Police requires evidence and it's often much harder to prove in criminal court than in civil cases - just look at the different OJ Simpson trials.

When you walk to the HR office you don't need any evidence at all and the judge is sometimes a 25 year old HR person fresh from university. That's a much lower bar to pass than going to the police and meeting a judge.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is so much more than what is strictly illegal. It may not be possible to make it illegal to look at someone in the wrong way, but there's no law against that being written to your HR file and having an impact on your future career.

The size of the "backlog" is an impressive number, but it was my understanding that it is primarily due to policies that lead to collection by default - regardless of actual need. Like when the perpetrator of the crime confesses, or when the DA determines that the rape kit isn't evidence of rape. Collecting by default makes sense as it is a time sensitive issue, but there are plenty of good reasons not to process the kit. If you think that processing should be done by default that is one thing, but lack of processing certainly isn't "concrete evidence" of police apathy.

> Forensic experts at the Michigan State Police have been helping to clear the backlog, with the help of millions of dollars in funding appropriated by the Legislature.

> Worthy said Detroit's kit-testing initiative has identified 2,616 suspects — including 477 serial rapists — and that 21 convictions have been secured. She said 106 cases are actively being investigated and 1,350 cases are awaiting investigation.

The other alternative, calling in University-owned mediators who have no incentive to help you and every incentive to "just make it go away" will almost certainly not improve your situation -- as described in detail in the article.

Sexual harassment can include crimes like sexual assault and stalking, so in those cases you should definitely call the police.

While sexual harassment is terrible, it isn't a crime. There are a lot of terrible things that aren't crimes. A push to criminalize it would have the opposite effect of what the proponents desire: the definition would be severely narrowed and companies would likely have a lot less exposure to litigation.

I'm pretty sure threatening to destroy someone's career to force sex is a crime. If you succeed, it's rape which is quite a serious crime.

Even if you just file a report, it's important to establish a pattern of abuse for when the person inevitably crosses the line and goes to court. This is far more serious than chicken nuggets; the fact that people are willing to liken it to something like that is very troubling and indicative of how deep the problem runs: many people don't even see it as a problem.

We are talking about different things here, and conflating them isn't going to help anybody.

Similarly with sexual harassment. It doesn't mean exactly what you have in your head at this particular moment and nothing else no matter what anyone else says. Look it up if you care to and you'll find its definition is quite broad, especially the way it's used in general conversation. Nobody is suggesting locking people up in jail for saying bad words -- it's an absurd strawman, though it's quite an effective way to derail the conversation and avoid having a real discussion.

The article is about the climate of abuse and sexual harassment of women in astrophysics departments. Groping, specific comments, threats, general comments. Everything from flirtation to repeated unwanted advances to actual assault. That is what we are discussing, so when someone says women should go to the police to report the crimes described in the article you need to assume they are talking about the crimes described in the article.

I'd think that my awareness of the broad definition would be made clear by my repeated warnings that criminalization would narrow it.

> Nobody is suggesting locking people up in jail for saying bad words...

Well the poster that I initially replied to was pretty explicit about getting the police involved, as have a few other people here. So I'm not sure if your point is that I should be more charitable and assume that when someone says "sexual harassment" they don't mean sexual harassment, or if your point is that police should get involved but somehow leave the whole threat of violence thing at the door.

> That is what we are discussing, so when...

That isn't what I was discussing, and you replied to me, so you must be referring to yourself with the royal "we". I'll be more charitable and assume that people don't mean what they say, but I'd appreciate it if you'd extend me the same generosity and assume that I've chosen my words carefully.

Imagine that a man says to a woman "No pressure, but if you're up for it, I'd like to put my popsicle in your purse." That is certainly sexual harassment, and in a workplace a firing would be a likely and not unreasonable resolution. Calling for armed agents of the state to drag the man off to jail (or use the threat of violence to compel anything) is an overreaction.

That is why an advocacy for making sexual harassment a criminal offense works against the proponent's interests. Sexual harassment would be redefined much more narrowly, because you can't lock people up just because they're dirty loudmouths.

I'm struggling to think what this comment even means in the context of the broader discussion. All I know is it makes me laugh out loud.

I have mild autism and am less than welcome in most civil interactions. Do i get to sue everyone and bitch about everything everyday? That would be a NO.

Disclaimer: I do not condone any really disruptive, actual harassment like touching/real verbal abuse.

Let's just ignore it then because they're probably imagining it.

>Disclaimer: I do not condone any really disruptive, actual harassment like touching/real verbal abuse.

But you don't seem to give a shit if it happens.

Not to mention chance as good that the victim will get reprimanded as the culprit. HR's purpose, whether it's in universities or in private companies, is to protect the employer. That's who pays their bills and that's who gives the orders.

If a complaint makes the employer look bad and the easiest way to make it go away is to sink the victim, that's exactly what HR will do.

The only department less moral than HR is internal affairs, and most companies don't get to have one.

The view that HR is only their to protect the employer is a dubious or nebulous, maybe both. The function HR plays will vary by organization, but even with the cynical view that they only exist to protect the organization, protecting the organization also means protecting the organization from lawsuits, government sanctions, etc. from improper and illegal behavior.

That's a purely theoretical point, as numerous revelations in the last few months/years have proven Title IX to be mostly toothless and at best implemented to the letter rather than the spirit.

> The view that HR is only their to protect the employer is a dubious or nebulous, maybe both.

That HR's job is to protect the employer is neither dubious nor nebulous.

> The function HR plays will vary by organization, but even with the cynical view that they only exist to protect the organization, protecting the organization also means protecting the organization from lawsuits, government sanctions, etc. from improper and illegal behavior.

Of course it does, but as I mentioned HR will tend to do that the simplest and most expedient way possible, silencing the complainer is a common way to do it. Employees and victims should not generally assume HR is their friend or on their side. HR may side with them, but that's a very different thing than being on their side.

This is about, say, a guy who could torpedo your entire career with a couple of phone calls making it clear that he'll be Very Disappointed if you make a big deal about him giving you a back rub when he thinks you look stressed. (Maybe you'd object, but last week you put up with it when he put his arm around your shoulders during a lab meeting: at the time, it seemed like he was just trying to comfort you about some buggy equipment. After that, will the rest of your lab think you were okay with this stuff? Did he take that as a signal that you were interested? Maybe it's best to just keep putting up with it and not risk getting on his bad side and flushing your career away. Oh, hey, looks like he just decided that your shirt is "in the way" this time.)

[If you're wondering if a scenario like that is realistic, I based it loosely on the pattern described here: http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/05/fed-up-with-sex..., which it turns out was in fact directly inspired by the repeated behavior of Geoff Marcy: http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-long-con.html]