“Congress shall make no laws …”
Article 1 – Bill of Rights
Predatory sexual behaviors have been a reality ever since our ancestors diverged from their proconsul forebears. In its primal form, such conduct was an ancient and instinctive holdover, likely contributing to early human survival for many of the same reasons the strongest and most fit males in the animal kingdom generally dominated the males of their respective species.
Yet, after four million years of evolution, sex still plays a critical role in determining opportunities and social status throughout most of the world. Women, in particular, are often considered to be little more than chattel, whose sole purposes are to produce children and submit to the whims of their male-dominated societies.
In America, however, there has been a conscious, if often belated, effort to ensure all citizens are guaranteed equal access to and protection under its laws. Our nation’s evolving social contract with its people seeks to afford every person equal rights and opportunities absent hindrance from either government or fellow citizens.
One goal, slow to emerge, is freedom from unwanted sexual advances. A by-product of the feminist movement, sexual harassment remained on the back burner until the fall of 1992 when the nation was treated to the Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas soap opera.
The hearings on Judge Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination finally propelled sexual harassment into the national spotlight. Since then complaints made to the EEOC and its state counterparts concerning job-related sexual harassment have more than doubled.
Concurrently, Congress and many states have enacted strict regulations requiring schools, the workplace and even social and recreational settings be free of “hostile” words and actions which are sexual in nature; particularly if they “threaten” a student’s ability to learn or an employee’s capacity to do their job.
Unfortunately, these well-meaning laws have led to a variety of abuses ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime. In one silly instance, a first grade boy and his school were threatened with a law suit because he teased a female classmate on a school bus.
As with other moral crusades, the pursuit of sexual harassers is increasingly crossing the line between protecting the public and infringing on the constitutional rights of individuals.
Clearly, even the most avid civil libertarians do not challenge laws prohibiting bosses from using offers of raises, promotions, or even job tenure in return for sex. Neither do they argue unwanted touching, petting or other physical contacts should be condoned.
However, when disciplinary actions are taken against individuals accused of sexual harassment, absent being granted a full and impartial hearing … then a mainstay of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence, is threatened. This has been a particular problem on college and high school campuses where faculty members continue to be targets of unwarranted and/or unsupported accusations.
When a firefighter is barred from reading Playboy during his idle hours at his station, the state has taken a dangerous step down the path of censorship … where it may become much easier to purge other printed material in the wake of the next well-intended cause. Closely related are the charges stemming from (male and female) pinup calendars posted in thousands of workplaces.
When language, however common, can be restricted because some individuals consider it “obscene” or “sexual” in nature, even when not directed toward those individuals … the rights of free speech are being unreasonably infringed upon.
When the content of political campaign materials, however offensive and sexual demeaning to an opponent, can become grounds for a guilty harassment verdict … the First Amendment is in jeopardy!
When employers can be held legally responsible for the personal activities and/or remarks of their employees … we are creating an environment in which the private sector is being employed to censor the actions and speech of individuals, an activity the government is prohibited from doing by the Bill of Rights.
While the intentions of those attempting to eliminate sexual harassment are reasonable, the means to achieve such a goal can not be permitted to erode the foundation of our inherent liberties. Actions, remarks and materials must not be restricted simply based on their ability to offend certain individuals.
It’s interesting, most Americans quickly identify overt threats to their liberties, thereby keeping the demagogues at bay. But, with increasing frequency, they seem willing permit the slow exorcism of their constitutionally protected rights in the name of curbing social ills.
As Alan Dershowitz noted, “We learned how to beat the bad guys, McCarthism, Robertism and Fallwellism. We never learned how to deal with the good-guy censors.”
