2008 Woodie Awards
Morally Wrong v. Legally Right
The Editorial Board
Issue date: 6/13/07 Section: Opinions
The lawsuit filed by Tammi C. Allen against Sidney McPhee is simply one of what is legally right versus what is morally wrong. Obviously, there are huge problems with a system that requires a victim of sexual harassment to have the outcome of her reporting it depend on the findings of a committee that would be put together by the person who harassed her. To establish and enforce a policy with such potential for misuse and abuse is morally wrong.
The Tennessee Board of Regents and their legal council seem to be claiming that, although the policy may seem unfair and it is an oversight and obvious flaw, the rules are still clear - that while it may be wrong to require the harassed to report to the harasser, it was technically the correct and established procedure, one in which the victim did not follow.
While Allen's council does not dispute that she did not follow the procedure, one must wonder how someone could be expected to follow such rules in good conscious and without fear of retribution or of being dismissed completely.
Allen claims to have been sexually harassed in her workplace, and should have the right to seek proper and appropriate damages from McPhee, the university and the TBR following a proper investigation and review. Since she was unable to receive either, the failure of the policies to provide her with a forum for unbiased review is ethically reprehensible.
As per the usual routine, when a woman is attacked or harassed, she must first prove her innocence to the court before the guilt of her victimizer is even considered. Rape victims are asked about their clothing, their sexual habits and the "signals" they were giving. Harassment victims find their every move before and after called into question and gone over with a fine-toothed comb. It does not seem to matter to the TBR and their legal council whether or not Allen was ethically in the right, because for them, there is no room in legal proceedings for ethics, only for technicalities. However, the ultimate question here is, what happens to morality when the technically correct path is ethically impossible?
Lost within the arguments of whether Allen followed procedure or whether McPhee was responsible for attempting to cover up misdeeds is the question of whether sexual harassment is justifiable by technicality or morally reprehensible whatever the situation.
The issue here is not that Allen failed to report her harassment properly or to follow the rules to the letter. The issue here is how the Tennessee Board of Regents and MTSU's policies failed to protect Allen from sexual harassment and proper legal recourse.
The Tennessee Board of Regents and their legal council seem to be claiming that, although the policy may seem unfair and it is an oversight and obvious flaw, the rules are still clear - that while it may be wrong to require the harassed to report to the harasser, it was technically the correct and established procedure, one in which the victim did not follow.
While Allen's council does not dispute that she did not follow the procedure, one must wonder how someone could be expected to follow such rules in good conscious and without fear of retribution or of being dismissed completely.
Allen claims to have been sexually harassed in her workplace, and should have the right to seek proper and appropriate damages from McPhee, the university and the TBR following a proper investigation and review. Since she was unable to receive either, the failure of the policies to provide her with a forum for unbiased review is ethically reprehensible.
As per the usual routine, when a woman is attacked or harassed, she must first prove her innocence to the court before the guilt of her victimizer is even considered. Rape victims are asked about their clothing, their sexual habits and the "signals" they were giving. Harassment victims find their every move before and after called into question and gone over with a fine-toothed comb. It does not seem to matter to the TBR and their legal council whether or not Allen was ethically in the right, because for them, there is no room in legal proceedings for ethics, only for technicalities. However, the ultimate question here is, what happens to morality when the technically correct path is ethically impossible?
Lost within the arguments of whether Allen followed procedure or whether McPhee was responsible for attempting to cover up misdeeds is the question of whether sexual harassment is justifiable by technicality or morally reprehensible whatever the situation.
The issue here is not that Allen failed to report her harassment properly or to follow the rules to the letter. The issue here is how the Tennessee Board of Regents and MTSU's policies failed to protect Allen from sexual harassment and proper legal recourse.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Michael Haley
posted 6/16/07 @ 1:18 PM CST
Regardless of the details of this case, America gets the picture. Sexual harrassment claims have been down nationwide.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. (Continued…)
Post a Comment