No 'Seismic Shift for Sexual Harrssment and Assault

The "Me Too" movement to bring increased awareness of and unity against those committing or covering up sexual harassment and sexual assault has been surprising in its suddenness and its immediate effectiveness. I am concerned about the reaction of those, including former first lady, U.S. senator, U.S. secretary of state and U.S. presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, former presidential advisor James Carville, and Hollywood producer and the most notorious of those accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment Harvey Weinstein. They have explained their actions by referring to the "seismic shift" that has occurred in the U.S. concerning sexual relations. Clinton used this excuse in explaining why the hadn't agreed to fire a member of her 2008 campaign staff accused of sexual harassment.

Seismic shift! It has never been acceptable to harass and/or assault women. It has, however, been common for some to condone such behavior, especially of those in power.

The strong reaction to the Weinstein accusations is important because the Hollywood "casting couch" has been part of filmmaking since the industry settled in that California city in 1913 and has served as a template for such behavior for such behavior. Young women flocked to Hollywood to become movie stars. The "casting couch" was usually introduced as, "Do you want to be in the movie or not? If you do, then you have to be--nice to [to the producer, director, leading actor, screenwriter, whatever]. If you don't want to do this, then there are thousands who will." Similar situations have occurred in the theatre and the financial industries in New York, politics in Washington, D.C. and academia and businesses everywhere.

When I was an executive, female staff members would come to me for help against sexual harassment and/or advances from company managers, presumably because I was and am happily married. I believed that having female employees who feel obliged to succumb to such advances or who quit rather than give in is bad for business. And so I would talk to the managers and, failing in that, talk to the owners, usually citing the potential legal implications and the harm to the company's reputation. The usual result was that the advancer would be told to and would retreat from that particular target and that I had antagonized the advancer as well the owners, who didn't want to offend or possibly lose a talented salesman, fund raiser, or whatever.

The desire to keep those accused on staff and happy has resulted in their continuing bad behavior. Human resources people would take the accuser aside and say, "If it comes to that and they have to choose between you and him, whom do you think they will choose?" Women who accused television journalist Charlie Rose of sexual harassment recalled HR people saying, "Oh, that's just Charlie being Charlie."

I was vocal in my circle during the Clinton scandal of the late 1990s in my disappointment in the response of my two professions--journalism and the law. Much of the media and many attorneys downplayed President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, a presidential intern. They insisted that his dalliance with her and, reportedly, with other women, and his lying under oath about his affair with Lewinsky didn't meet the constitutional requirement necessary for conviction of a president as a "high crime or misdemeanor." Some, such as Carville and Hilary Clinton, suggested the women were gold-diggers, loose and/or trailer-trash. Looking back, Carville, when asked recently, admitted that he probably wouldn't use the same language today, referring to the "seismic shift." Others who were in Congress then and even executives at the National Organization for Women (NOW), admitted after the Weinstein scandal  public  became they probably should have listened to the Clinton accusers more at the time. I remember interviews then with members of Congress in which they were asked if they would let their daughter be an intern under President Clinton. They would invariably say, no, but still insist that his behavior wasn't a high crime or misdemeanor. Few considered the situation of Lewinsky and, reportedly, the other women, who had been propositioned by the governor of Arkansas and, later, the president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world. Some of the women claimed they had been assaulted. Others faced the casting couch dilemma--do you want to work here--or anywhere if you offend the president--and, if so, here's what you have to do. Also, our current president has been the subject of accusations as well.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault were always wrong. There was no seismic shift. People just caved to people in power or in order to stay in power. Those who condoned them in the past should be ashamed, admit they were wrong, and pledge to respect all women in the future. No hiding behind ambiguous phrases. It's the only way the past and the present will make any sense.

Copyright 2018 by John T. Aquino