Please don’t misuse the word “harassment”
Dear Editors,
While reading Harm Venhuizen’s March 11 article regarding Tuesday, March 9th’s controversial tabling event, I was struck by the following sentence: “Concerned students criticized [Student Senate’s] response in comments, calling it a ‘non-statement’ and claiming that Student Senate had failed to address ‘homophobia’ and ‘harassment’ that occurred on Tuesday.”
I would specifically like to address the word “harassment,” a word Venhuizen reports that the aforementioned students used to describe the actions of Paul Dick and his associates. We in the Calvin community must recognize what a loaded word “harassment” is, carrying with it possible criminal implications. According to the Michigan Penal Code:
“‘Harassment’ means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.”
Clearly what Paul Dick and his associates did cannot be classified as “harassment.” Those who disliked their message were easily able to walk away, and such persons were not pursued by Dick or his associates. Thus, whatever “unconsented contact” offended persons had with Dick’s message was not “repeated or continuing.”
I humbly urge the Calvin community not to misuse such important terminology when expressing disagreement.
Sincerely,
David Urban
Professor of English
Natsun Eisen '14 • Mar 25, 2021 at 10:08 pm
If simply being exposed to a different viewpoint constitutes harassment, then we’d better abandon the goals the a liberal arts education.
We’d also better ban all Bibles from campus, with the exception of updated versions that are scrubbed clean of the harassing verses about the sin of homosexual activity.
1 Timothy 1:8-11
“8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Since these verses of the Bible may make some people feel unsafe, the only reasonable course of action is to ban all Bibles from Calvin’s campus.
Andrew Wade • Mar 23, 2021 at 9:48 pm
Prof. Urban, I sense that concern has prompted you to submit this op-ed. I’d be interested to hear more about what it is that prompted you to do so.
At the same time, I am not convinced that citing a single definition of a word constitutes sufficient evidence for an argument against the “misuse” of a word. Considering that definitions represent the understanding of a term at a specific time, in a specific location, and by a specific individual or group, it follows that the same word may be used differently when different parameters are in play.
In the first place, the definition you have provided is from an explicitly legal context. In the context of a legal proceeding in Michigan (as the definition is from the Michigan Penal Code), one would certainly be required to prove that the “unconsented contact” in question was “repeated or continuing” in order for the charge of harassment to apply. You write above that the term “harassment” has “possible criminal implications,” but it does not follow from “possible” that *every* usage of “harassment” carries such implications with it. Given that the original context in which the term was used does not constitute a legal setting, I would wager that the students who used the term did not do so with the intent of adhering to the legal definition.
To be fair, you have not claimed that the meaning of harassment *always* indicates “repeated or continuing unconsented contact”—only that it is “possible.” After citing the definition, however, you apply it directly to the students’ usage without further caveat. This application fails to account for the possibility that the students cited may not have intended to convey that their experiences consisted of “repeated or continuing” behavior. Furthermore, the definition cited does not, on its own, prove your claim that harassment is a “loaded word.” More evidence is required to do so, in my view.
In this regard, it is important to bear in mind the issues fraught with citing a definition as evidence for an argument. The meaning of words change regularly. While it is certainly the case that written language has somewhat of a stabilizing effect on meaning, this effect is by no means all-encompassing or permanent. For example, consider the word “awful”: this term once meant something akin to the way in which English speakers today might use the word “awesome” (i.e., awe-inspiring) (Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “awful, adj. and adv.,” A.I.1.a). Yet today it is used exclusively in a negative sense (at least, in my experience.)
Of course, the meaning of a word does not always change over time as drastically as this. “Quarantine,” for example, has always referred to a period of time set aside for isolation or penance. But the period of isolation originally in view was normally 40 days (OED, s.v. “quarantine, n.”) Later, especially pandemic, usage of the term “quarantine,” certainly does not indicate a 40-day period. Yet this change in meaning is less drastic than the shift in meaning for “awful.”
With this in mind, even if it is the case that, at some point in its history of usage, “harassment” always signified “repeated or continuing unconsented contact,” it does not automatically obtain that it continues to do so now or, again, in this particular context.
Given the context in which the term “harassment” was used, I would contend that the legal definition you have cited does not match what the students intended to convey. Yet their usage of the term does not constitute “misuse” because it fails to conform to the legal definition. Rather, it reflects a common, contemporary understanding of the term in non-legal contexts. Interestingly, the definition cited by Karin W. Barbee above conforms more closely to what appears to have been the students’ intent, even though it serves only as an introduction to a more specific legal example. Although one may have to prove “repeated or continuing unconsented contact” in a court of law, the basic understanding by which the students and the author of the introductory statement cited by Barbee seem to be operating does not require such evidence.
I have taken pains to respond to your statement above because I am concerned that the students who expressed feeling harassed may feel invalidated by your response to their cited comments. In a context where someone has expressed pain, to respond not with consolation, but by querying their definition of pain, may be received as evasive or dismissive.
I certainly do not think this was your intent in submitting this op-ed. But I also do not wish those students, or any others who may be experiencing emotional distress as a result of the situation in question, to think that their expression of pain is somehow invalidated by its lack of conformity to a definition that does not always, or even regularly, obtain outside of a legal context. There may be a time and a place to consider whether or not “harassment” is (or is still) a “loaded word,” and whether the way in which it is “loaded” always necessarily includes “possible criminal implications.” But this particular time and place, in my view, requires a more pastoral response.
Again, I do not think that you submitted this op-ed in an attempt to be dismissive or invalidating. It is clear that you have concerns with regard to the dialogue taking place in the Calvin community, and I hope this comment will encourage further constructive dialogue in the community beyond the divide of different understandings of the word “harassment.” I especially hope that the students cited in the original article by Harm Venhuizen (Mar 11) will know that their feelings and experiences are indeed valid, important, and worth voicing.
Derek Jay • Mar 23, 2021 at 6:56 pm
Karin,
You completely left out the part from your website definition about the harassed person being “in fear for their safety.” Also, Professor Urban took his definition directly from the Michigan penal code whereas your “definition” is just a example of what a state could define harassment.
Karin W Barbee • Mar 23, 2021 at 10:43 am
“Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons.” https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ I think it’s fair to assume that a table with a sign that clearly says it is a sin to BE LBGTQ would be considered harassment.