Most women working in the sciences face sexual assault and harassment while conducting fieldwork, according to a study released Wednesday that is the first to investigate the subject.
The report surveyed 516 women (and 142 men) working in various scientific fields, including archeology, anthropology, and biology. Sixty-four percent of the women said they had been sexually harassed while working at field sites, and one out of five said they had been victims of sexual assault. The study found that the harassers and assailants were usually supervisors. Ninety percent of the women who were harassed were young undergraduates, post-graduates, or post-doctoral students.
"Our main findings…suggest that at least some field sites are not safe, nor inclusive," Kate Clancy, the lead author of the study, said in a statement. "We worry this is at least one mechanism driving women from science."
Many university science programs require students to complete fieldwork. Those who do work in the field are more likely to receive research grants. Consequently, women scientists "are put in a vulnerable position, afraid that reporting harassment or abuse will risk their research and a professional relationship often critical to their academic funding or career," the Washington Post noted.
The study comes as Congress investigates the response of US colleges to campus sexual harassment and assault. Two out of five colleges and universities have not conducted any sexual assault investigations in the past five years, according to a recent survey by the office of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
Men vastly outnumber women in the sciences. According to Census data, women make up only about a quarter of the workforce in science, technology, engineering and math fields.
On Monday, the Department of Justice slapped Citigroup with a $7 billion penalty for misleading investors about the toxic mortgage products it peddled that helped cause the financial crisis. Though it's the largest civil penalty in history, it's not nearly a harsh enough punishment, consumer advocates say.
In the mid-2000s, Citigroup assured investors that the subprime mortgage loans it packaged and sold as securities for billions of dollars were high quality. But the bank knew that many of those underlying loans would likely never be paid back. A Citigroup trader at one point even stated in an internal email that he "would not be surprised if half of these loans went down… It's amazing that some of these loans were closed at all."
Despite the historic size of this settlement, consumer advocates insist that the government should have gone much further. And they cite six ways the massive Citi settlement falls short.
1. It's not a $7 billion fine. Citigroup will pay $4.5 billion to settle federal and state civil claims related to the shoddy securities. The other $2.5 billion will underwrite loan modifications and principal reductions on mortgages—which the bank is required to do anyway—and finance some affordable rental housing construction.
2. It didn't really hurt Citigroup. The settlement did tank the bank's second quarter profits, but it did not even pull earnings into the red. After the deal was announced, Citigroup's stock climbed 3.6 percent, indicating investors thought that Citigroup dodged a bullet. The settlement deal is simply the "cost of doing business," says John Taylor, the president and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a housing advocacy group. Citi will "pay these fines and move on."
3. Shareholders foot the bill, not Citigroup executives. The Citi officials responsible for the decision to mislead investors should have been the ones to foot the penalty, says Marcus Stanley, the financial policy director at Americans for Financial Reform. When the burden of the settlement falls on shareholders, the punishment is diluted. No individual officials are held accountable; consequently, other bank officials may not be sufficiently deterred from committing future misdeeds. (The deal does not absolve Citigroup officials from future civil or criminal charges.)
4. This should have been a criminal case, not a civil case. "If the evidence shows fraud, there should be a criminal case," says Bart Naylor, a financial policy advocate at the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen.
5. The settlement's consumer provisions might not pan out. It's unclear if all the funds directed toward struggling homeowners will actually end up helping them. There's precedent for this concern. In the National Mortgage Settlement, a $25 billion agreement with five major banks in 2012 over flawed foreclosure practices, much of the supposed homeowner relief dispensed as part of that deal has benefited banks more than homeowners.
6. Citi should have gone to trial. The Justice Department should have taken Citigroup to trial instead of settling out of court, Taylor says. A trial would have brought to light the details of how Citi screwed investors and how much it profited as a result. The negotiations for this settlement were largely conducted behind closed doors. A trial also could have given the government leverage to exact a harsher punishment against Citi. (There is, of course, the possibility that Citi could have prevailed in a trial.)
The Citi deal is one of several lukewarm settlements the government has entered into with banks in recent years over financial crisis-related wrongdoing. In November, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay a record $13 billion for selling toxic mortgage products in the run-up to the financial crisis. Some experts say the fine should have been 22 times higher.
Last year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) sent a letter to the Justice Department, noting she was concerned that the Obama administration was letting big banks off too easy: "If large financial institutions can break the law and accumulate millions in profits, and if they get caught, settle by paying out of those profits, they do not have much incentive to follow the law."
Three years ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was a huge cheerleader for the controversial budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that would have partially privatized Medicare and slashed social spending programs. Now McConnell, who's in a tough reelection fight, is backing away from his support and trying to suggest he was not an outright champion of this draconian budget measure.
In an ad released this week, McConnell's Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, attacks the GOP senator for backing Ryan's 2011 budget proposal, which would have essentially ended Medicare as a guaranteed federal program, slashed Medicaid, and repealed Obamacare. In the ad, an elderly Kentucky man named Don Disney asks why McConnell voted to raise his medical costs by thousands of dollars a year—referring to a provision in the Ryan budget that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would hike out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries by $6,000.
McConnell's campaign fired back, pointing out that the senator did not vote for the proposal itself, but rather only voted in favor of bringing the measure to the Senate floor for a vote. "There is no way to speculate" what McConnell would have done regarding a final vote on the Ryan budget, his campaign insists.
But that's cutting the legislative sausage rather thin. The vote on whether to bring the Ryan plan to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote was the key vote—and McConnell voted in favor of the proposal. It was only because the majority Democrats blocked the bill from reaching a final vote that McConnell did not have a chance to officially vote for passage of the budget proposal. But McConnell himself bragged about having "voted" for the Ryan budget. And he repeatedly praised the Ryan plan and expressed support for the measure.
