individuals’ low tendency to label (name) harassing behaviors as harassment. As we noted above, prior research suggests that an individual’s likelihood of challenging harassers, seeking support, or filing official complaints is at least partially dependent upon their propensity to accurately identify sexual harassment when they see it” (p. 130)

  “Institutional Courage Buffers Against Institutional Betrayal, Protects Employee Health, and Fosters Organizational Commitment Following Workplace Sexual Harassment” by Alec M. Smidt, Alexis A. Adams-Clark, and Jennifer J. Freyd. PLoS ONE 18(1), 2023.

  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278830

  “... workplace sexual harassment is associated with lower overall job satisfaction, lower satisfaction with co-workers and supervisors, lower life satisfaction, and decreased psychological and physical well-being among individual employees... even indirect exposure to sexual harassment (e.g., witnessing coworkers be harassed) and a climate of organizational tolerance for sexual harassment (e.g., an environment that does not take seriously reports of harassment were related to negative psychological and workplace outcomes, even after accounting for direct exposure to sexual harassment” (p. 2)
  This is a problem that hits everyone, even people who aren’t being harassed themselves. It is a deep rot within the culture of Library World, and we cannot continue to ignore or accept it.

  “... there is a relationship between individuals and the institutions on which they depend for resources, support, protection, and at times survival. Institutional betrayal occurs when such institutions (e.g., universities, the military, organized religion, and public/private corporations) intentionally or negligently harm their members, breaching this relationship of trust and dependence” (p. 2-3)
  Indifference to our safety is a betrayal of the workers who make our mission possible. Learning that there was a word, a concept, to describe the pain and frustration I feel every time our safety concerns are dismissed felt like letting out a breath I did not know I was holding. Knowing the words does not heal the hurt. But it lets me express them and make them understood.

  “... approximately 45% of women who experienced sexual assault also experienced institutional betrayal. Experiencing institutional betrayal was associated with greater anxiety, dissociation, and sexual problems compared to individuals who had not experienced institutional betrayal” (p. 3)
  Indifference compounds an already traumatic experience, making it harder to recover and return to the work.

  “Research thus far on institutional betrayal has not adequately examined workplace sexual harassment, even though employees who experience sexual harassment may be particularly at risk for institutional betrayal” (p. 3)
  Public libraries would be a prime site for such research.

  “Additional harm may be caused when an employer breaches the trust of its employee by ineffectively preventing or responding to sexual harassment within its organization. In other words, the harm of sexual harassment may not only be related to what happened, but also about what happened next” (p. 3)
  Because we are institutions that is open to the public, we will never be able to control what members of the public choose to do in their interactions with us. But we can choose how we as an institution respond to those interactions. We can choose how we prepare workers for those interactions. We can choose how we support workers after those interactions. We can choose to build a different culture. Right now, we are choosing inaction, and it is destroying us.

  “Institutional courage is ‘accountability, transparency, actively seeking justice, and making reparations where needed...’ “supportively responding to victims and whistleblowers, engaging in self-study, and a culture of transparency at all levels” (p. 3)
  While one might find individual managers or supervisors that are supportive of workers facing harassment, but that is not enough. We need that support to become part of the bedrock of Library World.

  “... because institutional betrayal is associated with psychological and physical harm, it is ‘worth’ reducing institutional betrayal and increasing institutional courage. It is ‘worth’ doing in the sense that reducing harm is a compassionate, moral act” (p. 20)
  Library workers are expected to have endless compassion for patrons, no matter how abusive they are to us. But the leaders in our field extend little to no compassion to us. What we receive instead of compassion is a shocking callousness, particularly coming from a field that deliberately portrays itself as a caring, welcoming place.

  “I Can Protect His Future, but She Can’t Be Helped: Himpathy and Hysteria in Administrator Rationalizations of Institutional Betrayal” by Nicole Bedera. The Journal of Higher Education, 95(1), 2024

  DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2023.2195771

  “If survivors can endure an investigation, universities only hold a few perpetrators accountable per year and prefer lenient sanctions over significant interventions” (p. 30)
  i would love to see data on patrons being suspended or trespassed from public libraries in North America. i'm particularly interested in the number of suspensions and the length of suspensions for harassment compared to other violations of library rules. However, i recognize that this is likely to be extremely difficult due to underreporting of harassment.

