As graduation season comes to a close, the yes123 online job bank at the end of last month surveyed 1,260 college graduates to gauge their experiences as they seek jobs, often for the first time. The results were shocking. It turns out that many graduates’ welcome into working life is a litany of harassment, starting at the hands of interviewers.
In the survey, 30.2 percent of respondents said they had been sexually harassed by an interviewer, either verbally or physically. It is not like they have had years to encounter a few “bad apples” — most of these jobseekers have only just started interviewing this year.
That is just the start of a lewd laundry list. Another 31.8 percent of respondents said they were asked if they had any “unmentionable diseases” or “experienced pain during their periods,” 27.3 percent said interviewers made inappropriate jokes, 25.2 percent said they were asked about their sexual orientation and 23.9 percent said they were asked about their measurements, height or weight.
As for physical intrusions, 21.8 percent said that interviewers had put their hands on their shoulders, 20.5 percent said interviewers had touched or tried to hold their hands, 18.4 percent said that interviewers caressed their backs and 9.4 percent said interviewers groped their buttocks.
By far the most common was invasive questioning, with 87.7 percent saying they were asked private questions, including 60.3 percent who were asked about their relationship status.
Despite the figures, to many, these results are not surprising. If this batch of graduates is facing such pervasive harassment, imagine the countless more before them who experienced all this and worse, setting dismal expectations as they began their foray into adulthood. The figures help paint a picture of the kind of normalized harassment only now seeing the light of day, helping to elucidate why #MeToo is necessary and why it took so long to gain ground.
Job interviews also provide a distilled case study of the power dynamics at play in so many harassment cases. The setup is classic: Someone with power and authority (the interviewer) has something (a job) that another with less authority (the interviewee) wants. Is the interviewee going to make a fuss when the interviewer brushes their knee or asks about their plans for marriage? Or are they more likely to shake it off as something they will just have to put up with to pay the rent and put food on the table? It seems a small indignity to bear for the benefits, but as these tableaus play out en masse, it creates hostile environments that often escalate into something worse.
As the government heightens incentives for people — particularly women — to return to the workforce, it is clear that throwing money at the problem is not enough. Overt harassment aside, these data also expose a less sinister, but more pervasive disregard for any semblance of work-life balance. When employers ask about a woman’s plan for marriage (and it is nearly always a woman), they are enforcing a false dichotomy between having a career and having a family, and forcing her to choose, even straight out of college. How could any young woman imagine having a healthy personal life when she is repeatedly told it would harm her career?
The implication behind employers’ probing questions is that any pursuit outside of work is an unacceptable distraction, justifying the unsustainable working hours and conditions that plague workplaces in Taiwan, and poison well-being along with productivity.
It might only be one survey, but its jarring figures add another irrefutable piece of evidence to what the champions of the #MeToo and labor movements have been saying all along.
Three in 10 interviewing graduates facing sexual harassment is no aberration — it is symptomatic of a rot that needs to be cut out at its source.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS