In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

A·S) Feminist Constructions of Objectivity: Multiple Perspectives on Sexual and Racial Harassment Litigation MARTHA CHAMALLAS IN A VARIETY of disciplines, feminist and postmodem scholars have changed the face of their fields by their persistence in investigating the relationship between knowledge and poweLl There is now a rich body of scholarship demonstrating how particular views of the world come to dominate discourse, how our "knowledge" is far less diverse than our people. A central feature of these new critical inquiries is their skepticism about claims of "objectivity" and "neutrality" and about statements that purport to have "universal" applicability.2 The take-home message of much of this work is that frequently what passes for the whole truth is instead a representation of events from the perspective of those who possess the power to have their version of reality accepted. The search is on for multiple meanings and multiple perspectives, whether attached to language, texts, or human events. The challenge to claims of objectivity is becoming increasingly visible in the area of anti-discrimination law and discourse, particularly sexual and racial harassment cases. Harassment is a context in which it is easy to grasp the meaning of the critique of objectivity made by feminist and critical race legal scholars. As the Clarence Thomas hearings so graphically demonstrated, it is no longer sufficient to provide a single description of human relationships in a workplace and declare it to be the true, fact~al account. Most people would not resist the proposition that what constitutes an insult is open to multiple interpretations. I. Choosing a Perspective: Variations on the Theme of a Reasonable Person The question of perspective or point of view arises most often in cases alleging offensive work environments. The issue of perspective is important as a theoretical matter; it lies at the heart of much feminist and critical race scholarship aimed at creating new definitions of equality for marginalized groups of people.... Originally published in full in TexasJoumal of Women and the Law. Volume 1 (1992). 808 Copyrighted Material Feminist Constructions ofObjectivity I 809 As framed by most courts, the issue of perspective translates into the narrow doctrinal issue of defining the standard that should be used in what are known as offensive or hostile working environment cases. In these cases, the plaintiff must prove that the harassing conduct had "the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."3 On this issue, the courts have been reluctant to embrace as authoritative either the subjective perspective of the plaintiff, or that of the person charged with harassment. The stated fear is that using plaintiffs subjective viewpoint as the standard could lead unjustifiably to liability in cases involving hypersensitive or idiosyncratic responses to challenged conduct. Similarly, courts reject the harasser's subjective perspective because to do otherwise would limit Title VII protection to only the clearest cases of consciously retaliatory abuse. The two standards currently vying for acceptance are both labeled "objective." The division is drawn between courts that employ a "reasonable person"4 standard and those that adopt a more victim-specific standard modified to reflect the gender or racial group to which the plaintiff belongs,5 for example, a "reasonable woman" or a "reasonable black person" standard. Choice of the standard in itself, of course, does not dictate who will win the lawsuit. However, as the cases have been litigated, plaintiffs typically argue for a modified victim-perspective standard, while defendants generally align themselves with the unitary standard. The case that first highlighted the issue of perspective is the Sixth Circuit case Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co.6 The plaintiff was what social psychologists sometimes refer to as a "solo" or a "token," the only woman in a salaried management position at the workplace.? In polite terms, the refinery would be described as a highly sexualized worksite: male employees posted pornography in common areas, and one of the male supervisors consistently called women employees derogatory names such as "cunt," "pussy," ''whores,'' and "tits." The major claim in the case centered around plaintiffs discharge: she alleged sex discrimination as the cause and used the evidence of the offensive environment to show that defendant's actions were biased. By defendant's account , it was plaintiffs bad personality that prompted her firing. Her employer said she was rude, too aggressive, and did not follow company policies. The issue of perspective surfaced in the case as a rhetorical formula to...

Share