Question

A Mir Kiss?

By Steven L. McShane, The University of Western Australia

A team of psychologists at Moscow's Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP) wanted to learn more about the dynamics of long-term isolation in space. This knowledge would be applied to the International Space Station, a joint project of several countries that would send people into space for more than six months. It would eventually include a trip to Mars taking up to three years.

IBMP set up a replica of the Mir space station in Moscow. They then arranged for three international researchers from Japan, Canada and Austria to spend 110 days isolated in a chamber the size of a train car. This chamber joined a smaller chamber where four Russian cosmonauts had already completed half of their 240 days of isolation. This was the first time an international crew was involved in the studies. None of the participants spoke English as their first language, yet they communicated throughout their stay in English at varying levels of proficiency.

Judith Lapierre, a French Canadian, was the only female in the experiment. In addition to her PhD in public health and social medicine, Lapierre studied space sociology at the International Space University in France and conducted isolation research in the Antarctic. This was her fourth trip to Russia, and she had already learned the language. The mission was supposed to have a second female participant from the Japanese space program, but she was not selected by IBMP.

The Japanese and Austrian participants viewed the participation of a woman as a favourable factor, says Lapierre. For example, to make the surroundings more comfortable, they rearranged the furniture, hung posters on the wall and put a tablecloth on the kitchen table. ‘We adapted our environment, whereas the Russians just viewed it as something to be endured,’ she explains. ‘We decorated for Christmas, because I'm the kind of person who likes to host people.’

New Year's Eve Turmoil

Ironically, it was at one of those social events, the New Year's Eve party, that events took a turn for the worse. After drinking vodka (allowed by the Russian space agency), two of the Russian cosmonauts got into a fistfight that left blood splattered on the chamber walls. At one point, a colleague hid the knives in the station's kitchen because of fears that the two Russians were about to stab each other. The two cosmonauts, who generally did not get along, had to be restrained by other men. Soon after that brawl, the Russian commander grabbed Lapierre, dragged her out of view of the television monitoring cameras and kissed her aggressively—twice. Lapierre fought him off, but the message didn't register. He tried to kiss her again the next morning.

The next day, the international crew complained to IBMP about the behaviour of the Russian cosmonauts. The Russian institute apparently took no action against any of the aggressors. Instead, the institute's psychologists replied that the incidents were part of the experiment. They wanted crew members to solve their personal problems with mature discussion, without asking for outside help. ‘You have to understand that Mir is an autonomous object, far away from anything,’ Vadim Gushin, the IBMP psychologist in charge of the project, explained after the experiment had ended in March: ‘If the crew can't solve problems among themselves, they can't work together.’

Following IBMP's response, the international crew wrote a scathing letter to the Russian institute and the space agencies involved in the experiment. ‘We had never expected such events to take place in a highly controlled scientific experiment where individuals go through a multistep selection process,’ they wrote. ‘If we had known … we would not have joined it as subjects.’ The letter also complained about IBMP's response to their concerns.

Informed of the New Year's Eve incident, the Japanese space program convened an emergency meeting on 2 January to address the incidents. Soon after, the Japanese team member quit, apparently shocked by IBMP's inaction. He was replaced with a Russian researcher on the international team. Ten days after the fight—a little over a month after the international team began the mission—the doors between the Russian and international crew's chambers were barred at the request of the international research team. Lapierre later emphasised that this action was taken because of concerns about violence, not the incident involving her.

A Stolen Kiss or Sexual Harassment?

By the end of the experiment in March, news of the fistfight between the cosmonauts and the commander's attempts to kiss Lapierre had reached the public. Russian scientists attempted to play down the kissing incident by saying that it was one fleeting kiss, a clash of cultures and a female participant who was too emotional.

‘In the West, some kinds of kissing are regarded as sexual harassment. In our culture it's nothing,’ said IBMP's Vadim Gushin in one interview. In another interview, he explained: ‘The problem of sexual harassment is given a lot of attention in North America but less in Europe. In Russia it is even less of an issue, not because we are more or less moral than the rest of the world; we just have different priorities.’

Judith Lapierre says the kissing incident was tolerable compared to this reaction from the Russian scientists who conducted the experiment. ‘They don't get it at all,’ she complains. ‘They don't think anything is wrong. I'm more frustrated than ever. The worst thing is that they don't realise it was wrong.’

Norbert Kraft, the Austrian scientist on the international team, also disagreed with the Russian interpretation of events. ‘They're trying to protect themselves,’ he says. ‘They're trying to put the fault on others. But this is not a cultural issue. If a woman doesn't want to be kissed, it is not acceptable.

Question 1: Is there anything unlawful about the interaction between the Russian Commander and Lapierre?
(Explain your answer using whether this act is unlawful or not. You need not to describe here the clauses and laws here)

Question 2: From what you have read of this situation, what would you say are the responsibilities of the employer?

(This is general question and you have to act as an employer and decide who is wrong and who is right provide the action you will take as an employer in this case)

Question 3: As a HR practitioner, critically analyse the Russian scientist’s response which said that the kissing incident was: a) one fleeting kiss; b) a clash of cultures; and c) a female participant who was too emotional? Consider issues such as:

•A multicultural workplace

•Workplace culture and norms

•Diversity culture

•Women in STEM careers

Question 4: How could an employer prevent further recurrences of this type of behaviour?
(here you will have to describe strategies that you will follow for preventing the reoccurrence) ,

Answer 1

1. Yes, the interaction between Russian Commander and Lapierre was unlawful because it is unlawful to harass a person, due to their sex. Harassment includes physical gestures of sexual nature. Harassment necessarily need not be of sexual nature. Law also states a harasser can be anybody, vicitims superior, coworker, etc. Russian commander kissed Lapierre and also made sexual advances. These acts are completely unlawful.

2. As an employer, it is my responsibilty to protect my employees from any form of harassment, sexual or otherwise. In this particular situation, Russian commander was wrong, as he did an unlawful act. He indulged in sexual harassment of Lapierre. As an employer, I would have removed Russian commander from the mission, and would have instigated a criminal complaint against him, in the an agreed area of jurisdiciton.

3. As an HR practitioner, my analysis of the response of the russian scientists are :

a) It was not one fleeting kiss, it was sexual harassment, as the agressor tried to make advances towards the victim, next morning also. And it doesnt matter whether it was one kiss or not, it is unlawful, in any circumstances. Women in stem careers, generally face such kind of harassments, and law pertaining to such acts is pretty stringent. Women, should make use of this law, if they face any form of harassment at workplace

b)It is not a clash of cultures, sexual harassment codes have been gloablly defined by internationally recognized bodies. International bodies like the ILO keep in mind the culture of all civilizations in mind when they are drafting the law, hence, it cannot be said its a clash of civilizations.

c) Workplace culture and norms demand that environment for employees should be stress and harassment free. It demands it should have a diverse nature and rights of employees must be respected. It is irrespective of the fact that the woman was emotional or not, any form of harassment at workplace is unlawful.

4. Strategies to prevent any further recurrences are:

• Provide trainings to employees on sexual harassment
• Make strict guidlines for employees at workplace
• Inform employees about what is appropriate and what is in appropriate behaviour
• Take help from state agencies to sensitize employees on workplace norms
• Have a management committee setup to look into such cases
• Have exemplary punishments in place for people who indulge in such behavior  

Employer can prevent such instances from happening by following the steps mentioned above.