Deserved or not, charges of sexual harassment have
recently sunk the reputations and careers of well-known American personalities
from Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly to Hollywood titan Harvey Weinstein to prominent
TV host and anchor Charlie Rose. Even
the long ago many allegations of sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton are getting
a fresh and sympathetic reconsideration by segments of the American public
which previously dismissed the charges as mere political assaults engendered by
“the right wing conspiracy”.
But does the nearly universal condemnation of those
accused constitute an over-reaction and, in some instances, an outright
injustice?
Leave aside the reasonable assumption that not all of the
allegations are true or are without exaggeration or embellishment.
“Sexual harassment” has been used in the media as if the
term encompassed non-contact sexual conduct (e.g. solicitation and comments) as
well as indecent exposure (open bathrobe) and forced sex (fondling and rape).
That is not correct.
The first activity is rude, boorish and ill-mannered. The latter two are much more. They are crimes everywhere.
Thus Weinstein - notorious among the movie set for his
serious sexual peccadillos is forced out of his company, while Rose –accused of
placing an unwanted hand on a young woman’s upper leg – is terminated by
various employers.
Was the response appropriate? Did Rose deserve the same treatment as
Weinstein?
These questions are posed without the slightest intention
of belittling the offensiveness and seriousness of the presumed or admitted
conduct. But one gets the sense that
some commentators believe perpetrators have, by their conduct, forfeited their
previous status as respected members of society for their positive
contributions.
This is not a question of political perspective. Unlike the Bill Clinton era when liberal
orientation earned a pass from the media, the targets span the ideological
spectrum from Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes to Alex Baldwin and Harvey
Weinstein.
Is the “sin” of sexual harassment of such magnitude that
it overwhelms the accomplishments of one’s life thereafter? Is the stain so penetrating that it
obliterates now and henceforth recognition of positive efforts? Note that I am not referring to criminal behavior.
[Some view, in like mind, a positive view of slavery two
hundred years ago as unpardonable and is the sole basis for judging a person’s
worthiness – hence one hears calls by a few to tear down monuments to certain
of the nation’s founders.]
A case in point:
Kevin Spacey has long been viewed as an outstanding actor (most recently
as the lead in the popular House of Cards
series), yet he has also admitted to “inappropriate contact” with an underage
male. The immediate response was the
cancellation of his future appearances on the program. Why?
What did one have to do with the other? Was there hypocrisy indeed in Spacey with his
now tarnished character, playing the role in the series as an upright, moral
President of the United States? Hardly.
Spacey’s “Frank Underwood” is a thoroughly venal, amoral
chief executive who embodies seemingly only the worst character traits.
Yet now, Spacey and other accused miscreants are to be “cast
out” in the Biblical sense as lepers – as pariahs. Maybe Spacey’s actions, if criminal, warrant that.
But what of non-criminal harassers?
“Overreaction” seems too mild a description for what is
happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment