 |
| Image: Gabriella Demczuk for the New York Times |
Article Link ("Congress Returns to Intense Pressure to End Secrecy Over Sex Harassment"):
As recent allegations against sexual misconduct in Capitol Hill have flared up, legislators are pressuring Congress to allow for more transparency in harassment cases. Currently, the complaints and settlements are kept confidential.
The 1995 law that requires complaints and settlements to be handled secretly was created to "protect the harasser," says Representative Jackie Spier. However, lawmakers are now arguing for legislation that would require settlements to be handled in public. A major question that would result from this legislation is whether those who have previously paid settlements should then have their names revealed. However, in this process, the names of victims may also be revealed, which could pose dangers to their health and well-being.
The pressure to change the current system of handling sexual misconduct in the government is the result of the multiple sexual harassment cases in the past week or two. John Conyers Jr., Representative of Michigan and top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee received intense scrutiny after allegations of sexually harassing aides. In the Senate, Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat has "been accused of groping several women."
As the controversy around sexual harassment has augmented, the House is on track to adopt a resolution "mandating that all members and their staffs participate in anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training," which the Senate has already adopted.
Although I'm uncertain whether this will prevent further sexual harassment from actually happening, I think that the act of Congress requiring its constituents to go through training is a statement of condemnation.
Although I'm uncertain whether this will prevent further sexual harassment from actually happening, I think that the act of Congress requiring its constituents to go through training is a statement of condemnation.
Questions:
1. How do you feel about reversing the effects of the 1995 law?
2. Should the names of those who paid the settlements be revealed? What about the names of the victims? Why or why not?
3. What other issues could potentially arise from requiring more transparency?
4. How do you feel about the resolution the Senate has passed, and that the House is on track to pass? Do you think the resolution that requires training will be effective? Why or why not?
2 comments:
I believe that reversing the 1995 law would result in increased governmental transparency and the possibility of being exposed to the public would decrease sexual harassment on its own. Due to the chance of exposing a serial offender, many would feel increased motivation to come clean about how they might have been harassed rather than settling their issues without public support or knowledge. I don't believe that the names should or can be revealed even if the 1995 law is repealed. I would assume that in many of these settlement cases, there would be a clause that prevents the accuser from outing the offender in the future. Even if there wasn't I believe that the focus should not be on what the person did in the past; rather, they should focus on reformation. Naming victims should obviously not be mandatory although giving them a chance to speak should be allowed. An issue with transparency is also linked with the prominence of fake news. Some accusations of sexual harassment could be manufactured to cripple the career of a politician. Sexual harassment training may also be a help in reducing the prevalence of harassment. In training, people may learn how to deal with harassment early on from authority figures.
I think that reversing the 1995 law has both good and bad effects. I think that making the complaints and settlements open to the public is good because it allows perpetrators of sexual harassment to be shamed as well as made known to the public, and furthermore, like David said, the fear of being publicly shamed may deter potential sexual predators. However, I also acknowledge the concerns of the lawmakers who are weary of potentially publicizing the names of the victims, as this definitely can harm their mental and emotional health. Therefore, I think that the settlements should be made public only with the consent of the victim. As for the training, I think that it is good that the House is mandating it, but in the long run, I don't think that training will be enough to deter sexual violence as there have been sexual harassment issues in the Senate as well(Al Franken) , and they supposedly adopted the training program. To truly end sexual harassment in Congress, a zero tolerance environment for sexual harassment must be established, and this could possibly be done by creating harsher punishments for the perpetrators of these crimes.
Post a Comment