What would you do if you learned that two weeks from now a man repeatedly accused of aggressive sexual misconduct may decide whether women have the power to confront people who discriminate against them?
On March 29th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the largest civil rights case in the history of the country. The decision in this case could bring women's progress to a grinding halt; and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may be the deciding vote. Yes, a man whose public debut was defined by accusations of egregious sexual misconduct could decide the economic future of women across the country. Can a man reportedly "obsessed with porn" who "spoke of (sex) acts he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals . . . or rape scenes" act as an effective arbiter of sex discrimination at work? And if not, what can be done about it?
The specific issue in Wal-Mart v. Dukes is whether or not 1 million female employees of the giant retailer can be considered a class. Because it is only the threat of action by a group (in legal terms a 'class') that makes illegal bias economically un-viable for large corporations, the outcome of this case is paramount. It is significantly cheaper to bury a single employee in legal fees and continue the illegal pay disparity than it is to pay male and female employees equal pay for equal work. As a 'class', the women will have substantial power to confront the company's illegal bias against them; without class designation, they will not.
Lillian McEwen, a former long-term girlfriend of Thomas, recently released a memoir that sheds new light on the Justice's personality and his casual misogyny. Largely ignored by the media, McEwan's account bolsters Anita Hill's stories of Thomas' behavior in the workplace describing how Thomas made a hobby of "sizing up" women at work. McEwan details Thomas' obsession with pornography, which she calls "just a part of his personality structure." In interviews, Ms. McEwan says that pornography, and the attitudes that accompany it, were not relegated to Thomas' private life. According to Ms. McEwen, Thomas "allowed his interest in pornography to bleed into his professional relationships."By McEwan's telling, for this Justice, bias and a penchant for disempowering women did not disappear when the DVD stopped.
The science around pornography is hardly complete, however many studies have shown that it increases bias against women. At the very least, it seems illogical that it would decrease one's bias. A review published in The Journal of Sex Research cites a study where college men and women were shown a variety of film clips and then asked to recommend sentencing for a convicted rapist. Students exposed to sexualized violence usually supported shorter sentences. Another study measured male subjects' "rape-myth acceptance", finding that subjects exposed to violent, sexually explicit images were more likely to agree with sentiments like - "women who dress a certain way are asking for it". By that logic, does wearing a skirt also mean women are asking to be paid substantially less than male counterparts for doing the same work?
Even the most cursory examination of Thomas' professional life indicates that while Anita Hill became the most famous of Thomas' victims, she was hardly the only one to suffer his peccadilloes. Unless something is done, millions more women will also suffer those effects. So in addition to substantiating Hill's account of Thomas' anti-woman bias, Ms. McEwan's account re-opens the door to questions that were not properly examined during the Anita Hill hearings. Questions like: should a person with a documented history of bias against a group of people be allowed judge cases that will enable that same bias?
Is there any basis for preventing a person who holds a particular bias to judge a case involving that same bias? Actually, yes. In 2008, then New Jersey Governor Corzinewithdrew the reappointment of Judge Fred Kaiser Jr., a Superior Court Judge from Middlesex Country, who directed an anti-Asian slur at a defendant. The Asian American Bar Association, and (dare we hope most Americans?) applauded that move. Kaiser is not the only Judge to leave the bench in shame after making a biased and incendiary statement - a suburban Chicago judge also resigned after being caught using anti-black slurs at the scene of a traffic accident. Leaving the bench for racial slurs but not for sexual ones? Seems a little (eh-hem) biased, doesn't it? When will women - and the men who care about them - demand that prejudice against women be as damning a characteristic of a public official as prejudices of other kinds? If we would step forward against a judge with a history of anti-Semitism, or racism, shouldn't we step forward now?
Will we demand the removal of a man with a troubling and corroborated history of prejudice against a specific group of people or will we endorse his prejudice by continuing to allow him to serve on the Supreme Court?
For reasons difficult to understand (at least, rationally), Republicans have long seemed to dislike public employees. Generally, it's centered on workers making too much money, a concept Republicans don't mind in the private community. But if a public employee dares make above a sustenance wage, bring out the commentators and pitchforks. If a public employee makes $100,000, that is a sign of the Apocalypse.