  “... administrators’ rationalizations are gendered. Specifically, they use himpathy to define their primary goal as protecting the futures of young men” (p. 31)
  While it isn't a one-to-one match, this rhymes with some of the justifications we hear on behalf of harassing customers: age (“he’s just old”) and our status as a public place (“this is part of working with the public.”)

  “Many schools view betrayal as a fiscally savvy position, citing financial threats to the institution associated with holding a perpetrator accountable, including civil litigation or unflattering attention from donors, alumnae, and prospective students” (p. 32)
  Schools can also be a nonprofit, like libraries. Are workers simply an expense? A burden on the library’s finances?

  “... universities cannot openly promote institutional betrayal as the desired outcome of sexual violence investigations since it would flagrantly violate Title IX. Instead... Title IX staff invoke ‘neutrality’ and ‘orchestrated complexity’ (i.e., inaccurately insisting cases are ‘too complicated’ to get right) to justify betrayal” (p. 32)

  “... men’s violence against women is normalized as ‘not that bad’” (p. 32)
  It is not normal. We have normalized it. We as a field have obfuscated the reality and severity of harassment and make it an accepted part of our work environment.

  “... it is men—in the role of perpetrator—who receive society’s sympathy at the expense of survivors’ wellbeing, a phenomenon Manne (2020) calls ‘himpathy’” (p. 32)
  The normalization and obfuscation of sexual harassment sacrifices the workers being harassed to create a comfortable environment for the harassing customer.

  “... the cultural tendency to sympathize with perpetrators impacts survivors as well—to justify himpathy, victims are often the ones blamed, doubted, or punished... survivors are cast as aggressors, attempting to hurt the accused through reporting” (p. 33)

  “My personal and professional skills have shaped my capacity to recognize gender discrimination, even when it is cloaked in ‘neutral’ language or ‘rational’ organizational processes; however, building those skills required extensive unlearning of the norms of the white patriarchal system in which white women are raised to excuse and normalize white men’s violence” (p. 36)

  “... employees expressed surprise that a large portion of their work was about sexual assault. Many openly disliked this component of their job. For example, administrators complained that their roles felt like ‘oversight of students’ dating lives’ and wished that students would just ‘manage these problems on their own’” (p. 37)
  The leaders of Library World are quite lucky. For the most part, they have gotten a system where library workers manage these issues on their own. We simply grin and bear it through harassment.

  “... administrators dismissed the notion that Title IX investigations mattered for survivors. Instead, they suggested that all reports fit into one of two categories: (1) women’s overly emotional interpretations of a sexual encounter that did not merit university intervention, or (2) violence so severe that no university action could reverse a survivor’s lifelong trauma. As a result, administrators rationalized that refusing to sanction perpetrators of sexual violence was moral—they could do nothing to help a survivor, but they could protect a perpetrator’s education” (p. 37)
  Again, this rhymes with the dismissal of harassment by library leaders. Either harassment is not actually harassment, and therefore not worth addressing, or it is so egregious and pervasive that there’s simply nothing that can be done. Conveniently, both options exonerate those with power from having to act. Harassing customers having access to the library (and library workers to harass) is treated as more important than the right of library workers to a safe work environment.

  “... administrators made little effort to understand the impact of violence on survivors’ lives, but they offered detailed accounts of the struggles perpetrators faced” (p. 38)
  If they knew, they might have to act.

  “To rationalize lenient treatment of the perpetrators they empathized with, administrators regularly minimized the violence that occurred... they drew on racialized stereotypes about ‘predatory’ or ‘creeper in the bushes’ stranger rape that cast white and/or wealthy men as incapable of acting violently” (p. 39)
  Another instance of rhyming—the way I have heard people throughout Library World discuss the difference between “unwelcome comment/conduct” and “harassment” relies on these stereotypes. A patron following you around the stacks or asking you invasive personal questions while you are alone at the desk is mere “unwelcome conduct;” really, anything short of a particularly outré Law & Order: SVU episode is likely to be “unwelcome conduct.” A patron following you to your car, sending mail addressed to you at your workplace with your full legal name, these might qualify as “Harassment.” If it happens more than once. If you're lucky enough for someone to believe you.

