Sexual Harrassment: Beyond Being Against It

Few issues have stirred up politics, business, entertainment, or general culture like sexual harassment has recently.  The #MeToo movement sprang up after sexual misconduct revelations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.  Allegations followed against television hosts Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose, Minnesota Senator Al Franken, Michigan Congressman John Conyers, and Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore.  Two Presidential aides, speechwriter David Sorensen and Staff Secretary Rob Porter, departed the White House after their former wives charged them with domestic violence.  Meantime, #MeToo gathered momentum as actresses wore black to events like the Golden Globe Awards ceremony in support of the movement, which encourages women to come forward and report incidents of sexual harassment.

No woman or man should have to endure unwanted sexual advances to get a part in a film, work in a bakery or a congressional office, pursue an educational opportunity, or serve in the military.  Hopefully, we can agree on that basic premise.  We state unequivocally our intolerance for any form of sexual harassment.  

Anything past that simple statement, however, puts us in line for sociological, political, and legal debates about (1) the definition of sexual harassment; (2) the appropriate forums for sexual harassment victims, that is where do we decide the fate of alleged harassers; (3) what differences do or don’t exist between sexual bad acts; and (4) due process rights for alleged perpetrators.  Despite the complexity, we’ll dive briefly into each topic as a prelude to further discussion in coming weeks and months. 

What is it, anyway?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines workplace sexual harassment as “unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.” The Commission notes that unlawful conduct creates “an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”  Some sexual harassment claims turn on proving a quid pro quo in which continued employment, career path, and/or pay depended on willingness to submit to sexual demands.   

The EEOC scheme is good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t cover every situation.  Men who make unwanted advances on dates, for example, may not have job-related power over women.  The Catholic Church’s sex scandals involving priests and children don’t fit into the EEOC paradigm.  The workplace definition doesn’t work in all instances, the reason Henry argues we should focus on sexual misconduct.  Sexual harassment, for example, seems too tame a term for the allegations against Moore.  Though he denied the charges, many voters apparently believed the assertion he molested young women, some mere children when he allegedly initiated intimate contact with them.

Who decides?    

In the Rob Porter case, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly privately encouraged Porter to ride out the storm and even issued a public statement declaring him a “man of integrity.” Kelly, however, likely knew of the allegations for more than a year.  Only after photos surfaced showing one of Porter’s alleged victims with a black eye did Kelly back off support for Porter.  Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, apparently without knowledge of the facts, contended Porter shouldn’t quit and labeled his accusers “morally bankrupt.”

The Porter, Moore, and Franken cases raise the question of how to resolve sexual harassment complaints involving office holders.  Is the voting booth enough, as in Moore’s case?  What role should disciplinary mechanisms of legislative bodies play?  That might have been the vehicle in Franken’s case until he resigned under pressure from some of his Democratic colleagues perhaps seeking political advantage in the public relations war.  How much does it matter if the alleged transgressions occurred before being elected to office, as in the case of President Trump?  How do we balance the rights of the alleged victim and the electorate’s freedom to elect who it wants, despite harassment allegations? Right now, like most people sorting this out, we have more questions than answers. 
             

Are all Sexual Bad Acts Equally Bad?

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a Senate leader on sexual harassment issues, recently declined to distinguish between sexual harassment and sexual assault saying, a line must be drawn and “none of it is okay.”  The implications of her view led Bill Maher, host of "Real Time with Bill Maher" to push back.  He said, “Justice requires weighing things.  That’s why Lady Justice is holding a scale and not a sawed-off shotgun,” adding, “I’m down with #MeToo.  I’m not down with #MeMcCarthryism.”

Senator Gillibrand’s position appears to make any number of sexist acts someone finds offensive worthy of scorn.  She said, “None of it is okay.” In the interest of not trying to take on too much right now, we’ll let Gillibrand and Maher speak for themselves, but recognize that their conflict marks an important flashpoint in the debate.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent or Just Guilty

Related to the pushback point remains the question of what happens to people accused of sexual harassment?  Is the mere accusation of sexual harassment a death sentence for the alleged harasser’s professional life?  In the interest of encouraging women to come forward with their stories without fear of being disbelieved, should a presumption of guilt attach?  Or, do we follow the traditional presumption of innocence until proven guilty, as in every other criminal or quasi criminal matter? What process is due in sexual harassment situations?  What is fair?  
   

These points only scratch the surface on this issue.  We’ll have more to say later. Perhaps you have thoughts now – do share!