A scenario alleged by eight women in a recent sexual harassment suit sounds like something out of a gay porn film: the women, who work as counselors and officers at a California youth prison, say that the young men incarcerated there, ages 18-25, have allegedly been “exposing their genitals, and engaging in masturbation.” The women also allege that the young men threw urine on them and grabbed their buttocks and chests.

Years ago, citing safety concerns, all-male correctional facilities did not employ women, and the prison setting still is very much segregated by gender, and, to some extent, by race, as well. Women do work in men’s prisons, but they are usually restricted from supervising showers and other areas where men would likely to be naked.

The women, who claim their complaints have gone nowhere, allege that because some of the acts are criminal, the prosecutors should have filed criminal charges against the inmates. However, California’s Office of the Inspector General notes in a report that the “facility’s ability to hold wards accountable for sexual misconduct, such as exposing themselves to female staff members, is hampered by ineffective or inadequate punishment.”

A few years ago, California courts made it clear that California requires employers, such as a prison, to create working environments free of bias and hostility based not only upon gender, but also sexual orientation. The state not only requires employers to prevent supervisors and co-workers from harassing employees, it also requires employers to prevent “customers” – in this case, inmates – from harassing employees.

Because abuse goes both ways:

For example, in Texas, people are fuming because investigators revealed according to the case report, that two supervisors at a prison for boys regularly “awakened boys for late-night encounters behind closed doors in deserted offices.” Some of the victims filed complaints as early as 2003, but the complaints didn’t reach authorities until 2005. And then they languished for almost two more years in the Ward County district attorney’s office.

The Texas Youth Commission, which oversees 4,000 juveniles, ages 10-17 in 13 secure schools, was aware of the complaints but failed to do anything. Investigators noted that some of the boys were kept in the facilities long after their release dates. That alone should have raised some red flags.

Why were they kept longer? For a change, the supervisors weren’t trying to get extra funds. No, these Texas good ol’ boys added up to eight months longer than required when a boy “refused to have sex with a supervisor.” They deducted a point [for good behavior] and required him to stay longer.”

Randall Chance, a former inspector general at one of the youth prisons told The New York Times that the “abuses were covered up.”

“They’re not a problem at the Texas Youth Commission unless you bring it up, and then you’re the problem,” he said.

Since the story broke a few months ago, Texas established a hotline and now has logged about 1,100 complaints, with about 225 concerning sex abuse.

The New York Times seems to be the only newspaper covering this massive scandal involving President Bush’s home state. And the irony is that, given the gravity of the charges, the president should have instructed his Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to conduct a federal probe. Instead, ironically, the A.G. has been touring the country touting how the Department of Justice is protecting children against on-line predators.