1. The backlash
After Harvey Weinstein and the #metoo conversations started, the general consensus was that it was all good and right. We took strides to eradicate the kind of treatment and behavior that women have suffered beneath for, well, all of time. And I think the fall of Mr. Weinstein and the rise of real dialogue about hard topics that followed was and is good.
Here’s what I’m not sure about: where do we draw the line?
In the last few weeks we’ve seen actual downfalls of real people. They’ve lost their jobs. They’ve been accused of things allegedly done over a decade ago. They’ve faced the wrath of many and (sometimes) been defended by others. And … I’m just not sure where we should draw the line. Eric says that behavior should be the line. If you say stuff, that’s one thing. If you DO something, that’s entirely another. And he’s not wrong.
But even when something is done, might there not still be a line?
For example, one woman shared a story of a boss who, when very drunk at an after-work gathering, used words and hands in not-appropriate ways. But she knew this guy. And she also knew he had no idea what he was doing, that he would be mortified when told of it the next day. He never behaved that way, to any woman, at work or otherwise. Except this one time when he was drunk. He had an alcohol problem.
On the other hand, men like Harvey Weinstein have an attitude problem. They are convinced that “I own you” and “You owe me.” They believe that “I deserve … you.” And over and over and over again, in a continuous and habitual manner, Weinstein (and others) lived out that belief in his own authority over everyone around him.
The two don’t seem the same. And if the “zero tolerance” policies mean that a single, out-of-character bad decision is treated as equal to Harvey Weinstein’s belief in his own superiority, I think we have a problem.
2. The statement
So Matt Lauer lost his job yesterday. I don’t know much about the details, just that the accuser’s account (and the suggestion of other instances) was credible enough to end his employment. That is, of course, NBC’s purview, and I don’t have much to say about the rightness or wrongness of it.
But here’s what I’m not sure about.
In NBC’s official statement, Andy Lack said this: “Our highest priority is to create a workplace environment where everyone feels safe and protected, and to ensure that any actions that run counter to our core values are met with consequences, no matter who the offender.”
I have no issue with the second part of that statement. In fact, I wish more business figures (and politicians and sports figures and celebrities and pastors and … and … and) were held to that standard.
But the first statement. I’m not so sure about that. This is a news organization, a media corporation, and its highest priority is to make sure everyone feels safe and protected at work. Really? That is the most important thing?
Not doing the job well.
Not investigating and reporting the news.
Not … any of a number of other things.
Their highest priority is for people to feel safe? I’m just not so sure about that. Our culture is already addicted to our feelings. We don’t think; we feel. We don’t dialogue or even argue; we emote. Our decisions are almost entirely boiled down to “because it feels right to me.”
Of course, I don’t think workplaces should intentionally create unsafe spaces. Those with power are, I believe, obligated to defend those who have less power. Most don’t, but they should.
But the truth is, none of us … not one of us … is actually capable of controlling how someone else feels. So making a workplace’s highest priority to control how someone (or worse, everyone all at once) feels … that seems questionable at best, and downright impossible at worst.
Our feelings are necessary and valuable lieutenants. But they are bad generals. And we need to be very careful, as a culture, of this path that wants to make feelings our most important advisors and policy-makers.
Of that, I am very, very sure.
