Nonetheless, the affair has reopened a number of gaping wounds in this society on all levels, and it would appear that the pathology is systemic and that the patient may not recover. The racial issue was the first to float to the fetid surface like a bloated corpse. Thomas was a man selected to fill the de facto "black" seat held by Justice Marshall; it was, ironically, a Supreme quota bestowed on an individual who decried quotas. We were told, however, that race was not an issue, because Thomas was the man "most qualified" for the job. And yet Thomas claimed with a straight face that he had no view on Roe v. Wade and that he had not discussed the merits of the abortion issue with anyone. Thus, our country's greatest jurist is apparently an empty vessel (at best) with regard to the fundamental constitutional issues of the day. Then, sexuality raised its hideous head. What I think we saw was a brave women's attempt to come forward with important disclosures. She was met with rabid and gross distortions of her revelations along with relentless and groundless attacks on her honesty, character and even mental health. What woman would now consider it anything less than suicidal to come forward with similar charges directed at any man in a position of power? Finally (at least for the moment), Thomas's responses to Hill's charges were so self-serving, as well as so inappropriately vehement and indignant that, even if he did not commit the acts alleged by Professor Hill, he demonstrated conclusively that he does not have the detached temperament appropriate for the Court. So, what's left to say? Well, I want to propose an educational program that may -- in some incremental manner -- make men (especially those in positions of power or influence) more aware of the plight of the sexually harassed woman in the work place, because this seems desperately needed after the Thomas/Hill debacle. The fundamental obstacle, however, is that there is no easy way to convince many men that sexual harassment of women is inappropriate. Indeed, as far as I can tell from the intimations of the Senate hearings, the notion of lewd remarks or acts from a woman in a position of power or influence designed to coerce a man into performing sexual acts is, for a distressing number of those with an X-Y genotype, a description of paradise. So, why should women object when the roles are reversed? Therefore, if men have no endogenous appreciation of sexual harassment per se, we must instruct by analogy. Specifically, men should be subjected to experiences that approximate the degradation and demoralization routinely experienced by women. Men might perhaps (but it may be a stretch) get the joke. Here's one possible approach: The male "student" should be required to work long, underpaid hours in a cramped office with a male supervisor who is taller, stronger, and more aggressive. Most important, the supervisor should constantly tell the student -- especially in settings where there will be no witnesses -- that the supervisor wants to do something really unpleasant to the student, such as give him frequent and painfully vigorous prostate exams. If the student refuses to acquiesce in the supervisor's idea of a good time, the supervisor should physically intimidate the student to drive the point home. Eventually, of course, the student will no longer protest, because he cannot physically best his supervisor and because no administrative mechanism exists for effective remedial action. Sensing a weakness in his prey, the supervisor's overtures would become incessant. The student would be consistently passed over for promotions or raises, because he refuses to submit to his superior. The student also develops stress-related diseases. He cannot, however, get another job, because he is dead in the water without his supervisor's recommendation. Then, I suppose, to complete the training, the supervisor would be offered a promotion. The student musters up the will to come forward with descriptions of his supervisor's behavior. The student is not believed and his career is obliterated, however, because there are no witnesses to these actions and, besides, everyone knows that, when it comes to prostate exams, "boys will be boys." Oh well, maybe it's just another crazy idea, like the advice and consent of the Senate . . . Contest notice: Speaking of crazy ideas, the deadline for the "No Mayonnaise in Ireland" contest has been extended to October 28, 1991, in view of the overwhelming number of debilitating sunspots. So, send your elucidations of the phrase "No Mayonnaise in Ireland" to Steven Ochs at the Daily Pennsylvanian (Valencia, we need your number!!!). John Cooke is a former lawyer from Washington, D.C. He is currently a post-baccalaureate student studying a pre-medical curriculum. No Mayonnaise In Ireland appears alternate Fridays.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
