Tonight, Anita Hill will be speaking at the Memorial Union. Her testimony during the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas publicized the issue of sexual harassment.

Her appearance at Iowa State also comes after Wednesday’s dismissal by an federal judge of Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton.

Susan Webber Wright, the judge for this case, dismissed it because she said there was no “quid pro quo.” That means Jones didn’t demonstrate that the harassment caused definitive suffering following the incident in question.

The judge didn’t address the innocence or guilt of President Clinton. Basically, she did say that if Clinton had exposed himself to Jones, sexual harassment did not occur since there was a lack of quid pro quo.

Wright’s decision, though it was the right one, has now clouded the issue of sexual harassment. Using this decision as a precedent, a single isolated sexual advance (even exposing oneself ) does not fit into the legal definition of sexual harassment.

This clearly shouldn’t be the way the law is enforced, since many will agree that even an isolated incident could be called sexual harassment.

State laws referring to this very sensitive subject need to be revised to clarify what sexual harassment is. They also need to establish a threshold before someone can be charged legitimately. The quid pro quo basis was an attempt at establishing that threshold, but it places too great a burden of proof on the plaintiff.

Lawmakers also need to remember that in many places, sexual harassment laws have created a chilling effect on free speech in the workplace.

There are many instances where off-color jokes and innocent glances have gotten bosses and co-workers in trouble. In these cases, the harassers were said to have created a “hostile environment.” There are cases when the hostile environment basis is legitimate, but that doesn’t mean that sexual harassment is always disguised by harmless banter around the water cooler.

There also should be a statute of limitations, so supposed harassers won’t be subjected to charges of sexual misconduct when they become famous (like the Paula Jones case). A statute of limitations would encourage people to come forward more quickly, not five years later like Ms. Jones did.

Sexual harassment is a despicable act, and those who do it should be punished. We do, however, need to clarify these laws so we can distinguish between those who harass and those who are simply uncouth.