Skip to content
Legal Talent & Inclusion

Gen Z allyship research insights: Institutional allyship as a partial fix for sexual harassment

Rangita de Silva de Alwis  Associate Dean of International Affairs / the University of Pennsylvania Law School

· 6 minute read

Rangita de Silva de Alwis  Associate Dean of International Affairs / the University of Pennsylvania Law School

· 6 minute read

Research with Gen Z men conducted by Penn Law in collaboration with Thomson Reuters showed that allyship is one potential way to battle sexual harassment

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County (Ga.) that LGBTQ people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Prodded by this, a quiet revolution is taking place in our workplaces protecting all workers from sexual harassment — although this is still an unfinished revolution.

Bold new solutions are needed to alter the legal landscape on inequality, sexism, and the structures that reinforce these norms in the workplace. Based on research involving interviews with Gen Z men conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Law School (Penn Law) in collaboration with Thomson Reuters, it’s shown that allyship serves as a potential way to reconceptualize our workplaces and institutions and as way to address stereotypes, sexism, and sexual harassment.

Allyship as assailing gender stereotypes

Apart from the business case for diversity, the fundamental fact of having a diverse workplace is considered an important way of reducing the level of implicit bias in the workplace. Our research participants endorse the concept of diversity to promote inclusion and disavow stereotypes. Indeed, one participant describes the benefit of diversity and representation by considering the immediate effect of “fostering a sense of inclusion rather than otherising minority individuals.”

The slow disruption of gender stereotypes comes from inclusion. This is why one participant, Ryan Plesh, 3L, said that “one of the most important things is making sure that there is a critical mass of women and women of color in the discussion. If there isn’t, those voices will be unheard.” And where their voices remain unheard, the stereotypes will remain. As such, another participant explains that through allyship it is of utmost importance that “there is a representative who is able to speak or to represent a woman’s interest.”

However, diversity for the sake of statistics will produce fewer results than using diversity to promote the inclusion and participation of women. One 2L participant claims that employers should have “a more nuanced view of things so you’re not constantly isolating different statistics. Statistics of people of various intersectional identities that are very diverse and providing all of these different perspective on things” can be wonderful, the participant adds, but “if they are on the sidelines and not actually in leadership positions, then you probably haven’t achieved an idea of equality.”

Views of sexual harassment quickly evolving

Many of our male allies identify that the #MeToo movement has been a positive step in changing workplace policies and culture. Some explained how they do not agree with the negative backlash and of the fear some men have expressed about being mentors or being alone with women in an office setting. In fact, most participants state how they themselves serve not only as allies but mentors to women in the office — ensuring more opportunities for women to advance and to speak out against injustices.

While workplace culture may be changing due to post-#MeToo activism, states have been slow to adapt to the sentiments of the movement and the beliefs that women and male allies hold. Currently, 78% of states have sexual harassment law that applies to employers with more than 15 employees. Furthermore, only 33% of states have laws that protect non-traditional workers — interns, independent contractors, etc. — in the sexual harassment laws. With more and more workplaces having interns or informal workers, the lack of protection provides a legal gap within legislation.

When looking to the intersectionality of gender and law, 51% of states include any LGBTQ+ protection and sexual orientation protection in sexual harassment laws. In the case of protecting gender expression, only 24% of states’ sexual harassment laws protect gender expression. The current laws do not go far enough to provide true workplace protections against sexual harassment to all individuals.

Most employment contracts include mandatory arbitration provisions that bound employees to take their claims against their employer to an alternate dispute mechanism. Arbitration largely favors the employer, especially compared to jury trials. Only six states have laws that limit or ban the use of mandatory arbitration in certain cases for employees, such as for sexual harassment.

Confidentiality is another challenge. Many non-disclosure agreements allow for employers to forbid employees from making comments that could harm the company, including a sexual harassment complaint. Only nine states generally prohibit or outright ban non-disclosure agreements.

What reforms need to happen

Based on feedback from our research participants, increased allyship along with changes in culture and sexual harassment policy and reporting mechanisms serves as a vehicle to promote all genders working together as equals. To improve outcomes, insights from our participants suggest reforms widespread policy and training programs reforms:

      • Comprehensive coverage of part-time staff and contractors — “In terms of interactive trainings, I have been to one of two and they have been uniformly bad. [Organizations should] have harassment policies that are strong enough to protect low-wage workers and contractors and everyone else. These policies need to cover everyone top to bottom.”
      • Changes to arbitration clauses — “Arbitration clauses for sexual harassment must go if the culture of protecting sexual harassers and profit-over-people is to be eradicated. Interactive training that simulates examples of sexual harassment both minor and egregious will be mandatory,” according to research participant Justin Pendleton.
      • Institute reporting hotline & blind review process — “Sexual harassment policies should incorporate a hotline or blind review process, so that victims have the security of knowing that they will not be on the receiving end of punitive action,” said Pendleton.

Based on insights from these Gen Z men interviews, building allies from top to bottom within organizations helps to minimize sexual harassment and implement a galaxy of initiatives aimed at combatting implicit bias, challenging in-group favoritism, and reducing work/life conflicts. Also, creating formal allyship initiatives sharpens organizations’ focus on intersectional identities and the way that gender interacts with factors such as race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation to reinforce patterns of subordination.

The author thanks Prof. David Wilkins at Harvard Law School for his inspiration and Dean Theodor Ruger of Penn Law for his support.

More insights