In a speech on the Senate floor in April 2011, McConnell called Ryan's budget a "serious and detailed plan for getting our nation's fiscal house in order." He maintained that it would "strengthen the social safety net."
That month, he also called Ryan's budget "a serious, good-faith effort to do something good and necessary for the future of our nation and…for the good of the nation," according to Congressional Quarterly.
In May 2011, McConnell, appearing on Fox News, vowed to vote for Ryan's proposal. He said Ryan's plan was "a very sensible way to go to try to save Medicare."
Even though the Senate never held a final vote on the Ryan budget, McConnell's backing for the plan—which included large tax cuts for the wealthy—was full-throated and unambiguous. "He's probably relieved that it never came to a final vote," says Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University.
In responding to the Grimes ad, McConnell's campaign also took issue with the charge that he voted to raise medical costs for Kentucky seniors by $6,000 each. The campaign claimed that this figure is out of date because Ryan's subsequent budget plans—which also were not passed by Congress—would raise Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs by much less. Yet Paul Van De Water, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says that the Grimes campaign "accurately" cited what the 2011 plan would have done.
Ryan's 2011 budget would have slashed Medicare by $389 billion by raising the eligibility age and partly privatizing the program, dramatically increasing costs for new retirees. Under the same plan, funding for Medicaid would have been slashed by 35 percent over 10 years. The proposal additionally would have ended Obamacare, preventing millions from obtaining affordable health insurance. At the time, Senate majority leader Harry Reid warned the Ryan budget "would be one of the worst things that could happen in this country if it went into effect."
As the McConnell-Grimes race—one of the most closely watched Senate contests of the year—heats up, Grimes is attempting to tar McConnell with the extreme budget plan that he once embraced. McConnell, the veteran Capitol Hill wheeler-and-dealer, is trying to wiggle out of the trap through a legislative loophole—creating a false impression and distancing himself from his party's policymaker-in-chief.
His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Former GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin is not sorry for saying that women don't usually get pregnant from rape.
Akin tanked his 2012 Missouri Senate campaign by claiming that there is no need for rape exceptions to abortion bans because "if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." In his new book due out next week, titled Firing Back: Taking on the Party Bosses and Media Elite to Protect Our Faith and Freedom, Akin says he regrets airing a campaign ad apologizing for the statement, Politico reported Thursday.
"By asking the public at large for forgiveness," Akin says in the book, "I was validating the willful misinterpretation of what I had said."
He adds that the media misconstrued his words and explains why he's still right about rape and pregnancy. "My comment about a woman's body shutting the pregnancy down was directed to the impact of stress of fertilization. This is something fertility doctors debate and discuss. Doubt me? Google 'stress and infertility,' and you will find a library of research" on the impact of stress on fertilization, he writes.
And Akin doubles down on the term "legitimate," which he says refers to a rape claim that can be proved by "evidence," as opposed to one used "to avoid an unwanted pregnancy."
Akin's comments two years ago perpetuated what Democrats have dubbed the GOP "war on women," which refers to Republican attempts to limit abortion coverage, contraception, and workplace rights for women.
The release of Akin's book comes just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that family-owned companies—which employ more than half of all American workers—do not have to provide contraception coverage for women as mandated by Obamacare if their owners have a religious objection to doing so. The decision is expected to open the floodgatesto further assaults on contraceptive access for women.
On Wednesday evening, President Barack Obama called for a new Wall Street crackdown, noting that more than five years after the financial crisis, banks still focus too much on gaining profits through often risky trading, instead of investing in Main Street America.
"More and more of the revenue generated on Wall Street is based on…trading bets, as opposed to investing in companies that actually make something and hire people," the president said in an interview with Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal. He called for "additional steps" to rein in the industry.
Obama's comments Wednesday represent one of the most pointed critiques he has made of the banking industry since he took office at the height of the financial crisis, and suggest that he may use his final two years in office to pursue further Wall Street reforms.
The president singled out big bonuses as a central problem plaguing the financial system. Banks can still "generate a huge amount of bonuses by making some big [trading] bets," he said. "If you make a really bad bet, a lot of times you've already banked all your bonuses. You might end up leaving the shop, but in the meantime everybody else is left holding the bag."
He did not offer specific policy cures, instead alluding to the need to "restructure" how banks work "internally."
The massive Dodd-Frank financial reform law that Congress passed in 2010 was supposed to keep banks from taking excess risks and prevent another economic collapse. Obama pointed out that much of that law has already gone into effect. Banks now have to keep more funds on hand to guard against an economic downturn or a bad trading bet, he said. The law created a new agency designed to prevent consumers from being duped by mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and student lenders. Last year, Wall Street regulators implemented a much-touted Dodd-Frank measure aimed at limiting the high-risk trading by commercial banks that helped lead to the 2008 economic crash.
But much is left to be done. Wall Street regulators have completed only about half of the banking rules mandated by Dodd-Frank. Scores of these regulations have been watered down by financial industry lobbyists. Congress has made many legislativeattempts to weaken Dodd-Frank. Despite efforts to ensure that banks are no longer too-big-to-fail—or so large that their collapse would endanger the entire economic system—the largest banks are bigger than they were during the financial crisis.
Progressives fault the president for part of the lax response to the financial crisis. Under Obama's Justice Department, for example, no high-level bankers went to jail or faced criminal charges for actions that led to the financial crisis. And liberal critics slam Obama's economic team for focusing too heavily on bailing out banks after the crisis, and allowing the foreclosure crisis to fester.
It is unclear how Obama will push through additional Wall Street reforms. He has limited oversight of rule-making, and banking legislation is not likely to get through the current sharply divided Congress.