Harassment and the lack of accountability
Multiple former staff members have accused Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York of workplace sexual harassment towards female co-workers.
This should not come as a surprise. For decades, centuries even, men in power—in politics, business, homelife and beyond—have utilized their place of privilege to tactfully engage in actions of misconduct with little retribution.
Oftentimes, it is very challenging to investigate accusations of verbal harassment, as there is far less evidence than in cases of physical assault. One of Cuomo’s aides claimed that he asked about her sexual life, while another says that he kissed her without consent. These actions are also more likely to be excused, as demonstrated by the age old line of “I was just kidding.”
Moreover, notice their effectiveness–Anita Hill’s deeply concerning experiences did not stop Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from being appointed. Horrid narratives about the exploitation of women did not prevent the public from electing former U.S. President Donald Trump to office in 2016. This excuse of “I was just kidding” has massive implications and is an incredibly weighty political tool that men use to manipulate.
What is particularly striking is how our response to these kinds of allegations has not changed with time. Considering the sheer prevalence of sexual misconduct in the workplace, you would think we would have made greater strides by now in how we address these allegations.
Creating a culture of “calling people [the accused] in” instead of “calling them out” is a method Professor Loretta J. Ross utilizes at Smith College in a course discussing how to combat cancel culture while holding individuals accountable for their actions.
Do not be mistaken. “Calling in” does not equate to passivism whatsoever. Rather, it means that in some circumstances, individuals who fully recognize and provide tangible willingness to improve are offered a seat at the table to facilitate their personal learning. However, this requires the individual to absolutely and fully address their wrongdoings.
This approach recognizes the futility in commonly purported “excuses” by high-ranking officials in response to their misconduct. It requires much deeper reflection and analysis on structural causes of these actions.
We must become more aware of the intricacies of each situation of misconduct. Indeed, this is the harder method. However, it produces exponentially improved outcomes than those produced when blindly taking extreme sides, which has ultimately led to the state we are in today of no resulting significant solutions. The easier, extreme approach fails to acknowledge robust, complex and ever-changing power structures and perpetuates a continuous cycle not of progress, but of greater societal polarization.
We know we must absolutely respond to workplace misconduct allegations, however applying a critical lens to these situations is truly the only way to create sustained solutions to one of society’s most pressing and concerning problems.