(What most Republicans tend never to ask, mind you, is why that public employee is making $100,000. So, they never hear that usually a) the employee is a head supervisor with decades of expertise, b) cutbacks in government funding forced layoffs, which require this expert to work extra overtime, and c) someone with that much experience in private business generally earns significantly more. But why ask about reality, when howling at the moon is easier?)
Now, I understand there's a difference between a private worker earning $300,000 for a corporation, and a public employee getting $60,000 paid by taxpayers. The former is deservedly rewarded for helping make a profit. The other is serving the public good to make citizens' lives better. Personally, I think the latter is noble-minded and something selfless to be admired and appreciated. But hey, that's just me.
I understand, too, that the patron saint of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, said, "Government is the problem," which set that unshakeable philosophy in impervious stone. And so, we tend to hear from many Republicans the all-encompassing ridicule, "Would you like to see Big Government run...?" - followed by the name of some private industry, always meant to suggest that the government can't run anything properly, while private business is near-godlike.
Government red tape can indeed be one of Dante's seven levels of hell. But given that 60% of all new restaurants fail in their very first year, I wouldn't care to see the National Restaurant Association in charge of snow removal.
But let's be fair. For the sake of argument, let's accept the conservative Republican view that the government is terrible at running things, and if private business did the work, taxes would be lower. Okay? Great! So, then, let's ask the exact same question as before, just - reversed.
"Would you like to see private industry run...?" And now fill in the blank with some government agency.
Because we're just being fair. Right?
Would you like to see private business run the Armed Forces? Just make everything a private militia. It's already in the Constitution. Let the branches compete, and only the strongest would survive. That's Business 101. The military could even be outsourced overseas. If a private investor wanted to buy his own brigades, that's the business spirit that made America great. And the president wouldn't have to worry about spreading himself too thin as Commander-in-Chief, a job most haven't really been qualified for anyway.
Would you like to see private business run the nation's police departments? They certainly have experience already with Home Security companies. And if a private consortium wants to start up another police force, just imagine all the extra protection.
Would you like to see private business run the fire departments? Volunteer fire brigades worked swell in the 1850s, so they're time-tested. And remember last year when a Tennessee fire department let a house outside its district burn down because the owner had forgotten to pay his $75 fee? Just think of the money collected by private companies. It wouldn't be a piddling $75. Charge what the service demands - which is a lot.
Would you like to see private business run libraries? They are such a drain on government spending. If a businessman can't turn a profit lending free books, he'll just close the branch. There could be a huge business opportunity here - why even lend books? Sell them. You could close down all those brick-and-mortar libraries and do transactions online.
And would you like to see private business run the school system? We have great private schools right now, just make all schools private. If somebody can't afford a good school - or afford a school at all - it's like buying a new car. If you can't afford one, walk. Maybe education isn't for everyone anyway. Just smart, rich people.
And while we're at it, if you really hate how government operates, wouldn't you like to see private business run the Senate, House, judiciary, and President? We're always hearing about wealthy Republican CEOs spending their personal fortunes to become governor so they "can run this state like a business." Why not extend that to its logical conclusion? Just let private business run the entire country. You don't need a Chief Executive, just a Chief Executive Officer. The best people would clamor for the job - with so much privatized, there'd be little to run, and a guaranteed $150 million bonus, like on Wall Street. And since the public always says they hate politicians, you wouldn't need any. The CEO of United States Incorporated (a fully-owned subsidiary of Nabisco, a division of China, Ltd.) would simply appoint senior and junior executives to Congress. And hire ombudsmen instead of Federal judges.
Hey, just make everything in government private! Because if Republicans think government is so bad, it only makes sense to turn it all over to private business. Republicans have pretty much done that with their own party already. So, they've got a good handle on where to start.
Now, of course, this is just exaggeration. Obviously. Private business does much well, as does government. But accepting that is difficult for conservatives because it totally changes their issue. It's no longer, "Government is the problem," as the unmovable, blanket GOP starting point. Rather, it's now becomes a fair question of debate: what does government do well (and do well with its public employees)? And where does private business fail?
In the end, government is not the problem. Nor is private business. The problem is being close-minded.
No comments:
Post a Comment