Ms. Esty is a member of the U.S. house of representatives from Connecticut. I'm not in her district but I'm somewhat familiar with her history in politics and her policy positions. She represents Newtown, where the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre happened, and she is a champion of the #MeToo movement. She has chosen not to run for re-election (although the linked article repeatedly says, incorrectly, that she has resigned) after it emerged that her chief of staff Tony Baker had verbally and physically abused a subordinate; then stalked, harassed and threatened to kill her after she had left Esty's employment. Esty took several months to fire him, then paid him $5,000 in severance, gave him a positive recommendation (which he co-wrote) for a job at Sandy Hook Promise no less, and signed a non-disclosure agreement. After all this came out, Sandy Hook Promise obviously canned the guy.
Several reporters have characterized this as a case of sexual harassment, but it isn't entirely clear that it is. No matter. Esty faced calls to resign from numerous Democratic politicians in Connecticut, which she initially refused, but she finally backed down under pressure with the compromise of not running for re-election. This will allow for an orderly primary process and, presumably, the election of another progressive Democrat to replace her.
The issue here seems analogous in some ways with the issue we have discussed of universities covering for bad actors, but it is also rather different. Baker was not a famous scientist who was bringing in grant money or otherwise adding to the prestige of her office. Dealing with the issue openly and firing him promptly after an investigation (which didn't need to take very long) would likely only have redounded to her credit. Replacing him would not be hard. And presumably, if she is sincere about #MeToo, would have been entirely consistent with her conscience. Inflicting him on Sandy Hook Promise should not be.
So what happened here? She probably had a friendly personal relationship with Baker and had a hard time doing him harm. But obviously she should have thought just as hard about the woman he had abused and terrified and the prospect that he might do the same to others. It's human nature for personal relationships to tend to trump more abstract considerations. Another case that comes to mind is that of Boston Red Sox broadcaster Jerry Remy, who paid high priced lawyers to protect his son Jared from serious consequences throughout a 13 year career of violent hooliganism until Jared murdered the mother of Jerry Remy's granddaughter. Jared is now serving life in prison, but Jerry is still the color announcer for the Boston Red Sox. He gave one interview to discuss the matter and has refused to talk about it ever since. Nobody asks him about it either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The same shows up with Roseanne Barr vis her grandchild and Trump. We often hold strong opinions until they hit home, at which point we change those opinions or carve out exceptions for our loved ones. We're just not the fully rational, homo economicus of the classical liberal dream.
"Liberal" has nothing to do with it ... let's avoid blanket-labeling. People are people, and labels have no real meaning. Good people are good people, and they exist. But very few people examine their lives to the point where they know what makes themselves "tick." If they did, we'd have a great world. With all the energy we direct towards destruction, if it were re-channeled we could be living in a paradise. Dreams can come true. But the will has to be there and the self-knowledge.
Mojrim is using "liberal" in the classical, Lockean sense. The struggles over the meaning of this word are of considerable interest. In any case it's come to mean something a bit different, as politicians and political thinkers wrestled with the collision of classical liberalism with reality.
Just so. The problem is that, in many ways, we still hold to that idea of human perfectibility despite volumes of evidence to the contrary. Let's not even get started on human memory...
Aargh. Thanks for the clarification [embarrassed emoji].
Post a Comment