19 November 2011

RUMINATIONS: Raymond BillyWhat do Clarence Thomas, Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger have in common? All of them were elected or appointed to public office after being accused of sexual harassment. Just the specter  of other kinds of scandals are often enough to sink a political candidacy. Not so with sexual harassment — even when the candidate admits fault. That should be instructive for presidential hopeful Herman Cain now that he finds himself in the same situation.

Cain, one of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination, has steadfastly denied charges that he engaged in unwelcome sexual banter around women and groped one female employee while president of the National Restaurant Association. The claims have not damaged Cain in public-opinion polling so far, and he refuses to drop out of the race.

His continued front-runner status — and history — indicates Cain is correct not to let the scandal derail his White House bid. Whereas controversies involving extramarital affairs are near-certain death sentences for officeseekers, “mere” sexual harassment has proved to be a much more forgivable indiscretion. Why? It might have to do with generally low — perhaps justifiably so — expectations of men.

Women are used to being harassed or having close friends who have experienced harassment from a co-worker or employer. It's almost something to be expected. According to a “60 Minutes”/Vanity Fair poll released last year, 25 percent of women say they have been victims of sexual harassment.

When Justice Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment prior to winning confirmation to the Supreme Court in the early 90s, it sparked a nationwide conversation on workplace culture. Many women and progressives said if the workplace culture that condoned untoward treatment of women was changed, men's behavior would change accordingly. Part of changing the culture would have to entail ridiculing — even condemning — men who are guilty of sexually harassing women. But society in general — including perhaps most women — seems to take a more lenient view, as evidenced by its willingness to elect alleged and admitted harassers.

Even though the consensus is that sexual harassment is sinister, Americans don't necessarily believe that the behavior should have career-ending or even career-altering ramifications for the guilty party. Society seems to take a “boys will be boys” attitude when it comes to “milder” forms of sexual harassment, almost the kind of attitude they would have toward a schoolboy who pulls a female classmate's ponytail.

Americans support corporate policies — even laws — that condemn harassment. But their attitude toward the harassers suggests that they believe those rules might change workplace culture, but do little to bring enlightenment to the typical barbarian man. Therefore, anti-harassment policies might restrain men's compulsion to behave in an ungentlemanly manner toward women, but it won't change their impulse toward that behavior. The threat of punishment will deter harassment, but the inner-workings of the typical man all but guarantee that harassment will take place in every large company in America. Americans seem far less forgiving of employers who don't take punitive action against harassment than they are of the actual harassers.

The only thing that would make this issue politically damaging for Cain is the accusation of hypocrisy. From that standpoint, Cain is fortunate that he hasn't been more outspoken about his faith. He is also fortunate that Ron Paul supporters invaded the Values Voter Summit sponsored by the Christian conservative Family Research Council. Paul enthusiast who turned out in large numbers gave the Texas congressman a huge victory in the summit's presidential straw poll last month in which Cain finished second. Had Cain won, pundits would be ridiculing the fact that his “family values” allegedly didn't preclude him from engaging in extramarital risqué banter and unwanted sexual advances. 

If Herman Cain is guilty of the accusations, he would help himself considerably by admitting it and moving on. He should apologize “if his behavior offended anyone” — as Schwarzenegger did prior to being elected California governor in 2003 — and to his wife. Americans would quickly forgive him and the story would become yesterday's news. If he doesn't admit guilt — if he's guilty — other women might feel compelled to come forward and corroborate that Cain used offensive sexual rhetoric. The story would then be prolonged, making it difficult for Cain to focus on his campaign. Ironically (and unfortunately) not admitting his poor behavior might be more politically damaging than the behavior itself.

---