In April, I completed my senior thesis for Princeton University examining the policy frameworks that sustain street harassment. As a public policy major, I was especially interested in the way government policies defined the problem of sexual violence and, going forward, how policy at every level of government could effectively address street harassment. Through this analysis, I identified a complex structure of policy that makes street harassment appear to be an inevitable fact of life, though it is anything but. While writing my thesis I came to realize that none of the needed reforms are insurmountable. Further, there is great precedent for the type of policy changes needed.

Examining government rhetoric about sexual violence, the first theme I noticed was that most official advice and information on sexual violence focuses on minimizing victims’ risk. A fact sheet from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office on Women’s Health illustrates this position.

“How can I lower my risk of sexual assault? These are things you can do to reduce your chance of being sexually assaulted…Be wary of isolated spots, like underground garages, offices after business hours, and apartment laundry rooms. Avoid walking or jogging alone, especially at night.”[1]

It is hard to imagine what kind of life a person would live if she wished to follow this advice. More worrisome, though, is that in this construction of sexual violence people are able to prevent their own victimization. In terms of policy solutions, this conceptualization is frighteningly close to a ‘blame the victim’ approach. And of course—if women could prevent being victims of sexual violence, it is hard to justify policy interventions to reduce this type of violence. This understanding of sexual violence explains the lack of coherent and effective laws to combat street harassment, as well as police inattention to the problem.

The narrative of sexual violence that frames the problem as an inevitable way men interact with women is one cause of street harassment’s frequency. What is less often discussed is the role police play in exacerbating street harassment, both by perpetrating it themselves and by fostering an institutional culture unconcerned with sexual violence. One NYC study found that

“Quite unexpectedly, almost two-fifths of the young women surveyed indicated that in the past 12 months, male police officers had flirted, whistled or ‘come on to them.’”[2]

Similarly, women often do not report incidents of street harassment. A Manhattan Borough President’s Office survey found that 96% of respondents who reported being sexually harassed on the subway had not filed a report with the New York Police Department or Metropolitan Transit Authority nor did they call the police for help.[3] Indeed, police sexual harassment is pervasive enough that there is a sub-field of criminology which focuses on “police sexual violence” toward other police officers, a phenomenon that has been documented worldwide.[4] Although there is great value in creating specific policies to combat street harassment, the corrupt institutional culture of police departments is equally important to change: without adequate enforcement, most policy to combat street harassment will be meaningless.

Though in my thesis I spent considerable time looking at the policy frameworks and failures that contribute to street harassment’s prevalence, my research also left me feeling optimistic that societal attitudes toward street harassment could change quite quickly.

Bullying, for instance, was recently seen as a fact of life, immune to societal intervention and harmless for its victims. In the early 1990s, within academia the idea that bullying had larger, more negative consequences gained traction. By the 2000s, activist groups formed to combat bullying. Now, government is involved in addressing the problem through law, school-level policy changes, and public awareness campaigns. Social norms toward bullying have changed dramatically, too.

Remarkably, the definition of bullying today is quite similar to street harassment. According to the American Psychological Association,

“Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words or more subtle actions. The bullied individual typically has trouble defending him or herself and does nothing to “cause” the bullying.”[5]

Leaving aside the ‘repeated’ nature of bullying in the APA definition, the behavior outlined above could equally describe street harassment. Indeed, given the strength of the movement to reconceptualize the harms of bullying, I found it somewhat surprising that perceptions of street harassment hadn’t already begun to change.

By the time I submitted my thesis, despite the fact that street harassment has been ignored by policymakers for decades, I was not convinced that changing norms and social behaviors would be that difficult. With varying levels of success, bullying, sexual harassment, and smoking have all undergone massive norm shifts within a few decades. Even limited bans or targeted policies can have wide reaching effects, especially in changing societal perceptions of what is normal and acceptable. This, of course, would be the use of ‘harassment-free zones’, or areas of cities like schools or parks where harassing behavior is disallowed.

With street harassment, there is a general lack of clarity about whether harassing behavior is normal and acceptable. Still, it is easy to imagine how small, well-designed policy changes could have far-reaching impacts: changing government approaches to sexual violence, reforming police departments so they can adequately respond to sexual violence, and creating ‘harassment free zones’ could together change the social norms of street harassment. Now, what remains is convincing legislators to pass these reforms—and making street harassment an obsolete part of public life.