When Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) released her book “Off the Sidelines” on Sept. 9, she probably expected some type of backlash. What she might not have expected, however, were commentators asking her to name names in reference to a passage detailing her experiences with workplace harassment.

These commentators are wrong for their demands. Releasing names is irrelevant to the point she was trying to make about harassment in the workplace. What I took away from Gillibrand’s book was that her purpose was not to stir up controversy or seek retribution from those who offended her; her purpose was to raise awareness about workplace harassment.

In her book, Gillibrand talks about being nicknamed Tracy Flick, the ambitious and aggressive high school student played by Reese Witherspoon in the movie “Election.” She also details an instance in which an older, male colleague told her, “Good thing you’re working out, because you wouldn’t want to get porky.” In a separate instance, another colleague squeezed her stomach and said, “Don’t lose too much weight now. I like my girls chubby.”

Instead of taking these statements for what they are — a way to exemplify the workplace harassment women regularly face — commentators are focusing on the men who made the offensive remarks.

During an interview on “Morning Joe,” host Mika Brzezinski said, “Why wouldn’t you name names here?” When Gillibrand explained that her focus was on elevating the debate of workplace harassment, not delving further into her own experiences, Brzezinski said, “Wouldn’t you elevate the debate by naming names?” The interview continued like this with Brzezinski pressing Gillibrand to expose the men who harassed her.

Right now there is more talk about who harassed Gillibrand than about the very real problem of workplace harassment. And if Gillibrand had named names, the focus would likely still be on men and not on the problem. It would likely result in even more debates and chatter, but none of it would be about solving the issue of workplace harassment.

In an interview with Time Magazine, Gillibrand clarified her reasons for staying mum.  “I use these illustrations as an example of a much larger point. It’s important to have a debate about how women are treated in the workplace,” she said in the article. “I’m not alone in having someone say something stupid. It’s less important who they are than what they said.”

One must also consider the repercussions Gillibrand could face for exposing her colleagues. Putting those men out there would have certainly made it hard for her to work with them.

Workplace harassment can make it difficult and sometimes impossible to fulfill one’s responsibilities. Focusing on a woman’s body instead of her work is extremely degrading and creates an uncomfortable work environment for the harassed. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of the 7,256 cases of sexual harassment filed in 2013, 82.4 percent of victims were women while only 17.6 percent of victims were men.

Naming names will not help Gillibrand or anyone else tackle the problem of harassment in the workplace. It should also be considered that these were only the cases that were filed; countless others are likely being subjected to this treatment as well. Instead of focusing on the men who harassed Gillibrand, we should put our time and effort into lowering this statistic.

Mandisa Shields is a sophomore newspaper and online journalism major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @mandisashields.

Published on September 18, 2014 at 12:01 am