Helen's conflict between privacy and mandatory disclosure in a sexual harassment case

Critical Thinking Case Study Analysis of Sexual Harassment in an Educational Institution

The case study on Helen's experience as a victim of sexual harassment in an educational institution presents a conflict often confronted by victims whenever they are torn between maintaining their privacy and the confidentiality of their experience and disclosing the truth about the victim's sexual harassment experience. In the texts that follow, a discussion of the facts and problems presented in the case study are analyzed, particularly the significance of ethical principles when discussing issues of disclosure, privacy, and confidentiality. This case study delves into recommended paths in which the subject, Helen, could resort to in order to prevent being caught in a conflict between upholding the University's rule for full disclosure of her case and her need to keep and maintain her privacy and her counselor's oath of confidentiality on the said matter.

Issue

The case study presents one general issue stemming from two specific ones. The general issue centers on the conflict that Helen faces as she tries to follow University rules concerning cases of sexual harassment; she also, at the same time, feels the need to maintain her privacy on the matter. Thus a conflict emerges, where Helen is ultimately asked to decide whether she would or would not disclose her victimization. In other terms, Helen is asked to decide for herself whether she would act according to what she thinks is the most rational thing to do (following University rules on disclosure) and what she feels she must do (i.e., maintaining her privacy by keeping her anonymity and the confidentiality of her case).

Facts

The general issue of disclosure or non-disclosure of Helen's case has two facets. The first specific issue identified in the case study is the fact that "...staff and students have been made aware...that any incident of alleged sexual harassment must be reported to the University." As a student and victim of sexual harassment, Helen is duty-bound to report the incident of her victimization to the University. However, as was stated in the case, Helen did not file a complaint, but rather, sought the help of student counseling to help her deal with her problem.

Seeking the help of student counseling (specifically, trained clinical psychologists) was an action that created the conflict Helen is experiencing at the moment. Through counseling, Helen made it clear that she preferred to share her experience privately, and within the security of the confidentiality psychologists are bound to keep for their clients/patients. This means that even though the University deemed it necessary for a student like Helen to disclose her incident of victimization, she still opted to keep her privacy, preferring confidentiality and anonymity in order to protect herself from being involved in a sensitive issue such as sexual harassment. Helen's actions may be construed as her own way of avoiding the stigma that inevitably results out of her being a victim of sexual harassment.

Conclusions

From Helen's case, it is evident that her welfare must be considered first above anything else. Maintaining her privacy and if possible, keeping her identity anonymous and case confidential (if she requests these) are the most effective ways in which she will be able to deal with her problem.

Recommendations

It is thus recommended that the University must ensure Helen that her privacy would not be invaded, should it pursue to convince her to disclose the details of her victimization. The University can argue that her case would help the institution deal effectively and justly to future incidences of sexual harassment and be able to provide Helen with the justice that she deserves, having been unfairly taken advantage by another individual under the University's authority.