The ‘Me Too’ movement began in 2006 to support survivors of sexual harassment and violence, particularly Black women and girls and other women of color from low‐wealth communities (Me Too, About). This movement started as a local grassroots effort and has expanded to reach “a global community of survivors from all walks of life and helped to de‐stigmatize the act of surviving by highlighting the breadth and impact of a sexual violence worldwide” (Me Too, About). Now, also recognized as “hashtag, MeToo” or #MeToo, largely due to its viral spread through social media, #MeToo has prioritized sexual harassment and violence in social, economic, and political spheres. Academia is not isolated from the movement and has been confronted, often times unwillingly, with survivors’ accounts of sexual harassment and violence.

Prior to the onset of the #MeToo movement, sexual harassment and violence in academia received little attention. The larger #MeToo movement spawned subsequent movements within academic disciplines (see The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report and the following examples: @MeTooSTEM, @MeTooANthro, @MeTooPoliSci), academic ranks (see #MeTooPhD), and even name faculty from colleges and universities (see: Academic Sexual Misconduct Database https://academic‐sexual‐misconduct‐database.org). This increased attention and ubiquity of sexual harassment and violence in academia prompts us to question the cultural and structural factors that contribute to this problem. Karen Kelsky (2017) conducted a crowd‐sourced survey of sexual harassment in the academy that documents more than 2,400 cases. The implications of the #MeToo movement for academia calls into question common practices, policies, and culture in higher education (Elias and D'Agostino 2019). The rampant sexual harassment and violence incidents prompt a larger conversation and rethinking of the power dynamics in academia, namely, the role of institutions and individuals in preventing sexual harassment and violence (Elias and D'Agostino 2019).

Our Women in the Public Sector blog, Implications of the #MeToo Movement for Academia (2019), set out to create a space to discuss the critical topic of sexual harassment and violence in the field of public administration. Our call for submissions encouraged contributors to question and suggest changes to the practices and structures that perpetuate and render sex and gender inequity invisible. We asked authors to focus on the role of institutions and individuals in preventing sexual harassment and assault, as well as propose solutions to difficult challenges. To continue the discussion and further develop solutions for practice in academia, the blog contributors were invited to submit to this Viewpoint Symposium. The authors mentioned below build on their blogs and provide a scholarly lens for understanding some of the most pressing topics surrounding #MeToo in academia.

Knepper, Scutelnicu, and Tekula emphasize the implications of gender harassment, the least recognized form of sexual harassment, and recommend evidence‐based guidance for advancing women in the academy to create more equitable and just spaces for teaching and learning in The Slippery Slope: Struggling for Equity in the Academy in the Era of #MeToo. Neal, Gherardi, and Olejarski, in Beyond the Turtle Approach: Women in the Public Sector, argue that the #MeToo movement has ushered in a new way of thinking and supporting women in public organizations. They advocate for more inclusive mentoring relationships by providing holistic support and intentional mentorships throughout the arc of women's careers and institutional policy changes that support the unique value of women in the public sector and the academy. Johnson and Renderos draw attention to the demographic diversity within the #MeToo movement in The Invisible Populations. They ask what happens when the wrong person, that is, people of color, working‐class, women, and transgender persons, share their #MeToo experiences. They demonstrate that, when these “wrong persons” do speak out, they are often discredited, marginalized, and silenced. This viewpoint addresses two populations often overlooked by the #MeToo Movement, namely, women of color and transgender persons. The viewpoint concludes with recommendations for how the movement can respond to the authors' critiques surrounding diversity and transparency. In Facing the Giant: A Framework to Undo Sex‐Based Discrimination in Academia, Bishu and Kennedy propose a three‐part framework to establish a culture of zero‐tolerance of sexual harassment. The intent of framework is for leaders and administrators in academic institutions to adopt this tool to prevent sexual harassment and violence, protect victims from risks of reporting, and set accountability measures to demand justice. An additional approach to preventing sexual harassment and violence is introduced by Dolamore and Richards in Assessing the Organizational Culture of Higher Education Institutions in an Era of #MeToo. Their framework, Preventing and Addressing Sexual Misconduct, is a tool to assess an organizational culture's responsiveness to #MeToo. This tool is a starting place for the continued dialogue that is needed to more fully address sexual misconduct on college campuses. In furthering Dolamore and Richards' support for amplified attention to #MeToo, Colvin and Blount‐Hill, in Truth and Reconciliation as a Model for Change #MeToo, propose a new system of accountability to provide justice for survivors. Namely, they suggest the adoption of a Truth and Reconciliation Model. This model offers a public forum for survivors to testify to the events of their #MeToo experiences and for offenders to admit previous wrongdoing, taking responsibility and asking forgiveness.

The contributions from this Viewpoint provide a strong departure point for more scholarly and practical work on #MeToo in academia. We must keep challenging the organizational and individual aspects of #MeToo that the authors presented here so richly. For example, future research should examine how to take a proactive approach to avoiding #MeToo experiences in academic institutions. This involves innovative thinking and difficult work at the organizational and individual levels, especially when confronting our own biases and behaviors. Research is not enough however. Scholars should also engage with practitioners in public and nonprofit agencies to understand how to address #MeToo experiences and support survivors when sexual harassment and violence occurs in academia. At conferences, there is a ripe opportunity for training and questioning our own biases and role in furthering a #MeToo culture in academia. Finally, brining #MeToo topics into the classroom will better prepare students and future practitioners for public spaces that openly and honestly admonish sexual harassment and violence. This is no small charge, and we thank the authors of both our Women in the Public Sector blog series and this Viewpoint Symposium for their thoughtful efforts to begin this agenda.