  “... they [administrators] believed all parties in sexual violence cases, including survivors who claimed a sexual assault occurred and perpetrators who claimed it did not... they viewed survivors as over-sensitive and traumatized by benign sexual interactions that should not merit punishment” (p. 41)

  “... administrators insisted that Title IX investigations could not reverse a survivor’s trauma and that sanctioning a perpetrator would simply harm two students instead of one” (p. 43)
  Who is the acceptable loss here? Who is being told to accept the harm and stay silent? I ask this from a place of genuine curiosity—what is it that leadership is protecting when they treat sexual harassment this way? Is it their assumption that the entire public is made up of harassers and their enablers, and that thus it is too dangerous to risk offending them as a demographic? Are library workers simply not worth the effort of protecting?

  “... that [doing outreach about the Title IX office to the student body, an effort that was immediately shut down] could be perceived as our office wanting to champion or empower more people to file [complaints]” (p. 46)
  When I and others have asked about starting groups to support library workers who have been harassed, we get told that this is “too narrowly focused.” I wonder if that’s part of a similar fear—we might talk too much about harassment and raise complaints.

  “While it is true that a Title IX investigation—and, specifically, a perpetrator’s removal from campus—cannot ‘undo’ the trauma of rape, it can serve other protective functions for survivors, including intervening on ongoing violence (e.g., intimate partner violence, stalking, retaliation), creating a physically and emotionally safe learning environment, protecting other students from a perpetrator’s potential future violence, and offering justice, which can promote survivors’ sense of value and belonging in their community” (p. 48-49)
  When I see and hear sexual harassment being normalized and downplayed, I feel devalued as a library worker, a survivor, a woman, and a human being.

  “Dangerous Safe Havens: Institutional Betrayal Exacerbates Sexual Trauma” by Carly Parnitzke Smith and Jennifer L. Freyd. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26, 2013.

  DOI: 10.1002/jts.21778

  “A betrayed individual may maintain little or no conscious awareness of abuse, but the traumatic nature of these events cannot often be erased entirely” (p. 119)
  How much of “burnout” is actually a traumatic response to our working conditions?

  “Larger institutions, however, often elicit similar trust and dependency from their members as is found in interpersonal relationships” (p. 119-120)
  Public libraries cultivate an image as trusted, welcoming places. However, this trust and welcome is not extended to the people who work here and make such an image as real as possible.

  “... betrayal trauma theory would predict that sexual assault occurring in a context where one’s safety is dependent on an institution (e.g., the military) would be associated with more difficulties as one continues to try and function in that environment” (p. 120)
  Library workers are harassed by customers and have to return immediately to the floor (if we had the opportunity to leave it in the first place). We watch our colleagues endure harassment and even outright physical assault and are expected to just keep going with a smile.

  “There were at least two important limitations to the current study: a narrow focus on sexual assault as the sole traumatic experience measured and including only women in the sample... Sexual harassment would be a logical extension and research suggests that gender differences could be examined” (p. 123)
  Again, public libraries would be a prime site for this type of research, if anyone had both the resources and the courage to take this on.

  “Race, Threat, and Workplace Sexual Harassment: The Dynamics of Harassment in the United States, 1997-2016" by Dan Cassino and Yasemin Besen-Cassino. Gender Work Organ, 26, 2019.

  DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12394

  “In probability samples, when sexual harassment is not defined in the survey, about 25 per cent of women report having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, a figure that’s consistent across multiple studies. But when respondents are asked about specific behaviors that constitute sexual harassment—such as sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention—the reported rate of sexual harassment among women increased to about 40 per cent” (p. 1222)
  This is the problem of naming once again—we cannot act against what is not named.

  “... it is necessary to examine race, gender, class, and intersecting categories in order to understand oppression... men react to potential loss of relative status by carrying out extreme forms of masculinity” (p. 1223)
  The men at the public library, like many patrons here, often come to us in an extreme position of vulnerability, which could offer a partial explanation for some forms of harassing behavior. However, instead of responding to that with enforcement of applicable policies to curb to harassing the behavior, leaders in Library World use that as part of the reason to excuse or ignore such behavior. Library workers are left to either ignore the behavior or fawn over it in an attempt to manage the harassing patron’s behavior—both of which seem likely to reinforce it instead.

