The headlines in recent weeks report one celebrity or government official after another being accused of sexual harassment. These allegations include groping, inappropriate sexual talk in the workplace, all the way to the sexual molestation of children and even rape. Many of those accused have admitted some truth to the allegations and resigned their position of authority or influence. Others have been forced out of their celebrity role by their employers. A few have denied the allegations brought against them by multiple persons and refused to step down.
One result of this development has been a great deal of discussion on TV, radio, in the papers and even over coffee about the issue of sexual harassment. One line of argument that attempts to downplay the seriousness of such behavior has been that at least the sex talk and maybe even some of the groping is merely sexual play that is part of the natural interaction between men and women. This seemed to be the response that Senator Al Franken offered when allegations were first raised against him. The time frame for his inappropriate behavior was before he was senator and could be seen in the context of the foolishness that might be no surprising from a comedian, which he was at the time.
The problem with that excuse was that the inappropriate behavior occurred in the workplace. The context wasn’t a dating relationship and the women groped did not give their consent. Sex is a mutual self-giving of a man and woman to one another. If consent is not given, then we move from the realm mutuality and sex into the realm of criminal assault or worse.
That many of the allegations against the men accused involved the workplace adds another issue to the discussions. The workplace in most settings is inherently hierarchical. There are people with supervisory authority, the ability to hire and fire, to make work assignments, to determine wages and benefits and to influence who gets promoted and who doesn’t. The civic values enshrined in law demand that the workplace be sexually neutral. When sexual harassment occurs in the workplace the bottom line is that such behavior is not about sexual attraction, but it is about power. For example, sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor, owner, celebrity, agent or anyone else who has some degree of decision making authority intimidates someone else into sexual activity. The difference in power creates an inherent level of intimidation even if it is not intended by the person with the greater power. It is simply a function of the situation. In such situations the consent of the less powerful person is compromised. Any mutuality that might be claimed, is lacking. In the workplace the parties involved are not on equal footing, one has power over the other. It is this difference in power that demands that the workplace be free of any form of sexual harassment. This is what got Bill O’Riley, Roger Ales, Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer into trouble. While this is most common regarding women in the workplace, it is not limited to women victims. Kevin Spacy, the actor, got into trouble for sexual harassment after being accused by a young man.
Donald Trump and Roger Moore have both been accused of egregious sexual harassment, whose alleged behavior is well into the criminal category. Moore’s alleged pedophilia is particularly troubling, as he presents himself as a champion of a brand of culture warrior Christianity that seems more focused on political victory than on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Both men deny the allegations raised against them and refuse to step down, despite many credible accusers.
Their situation raises another concern; is it sufficient to subject people to punishment simply because allegations have been made? Supposedly everyone is presumed to be innocent of any charges leveled against them until the contrary is proven in a court of law. None of the men listed above have been charged for criminal behavior, yet many have paid the price of public contempt and loss of employment.
Is that just? One commentator suggests that it is just because much of sexual harassment is not criminal behavior per se but is morally abhorrent. Such behavior will not likely be prosecuted by the legal system. This commentator argues that given the reticence of the legal system to prosecute such behavior, more informal sanctions, such as job loss, are among the few ways society can protect itself from the damage these offenders inflict on their victims and on the community.
So, what does any of this have to do with the virtue of respect as a core value? As discussed earlier, when sex loses the element of mutuality it becomes an exercise of power over another person. It becomes using another person as an object, sexual object. Using another person as an object, or anything less than the image and likeness of God is a denial of their inherent dignity and contrary to Scripture. As we saw in our earlier discussion mutuality, self-giving, seeking the benefit of the other, seeing the face of God in the other and upholding the weak, vulnerable and suffering are all integral aspects of respect. All of these elements of respect are missing when consent is absent or compromised.
As a core value for the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa, respect is important both to ensure that the members of the Catholic community can work together to make the objectives of the pastoral plan a reality. It is also critical to the witness we give as Christians. If we are to love one another, out witness to that reality is not so much through what we say but through what we do. The respect that we show toward one another, and the stranger as well, is our concrete witness to our love for one another.
