Sexual Harassment - Generally and Locally

When Anita Hill testified in the Clarence Thomas senate hearings that Thomas had sexually harassed her, I was working in a big law firm. Almost all male lawyers thought she was making it up. The secretaries, 98% women, thought she was probably testifying accurately. As did I.

Later three women working there each told me that the same lawyer had sexually harassed her with obscene come-ons obviously aimed not at starting an affair but solely at embarrassing a vulnerable female. That lawyer wasn't amorous. He was a bully.

Tuesday a friend asked what I thought about Charlie Rose's situation. He expressed concern that reputations are being destroyed by innuendo. He reflected that people are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. The law must and does hold you innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases; but in deciding what we each believe happened, we can apply our best judgment to the evidence. 

Yes, occasionally a reputation gets unfairly destroyed. I wrote two columns defending a teacher after the school fired him and the authorities very publicly filed and eventually dropped a bundle of horrible charges.

But if we lined up on one side all those tragic cases, in which someone made something up or misremembered facts, and we lined up on the other side cases where it's clear that a powerful male did bad things to a junior or subordinate female, one side would be nearly empty and the other filled with people like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Harvey Weinstein, the New York Times writer, and countless others. Many people – mostly men – abuse their power, either for sex or simply to feel strong. (To overcompensate for self-doubts?) Women (and sometimes young boys) often don't speak up, for obvious reasons.

We shouldn't pre-judge anyone. Closer to home, if (as seems likely as I write this) DASO Undersheriff Ken Roberts, is placed on administrative leave while investigators look into alleged sexual misconduct by him, he deserves a fair and impartial investigation. 

Have we turned a corner? Will women continue to be believed more readily and feel freer to speak up about abuses? Or is the current receptivity temporary? Will some combination of male power, and abuses of the new receptivity (by some women and/or lawyers) swing the pendulum back some? 

I hope forcibly silencing the abused is over. Forever. And I hope anyone tempted to fabricate some story to attack some guy who's never done anything inappropriate realizes that doing so would not only be wrong, but would contribute to renewed skepticism about such claims.

Throughout human history women have silently suffered silently men's abuse in homes, workplaces, and elsewhere. Our culture has winked at it, even encouraged it. “Boys will be boys.” “Locker room talk.” “She asked for it.” Showbiz and Madison Avenue, using cleavage and a sexy voice to sell everything from skin cream to cars, teach young men that it's all on offer. 

Now is a great time for each of us men to scan our past. When I was very young I did and said things that I'd hate to be judged on now. Thoughts and words I regret. Just as most who grow up in the U.S. have some degree of racism in us, we men have vestigial feelings that conquest is right and natural, and that that's what women are for. 

Let's face that and grow up.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 26 November, 2017, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and also on the newspaper's the newspaper's website and (presently) on KRWG's website; and KRWG will probably air a spoken version Wednesday and Saturday, and KTAL will do so on Thursday.]

[Saturday's Sun-News had a very good column by Heath Haussamen on how Sarah Silva made a difference in making sure that we all knew of the allegations against Michael Padilla -- supported by generous settlements on his behalf by the City of Albuquerque, for whom he worked at the time -- while contemplating whether to make him the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant-Governor.  Sunday's, as well as my column, had Walt Rubel's interesting perspective on the issue.  Walt mentions David Gutierrez, Doña Ana County's former Chief Sexual Harasser -- a prime example of someone who'd admitted such misconduct hanging on in office, taking our money for further embarrassing us and him.  

Let me add mine to the voices calling for Padilla to end his candidacy: the healthy settlements of allegations against him are sufficient corroboration, despite possible nondisclosure clauses in those, and despite the absence of a court decision.  We're not convicting him of a crime here, but [I hope] denying him the great privilege of being New Mexico's lieutenant-governor, or even the Democratic nominee; and we should, because nominating him would (a) be wrong and (b) undermine the Party's chances -- and electing him would embarrass the state and send the wrong message to young men and women.  With the presence of other appealing candidates in the race, we don't need him.  He should just gracefully walk away, for his own sake as much as New Mexico's.] 

[On the local angle of my column, the placement of Undersheriff Ken Roberts on administrative leave: I'm reliably informed by many that the problem is sexual harassment, that the allegations involve more than one woman, and that at least in one case we are talking about actions rather than words.  At least two television news departments have been following the story for a while now.  When I drafted my column, Roberts had not yet been placed on administrative leave, but I believed he would be on Wednesday.  Now, according to a television news report Thursday evening, he was placed on leave Wednesday.  However, so far as I know, no official statement by him or by DASO or by the County has stated the reasons.  I believe an Albuquerque group the County has used previously is investigating, which is probably good.  (He's too controversial for an investigation by anyone in the County, particularly since Sheriff Kiki Vigil has been sued or been sued by the County about seven or eight times.  Vigil likely will stand by Roberts, at least initially, although I haven't had a chance to ask him.  
We can only hope that the investigation is fair and thorough, for everyone's sake, but fast -- for the sake of DASO's functioning and also so that if Roberts is guilty of this misconduct -- and I stress the "IF" -- taxpayers don't keep paying him too long.]

[The end-game could be interesting.  Statute gives the Sheriff the right to choose his undersheriff. If the County decides Roberts committed firing offenses and the Sheriff wants to keep him on, could we see yet another lawsuit between DASO and the County?  If Vigil insisted on keeping Roberts, could the County stop paying him?  My guess is that either Vigil would live with the investigation results or the DPS would lift Roberts's license to be a law-enforcement officer, disqualifying him as undersheriff.]