correction: shouold read NOT free on line 7 para 3
On 18 Aug 98 at 10:14, James Michael Craven wrote:
> G'day Rob,
>
> I agree with what you are saying. And further, I must say that I
> believe that Monica was--from what I can see and with the caveat I
> may be wrong and am open to counter-evidence/argument--a calculating
> opportunist, sycophant and "player" trying to cut corners with
> networking and who you know rather than what you know; that is my
> provisional opinion. But even then...
>
> First of all, there is the problem--hardly mentioned--that out of 90
> Interns in her class, only one got a paying job--guess who. Further,
> according to some accounts--suspects--her paying job may have begun
> in November 1995 which is when she allegedly began this
> "inappropriate" relationship of whatever. So Ms Lewinsky got some job
> thus depriving someone else of the same job (assuming someone was
> better qualified in terms of their own criteria and assuming the job
> was not necessarily created for her specially but rather she was the
> one chosen for a given slot). Further, by all accounts, she was
> perceived as a gushing sycophant in the White House (what else is
> there there--possibly) and was transferred out to the Pentagon where
> corners were definitely cut to get her the requisite security
> clearance--given what we know about her background and the commonly
> accepted standard criteria for Top Secret Clearance required to work
> in the Pentagon). Then apparently she failed there too, and she was
> sent off to the private sector with a $450.00-an-hour lawyer, Vernon
> Jordan taking her around in his limo and giving special references.
> All of this is with the caveat that if some of the common elements in
> diverse press accounts are to be believed.
>
> So yes we all need friends and promotions and want to live and yes
> sex is an important part of life. The problem is that more often than
> not, many of the "relationships"--or at least a significant
> number--that ensue between people in the workplace occupying
> positions involving gross disparities in power (particularly where
> one has the power to hire/fire, promote/not promote or give an "A" or
> not give an "A") are NOT truly freely contracted or free of
> unconscionability--and threats need not be explicitly communicated,
> they may be understood. So in the case that you mentioned in
> academia, both parties could simply wait until one no longer had the
> power of the grade or power to promote or power to supervise the
> other. That is the general standard although some institutions state
> no relations between teachers and students period--excessive in my
> opinion.
>
> The problem in this case is that the gross disparity in power is so
> extreme that some form of unconscionability in the relationship might
> be presumed and/or give a cover and precedent to others practicing
> sexual harassment in situations nominally similar.
>
> The neoclassicals assume that all exchanges "must be" free and
> voluntary otherwise they would not have occurred. They don't
> recognize or deal with power, unconscionability, implicit threats
> etc. On the other hand, in the real world, there are single-mothers
> who have to feed their children, older workers with no chance of
> being rehired for anything etc for who their "choices" are anything
> but "free and voluntary" as suggested in the neoclassical texts; we
> wind up with the "lesser of evils" handed to us by the "evil of
> lessers."
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Jim Craven
>
>
> On 19 Aug 98 at 2:45, Rob Schaap wrote:
>
> > G'day James,
> >
> > You make many telling points, but:
> >
> > >b) bosses who use power disparities and implicit/explicit powers to
> > >hire/fire, promote/not promote to unconscionably extract sexual
> > >"favors" in the workplace now being able to classify sexual
> > >harassment and abuse as a "private" matter and "not anybody's
> > >business";
> >
> > We should acknowledge that people can hardly avoid meeting and developing
> > relationships in conditions of social inequality (some might argue a
> > heterosexual meeting is definitively thus). We all need friends and we
> > nearly all want sex, right? And we all live in a hierarchical world, where
> > it is open to one to exploit the systemic tilt at the expense of the other.
> > So we have a systemic problem, the answer to which need, I hope, not be the
> > denial of human intercourse (yes, even simple frock-staining episodes) per
> > se.
> >
> > If Slick Willy pulled the number you attribute to him, we have a public
> > issue and an impeachment before us. It is, however, not inconceivable that
> > Monica exercised some agency in the business (let's try to avoid a priori
> > paternalism too, eh?).
> >
> > I reckon we do effectively have a private matter then. I say 'effectively'
> > because we're getting beyond legislative reach here, lest we do more harm
> > than good by, shall we say, proscribing the possibly implicit.
> >
> > As a young bloke, I fancied some of my teachers. Would they be doing wrong
> > in the (highly) unlikely event they accept my pathetic pimpled advances?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rob.
>
>
> James Craven
> Dept. of Economics,Clark College
> 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
> property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
> (Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789)
>
> "...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more
> extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend
> the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the
> system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where
> you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the
> culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their
> extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in
>exchange
> for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange
> lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries which we have to spare
> and they want,we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and
> influencial individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these
> debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them o
> ff
> by cession of lands...In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and
> approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens
> of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.The former is certainly the
> termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course
> of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that
> our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to
> shut our hand to crush them..."
> (Classified Letter of President Thomas Jefferson ("libertarian"--for propertied white
> people) to William Henry Harrison, Feb. 27, 1803)
>
> *My Employer has no association with My Private and Protected Opinion*
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
James Craven
Dept. of Economics,Clark College
1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
(Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789)
"...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more
extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend
the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the
system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where
you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the
culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their
extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange
for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange
lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries which we have to spare
and they want,we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and
influencial individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these
debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off
by cession of lands...In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and
approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens
of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.The former is certainly the
termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course
of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that
our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to
shut our hand to crush them..."
(Classified Letter of President Thomas Jefferson ("libertarian"--for propertied white
people) to William Henry Harrison, Feb. 27, 1803)
*My Employer has no association with My Private and Protected Opinion*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