  “... the likelihood that an individual white woman would report sexual harassment to the EEOC dropped by more than 70 per cent between 1996 and 2016, while the rate for African-American women dropped by only 38 per cent... No matter how we slice the data, African-American women are, and have been, much more likely to report sexual harassment than white women” (p. 1228)
  I am asking you to look at who bears the burden? Who is the acceptable loss?

  “... we would expect that women more able to exert power in the workplace would be more willing to report sexual harassment, and as power in a workplace is generally correlated with age, women in their 20s (or younger) should be less willing to report harassment, while women in their 30s and 40s should be more willing, as older women are more likely to have job stability, and/or managerial positions. The fact that trends in complaints by age are strikingly similar for both African-American women and white women indicates that these dynamics are the same across these racial groups” (p. 1229)

  “... a higher unemployment rate in month 1 leads to an increase in the number of reported harassment cases in the following month: if the unemployment rate is about one standard deviation above the mean for the period... we could expect that reported sexual harassment would be about 5 per cent higher” (p. 1233)
  Is there a similar relationship between the unemployment rate and incidents of patron harassment at the library? i don’t know. We would have to 1. consistently report instances of harassment, 2. track those reports, and 3. make that data available. And Library World is, at best, disinterested in any of that.

  “... experiences of sexual harassment have a ‘scarring’ effect on women, leading to lower overall earnings for years afterwards” (p. 1236)
  Consider this against the reality of already incredibly depressed wages of library workers.

  “Rather than being about sexual desire, or an unavoidable consequence of men and women working together, sexual harassment in the workplace is an expression of power, a way for men to assert their dominance. The shift from sexual harassment of white women to sexual harassment of African-American women indicates that harassers are conscious of power relationships, and choose to target more vulnerable women in their workplaces” (p. 1236)
  Harassing customers are reacting to the climate and culture we have constructed in Library World. They see us as public property, which they are entitled to treat however they wish. Nothing about our structures or practices would lead them to think otherwise.

  “Social Organization and Social Ties: Their Effects on Sexual Harassment Victimization in the Workplace” by Jamie A. Snyder, Heidi L. Scherer, & Bonnie S. Fisher. Work, 42, 2012.

  DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1325

  “... sensitivity training may alter employees’ definitions of sexual harassment, but may not prevent possible opportunities for sexual harassment to occur” (p. 138)
  This is especially true when the sexual harassment/sensitivity training completely ignores the most common source of sexual harassment for library workers— the patron.

  “... less productivity, poorer time management, fewer workplace resources, and less administrative support were all related to an increased risk of sexual harassment in the work environment. Further, women who reported that they were not likely to receive praise from their supervisor were also at a significantly higher risk for sexual harassment” (p. 145)
  Time to decompress after incidents is a workplace resource. A transparent and accessible method for reporting sexual harassment is a workplace resource. A transparent and accessible method for reporting sexual harassment is a workplace resource. Time to write and submit reports of harassment is a workplace resource.

  “And Justice For All: How Organizational Justice Climate Deters Sexual Harassment” by Cristina Rubino, Derek R. Avery, Patrick F. McKay, Brenda L. Moore, David C. Wilson, Marinus S. Van Driel, L. Alan Witt, & Daniel L. McDonald. Personnel Psychology, 71, 2018.

  DOI: 10.1111/peps.12274

  “... we explore whether (a) justice climate contributes incrementally beyond other known antecedents in predicting sexual harassment (direct effect) and (b) the effects of these antecedents are attenuated when justice climate is high” (p. 521)

  Organizational justice climate has “four related yet distinct factors:” (p. 523)

  • Distributive justice: “... whether outcome decisions are perceived to be consistent with allocation norms, such as equity, equality, and responsibility”
  • Procedural justice: “... whether employees have a voice or influence during the process that leads to decision outcomes and whether the process adheres to procedural rules— ethical, consistent, free of bias, based on accurate information”
  • Informational justice: “... whether the explanations provided about decision making are candid, thorough, reasonable, timely, and personalized”
  • Interpersonal justice: “... whether employees are treated with sensitivity— politely, with dignity and respect”

  “... justice climate is not based on employee perceptions of behaviors that are rewarded, supported, or expected in the organization; instead, it focuses on how fairly employees feel the organization acts” (p. 523)
  The emphasis here is on the behavior of people in power, not on those power acts upon.