“我也是”运动始于2006年，目的是支持性骚扰和暴力幸存者，特别是黑人妇女和女童以及其他低收入社区的有色妇女（我也是，简介）。这项运动始于当地基层的努力，现已扩展到“全球各行各业的幸存者社区，并通过强调世界范围内性暴力的广度和影响，对幸存行为污名化”（Me Too，关于）。现在，也被称为“标签，MeToo”或“ #MeToo”，主要是由于其在社交媒体上的病毒传播，＃MeToo优先考虑了社会，经济和政治领域的性骚扰和暴力行为。学术界并非孤立于运动，而且幸存者对性骚扰和暴力的叙述常常不情愿地面对。

在#MeToo运动爆发之前，学术界的性骚扰和暴力行为很少受到关注。较大的#MeToo运动产生了学术领域内的后续运动（请参见美国国家科学，工程和医学研究院报告以及以下示例：@ MeTooSTEM，@ MeTooANthro，@ MeTooPoliSci），学术级别（请参见#MeTooPhD），甚至是姓名高校教师（请参阅：学术性不端行为数据库https://academic-sexual-misconduct-database.org）。学术界对性骚扰和暴力的日益关注和普遍存在促使我们质疑造成这一问题的文化和结构因素。凯伦·凯斯基（Karen Kelsky）（2017）在该学院进行了一项针对人群的性骚扰调查，记录了2,400多起案件。#MeToo运动对学术界的影响使人们质疑高等教育的通用做法，政策和文化（Elias和D'Agostino  2019）。猖ramp的性骚扰和暴力事件促使人们对学术界的权力动态进行更广泛的讨论和反思，即机构和个人在预防性骚扰和暴力中的作用（Elias和D'Agostino  2019）。

我们公共部门中的女性博客，＃MeToo运动对学术界的影响（2019年）着手创建一个空间，以讨论公共行政领域性骚扰和暴力的关键话题。我们要求提交意见的呼吁鼓励撰稿人提出质疑并提出对使性别和性别不平等永久化并使性别和性别不平等变得无形的做法和结构的建议。我们要求作者重点关注机构和个人在防止性骚扰和性侵犯方面的作用，并提出解决难题的解决方案。为了继续进行讨论并进一步开发用于学术界的实践解决方案，博客作者被邀请提交此观点研讨会。以下提到的作者建立在他们的博客上，并提供了一个学术视角来了解学术界围绕#MeToo的一些最紧迫的话题。

珀，Scutelnicu和Tekula强调性别骚扰，性骚扰至少公认形式的影响，并建议以证据为基础的指导在学院促进妇女创造教学更加公平和公正的空间，并在学习滑坡：挣扎在#MeToo时代争取学院的平等。Neal，Gherardi和Olejarski，《超越乌龟的方法：公共部门中的妇女》，她认为#MeToo运动引入了一种新的思维方式，为公共组织中的女性提供支持。他们倡导通过在女性职业生涯的整个过程中提供全面的支持和有意的指导，以建立更具包容性的指导关系，并通过机构政策变革来支持妇女在公共部门和学院中的独特价值。Johnson和Renderos提请注意“看不见的人口”中#MeToo运动中的人口多样性。他们问当错误的人，即有色人种，工人阶级，妇女和变性人分享他们的#MeToo经历时会发生什么。他们表明，当这些“错误的人”确实讲出来时，他们经常被抹黑，被边缘化和沉默。这种观点涉及#MeToo运动经常忽视的两个人群，即有色人种和变性人。该观点最后提出了有关该运动如何回应作者对多样性和透明度的批评的建议。在面对巨人：在学术界一个框架，以撤消性别的歧视Bishu和Kennedy提出了一个三部分的框架，以建立对性骚扰零容忍的文化。该框架的目的是让学术机构的领导者和管理者采用此工具来防止性骚扰和暴力，保护受害者免受举报风险，并制定问责措施以要求司法公正。Dolamore和Richards在#MeToo时代评估高等教育机构的组织文化中引入了另一种防止性骚扰和暴力的方法。。他们的框架“预防和解决性行为不端”是评估组织文化对#MeToo的响应能力的工具。此工具是继续对话的起点，需要继续对话才能更充分地解决大学校园中的性行为不端。在进一步推动多拉莫尔和理查兹支持#MeToo的关注时，科尔文和布朗特·希尔在《真理与和解作为变革模式》中提出了一种新的问责制，为幸存者提供正义。即，他们建议采用真相与和解模型。这种模式为幸存者提供了一个公开论坛，以证明他们#MeToo经历的事件，而罪犯则承认以前的过失，承担责任和寻求宽恕。

这个观点的贡献为学术界关于#MeToo的更多学术和实践工作提供了一个强有力的出发点。我们必须继续挑战#MeToo的组织和个人方面，作者在这里提出的内容如此丰富。例如，未来的研究应研究如何采取积极主动的方法来避免在学术机构中遇到#MeToo经历。这涉及组织和个人层面的创新思维和艰巨的工作，尤其是在面对我们自己的偏见和行为时。但是，研究还不够。当学术界发生性骚扰和暴力时，学者还应与公共和非营利机构的从业者接触，以了解如何应对#MeToo的经历并支持幸存者。在会议上 在培训和质疑我们自己的偏见以及在学术界促进#MeToo文化发展方面的作用时，这是一个成熟的机会。最后，将#MeToo主题带入课堂将更好地为学生和未来的从业者做好准备，以公开，诚实地劝告性骚扰和暴力行为的公共场所。这是一笔不小的费用，我们感谢“公共部门中的女性”博客系列以及本观点研讨会的作者为开始这一议程而进行的认真努力。