What Employers Should Think Twice About
It is discouraging to read the opinion-page column "A Perversion of Justice," Oct. 17, in which the author states that the effect of the heightened awareness of sexual harassment may be that "some male employers, for fear of incurring harassment suits, may find it safer to hire men than women."For shame! Now women can look forward not only to continued harassment, knowing their word will be discounted, but to the likelihood that they will be refused employment altogether because one of them dared to speak up. The fact that the author does not say instead that this heightened awareness may cause some male employers to think twice before sexually harassing a female employee demonstrates once again the insensitivity to and lack of concern for the pain, fear, and frustration women suffer daily in the workplace due to men using their positions of authority to intimidate and harass them. The vote of Congress and the comments of the media obviously indicate that the question of sexual harassment could not override the political expediency of having Justice Thomas confirmed. Indeed, we have seen a perversion of justice. Carol W. Hanson, Bland, Mo.
This column appears to leave out some important points. The Constitution provides for the Senate's advice and consent for nominations to important positions such as the Supreme Court. Blaming all the unfortunate happenings on the Senate alone simply ignores the other side of the question. President Bush, like some of his predecessors, has not consulted with the Senate about his choices and perversely continues to choose persons who are clearly not outstanding in their fields, either because they lack experience and standing (like Clarence Thomas), or because they have trails of old baggage following them (like Robert Gates). Prior consultation and a more thoughtful approach on the part of the president could obviate much of the problem. Truly outstanding candidates for such positions should meet with none of the fervent opposition met by these two examples. The most disturbing statement in the recent hearings was Judge Thomas's statement that "this process is wrong." Strange words from one sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution! Ane M. Hanley, Fergus Falls, Minn.
Implication of guilt? I am both angered and saddened by the way the article "Sexual Harassment: Little Understood, Frequent," Oct. 11, is presented. Under this headline is a photo of Judge Clarence Thomas. The article says little about Judge Thomas and much about sexual harassment. One wonders why Thomas's picture is used at all unless it is meant to imply that he is an example of this problem. Alice W. Brown, South Haven, Miss.