  “Though organizations perceived to be fair also might take a hard stance against sexual harassment, this is not necessarily the case. For example, an organization may strongly enforce sexual harassment policies (i.e., high sexual harassment climate) but not have invested resources in ensuring that fairness is promoted throughout the organization. Conversely, an organization may value and promote fairness but may not explicitly address sexual harassment in the workplace” (p. 525)

  “When perceived justice climate is high, men and women alike are prone to feel that they are valued, respected, and integrated within the work domain” (p. 526)

  “... even small changes in justice climate can have considerable financial implications for organizations. To better promote fairness, organizations should ensure top management commitment to fairness in outcome decisions, create processes that promote fairness, reward and recognize all employees equitably, fairly, and consistently, and encourage participation of employees in organizational processes” (p. 539)

  “How Organizational Responses to Sexual Harassment Claims Shape Public Perception” by Danqiao Cheng, Serene Does, Seval Gundemir, & Margaret Shih. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Volume 46, Issue 3, 2024.

  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2024.2313536

  “... observing sexual harassment can reduce bystanders’ job satisfaction, and performance-based self-esteem, particularly if they are women” (p. 169, emphasis in original)

  "... sexual harassment claims can bring about strong reactions in extra-organizational actors (e.g., consumers and stakeholders). Further, scholars suggest that outside observers’ (e.g., general public) can be even stronger than inside observers’ reactions, because the insiders have had time to acclimatize to the environment in which harassment has taken place... even in the absence of direct experiences with the organization, learning about a sexual harassment claim can make the public make assumptions about a company, specifically with respect to the extent to which men and women receive equal treatment and opportunities” (p. 170)
  Would the public still view the public library as a safe, trusted institution if they knew about the realities of harassment?

  “Accommodative responses involve an active consideration of the stakeholders’ needs, and defensive responses relate to the organizations’ actions to distance themselves from the misconduct..." (p. 171, emphasis in original)

  "On the defensive end, organizations can respond to sexual harassment in a minimizing way, with an avoidance focus, suspicion, and encouragement for retraction of the claim. The accommodative counterpart of a minimizing response is, then, characterized by an approach focus, open communication, fair treatment of and care for the involved parties... “While a minimizing response to sexual harassment seems widespread, it appears to be counterproductive... the company appears as not taking the responsibility they should” (p. 172)

  “... minimization yielded the least favorable public perception across conditions, even compared to not receiving any information about an organization’s response to the sexual harassment claim” (p. 176)

  “... organizational responsiveness can restore or enhance public trust in the company and public’s anticipation of the company’s ability to effectively handle future adversity in non-gendered domains, such as financial crisis, whereas organizational minimization further damages these perceptions” (p. 179)
  This silence hurts the public we're suppose to serve too.

  “... organizational responsiveness can restore or enhance public trust in the company and public’s anticipation of the company’s ability to effectively handle future adversity in non-gendered domains, such as financial crisis, whereas organizational minimization further damages these perceptions” (p. 179)

  "... we are not encouraging organizations to implement window dressing measures in face of sexual harassment claims just for impression management. Instead, we put forth that organizations should take actions that align with the needs of reporting employees and the responsive types of procedures we have outlined” (p. 182-182)

  “... organizations should continuously monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their responses to sexual harassment claims. Their procedures in place should stay updated to employees’ needs and concerns... If an organization’s previous handling of a sexual harassment claim elicits confusion or doubts, it should adjust its procedures accordingly based on feedback” (p. 183)

  

  ^{1. Library World is a cute/cunty bit of shorthand i've developed to refer to the wider culture of public libraries as a whole. It goes beyond individual library workers or libraries to refer to the culture we have created in this field.↩}

  ^{2. i have worked in public libraries where i could not access our security incident software for months, in a position where i was literally left in charge of the building at some points (as a part-time, non-librarian, but that's an entirely different discussion). on the flip side, i have worked at public libraries where the reporting system was a PDF that you had to fill out, print, sign, and then physically turn into the director's office. in the sci-fi future of the 2020s. i'll let you guess the rate of follow-up on that one.↩}

  ^{3. yes, the bar is in hell, but we still have people chosing to lie on the floor rather than step over it.↩}