"Walk again"

An aide to Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. brought comptroller and former governor William Donald Schaefer a cup of tea during a Board of Public Works meeting. Schaefer stared at her derriere as she walked away. Then he summoned her back and said, “Walk again.” The media was present and the controversial comment was widely reported. The remark brought criticism from women’s groups, some lawmakers and the media. The Washington Post’s John Wagner quoted State Senator Sharon M. Grosfeld calling on Schaefer to “recognize the sexism inherent in his behavior.” Columnist Paul Jacob called for Schaefer to resign from his re-election campaign because of the incident.

When reporters asked Schaefer if he thought his comments were offensive, he said, “I look at one of the girls as she walked out. Big deal…I look at the girls every time they walk out.” The 84 year old comptroller was quoted in a February 16 AP story saying, “She’s a pretty little girl. The day I don’t look at pretty women is the day I die.” Schaefer told the press he had simply made a joke and felt he hadn’t done anything he needed to apologize for. Later, he sent the aide a handwritten note apologizing for any embarrassment the incident caused her.

Some women’s groups may see Schaefer as sexist, yet actions speak more loudly than words. His aide, Louise L. Harmon, told the Washington Post that Schaefer has an established record of promoting women in the workplace. The aide at the Board of Public Works meeting did not accuse him of sexual harassment nor have any other women who have worked with him. Hayman said women who work with Schaefer are not offended by his use of the phrase “little girls.” A February 16 AP story reported that, during Schaefer’s 2002 campaign, some of his former employees held a rally featuring “Little girls for Schaefer” signs. Schaefer has a history of making politically incorrect comments and has brought both comedy and controversy to government. After his 2004 remarks that people who live in the U.S. should learn English caused a media outcry, he printed bumper stickers with the slogan, “Schaefer: He says what you think.”

Schaefer’s behavior at the public works meeting was inappropriate and unprofessional, but was it sexual harassment? He never touched the woman, nor did he say anything obscene or derogatory. State government policy defines sexual harassment so loosely as to include both the comment and the staring. The policy defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, non-verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature,” including “jokes” and “suggestive comments.” Many workplaces and universities have similar policies.

The problem with such definitions is that they can be based solely on the feelings of the “victim.” How is one to know if his or her attentions will be unwelcome? That knowledge comes from the recipient’s reaction. Whether or not “other verbal, non-verbal or physical contact” is of a sexual nature is open to interpretation. A compliment such as, “You look good,” can be sexual or simply friendly. The same is true of a glance or a hug. An invitation to lunch could be seen as part of a working relationship or as a date. Something that is embarrassing to one person may be flattering to another. Sexual harassment policies fail to consider intent as a factor. In Schaefer’s case, if he meant any harm, it is unlikely he would have made the comment in the presence of witnesses.

Allegations of sexual harassment can be quite far reaching. During Justice Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, Anita Hill accused him of sexually harassing her by allegedly saying there was a pubic hair in his soda can. There was a case in which a woman accused a co-worker of sexually harassing her by pointing to a word in the dictionary while discussing the Seinfeld episode about a woman whose name rhymed with a female body part. Displays of pictures can be seen as creating a “hostile work environment.” Sexual harassment prevention educator, Cynthia Sandoval, told SFGate.com that it was considered sexual harassment when a man accidentally emailed “10 reasons why beer is better than women” to all of his co-workers.

Attention given to minor incidents like that detracts from the seriousness of legitimate sexual harassment claims. When a boss or supervisor makes sexual favors a condition of continued employment, favorable reviews and/or promotions that is a genuine case of sexual harassment. Claims of harassment are also legitimate when someone persists in rude, threatening or demeaning behavior after being asked to stop. The latter type of harassment is not necessarily sexual.

As sexual harassment definitions have expanded to include jokes and flirting, women’s behavior has become cruder with young women participating in amateur video such as “Girls Gone Wild,” participating in “hook-ups,” working out at pole-dancing aerobics classes and wearing revealing clothes. When many women objectify themselves in that manner, doesn’t that create a culture in which even the most innocent of women are seen as sex objects? In a recent “Ask Amy” column, a reader signing as “Dude From Downtown L.A.” wrote that he felt embarrassed when female co-workers wore “low-cut pants, belly shirts and high rise thongs” in front of clients. He was embarrassed: Can he claim sexual harassment? The complaint is as valid as complaints about girlie pictures and email jokes. “Dude From Downtown L.A.” wrote that he was thinking of making a statement by dressing so his boxer shorts would show above his waistband. If he tries that, he’ll probably be the one in trouble for sexual harassment.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 02/21/06, all rights reserved