Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

I have thirty minutes to blog. Sorry, all, for my absence. It’s been busy. I had a writing deadline on Monday, doctors appointments (routine), a Halloween party for quirky boys and their moms, and some drama with Jonah.

Jonah’s adjunct writing teacher was fired in the middle of the semester, calculus is kicking his ass, and the advisement office is incompetent. He’s been working until 4am every night, so we’re talking him through this nonsense. Sigh. I’ll write more about the adjunct situation later.

20 minutes left. Okay, let’s talk about Weinstein, Trump’s Putin connections, and Donna Brazille’s revelations about Hillary. Most people aren’t wading into the details of Trump and Clinton. They are getting enough to know these people feel that they above the law and are getting rich. When they have to pay $10,000 in monthly payments and a deductible for their health insurance,  Manafort walks away with millions from the Ukraine.

And the abuse of power by the Hollywood power players is coming at the same time. These people who are honored on red carpets, that are celebrated and airbrushed on the celebrity news sources that never once mentioned this kind of crap, that are America’s royalty. People are realizing that their heroes are, in fact, disgusting perverts.

This is going to have an impact on our society and politics. When people become cynical, they lock themselves up in the homes and communities. They fear outsiders. They stop participating in government and then corruption increases.

This can’t keep going on.

(Later this afternoon… one more blog post. A fun one.)


36 thoughts on “Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

  1. First, I don’t actually think I have a right to demand your blog posts, so no need for apologies (I use feedly to read, which is nice for me, ’cause it means that I can tell when you put up a new post, so I don’t have to check looking for one).

    Second, I so don’t want to talk about any of that stuff. I’m pretty much talked out on perils of sexual harassment when the men control the avenues to power. Actually, I do have one conversation, which was inspired by the Michelle Cottle article on Leon Wieseltier in the Atlantic. She describes the generalized harassment that I’ve now come to realize is pervasive and common in every workplace that I know of and so usual that all of us have figured out our own ways to cope without considering how systemic it is. But two things stuck in my mind. First was Wieseltier “auditioning” new women at the New Republic and, in Cottle’s mind, assigning them to the “humorless prig v good game” categories. I’ve always been a pretty proud humorless prig, which can be protective of more extreme harassment, but also leaves you out. Second, she mentions that Wieseltier, who engaged in inappropriate behavior, did, also, help women in their careers, as opposed to the owner of the New Republic (who she describes as a rampant sexist who had no use for women in the workplace). That stuck in my mind because it’s a phenomenon I also noticed — as a woman, trying to gain mentorship in hierarchical, informally evaluated careers (media, journalism, film, theater, science, . . . ) a man who liked women, being around them, talking to them, . . . . was better than one who would ignore you and shut you out. I remember warning my 13 year old daughter, when she came back from a summer camp, and was happy about conversations that sometimes boys talk to you not for the brilliance of your mind, and you have to be aware. Connecting those points reminded me of how internalized these realities are, even for a humorless prig like me.

    1. bj said,

      “She describes the generalized harassment that I’ve now come to realize is pervasive and common in every workplace that I know of and so usual that all of us have figured out our own ways to cope without considering how systemic it is.”

      Is it really everywhere in the same exact way?

      What I’ve been noticing in recent stories is how often you see the following recurring motifs:

      –failure to observe proprieties (interviewing women in bathrobe)
      –a persistent blurring of the line between work and not-work
      –being Mr. Fun
      –being “creative”
      –being a star that normal rules don’t apply to
      –figuring out ways to use work to surround oneself with the object of one’s lust (be it adult women, teen girls, or teen boys)

      There’s been a lot of, “Whee, look how fun and unconventional I am!”

      I don’t think that those features are going to be found equally in all workplaces–and in fact, recent scandals have been focused on the art and media world.

      1. In banking I’ve seen harassment mostly on trading floors. When I was a telecom technician on a trading floor my manager used to ask me inappropriate questions about sex all the time. On the tech side of banking I’ve personally not seen sexual harassment but I do see male managers who consistently discount the input of women or don’t want to work with them.

      2. Also, I feel for Jonah. My first semester calculus was rough, as was physics. The best thing I ever did was pay for a tutor (senior student) who helped me way more than my instructors. I have no idea what options he has but if he’s in engineering he should know he’s not alone.

    2. When I started thinking through the industries in which we are hearing about the issue right now — media (Ailes, etc.), film (Weinstein, etc.), startup funding (Cantor,McClure, etc.), academic science (Ott, Lieb, etc.), journalism (Wieseltier, Oreskes, etc.), tech companies (Singhal, Chavez, etc.), politics (. . . . .), . . .

      Harassment clearly comes in many forms, but it seems to me that the industries that are especially prone to this particular kind of harassment — “good game” in exchange for potential opportunity and mentorship are ones in which individuals wield significant power (as opposed to bureaucracies) and sponsorship/mentorship plays a significant role in who succeeds (casting an actress, funding a startup, giving lab opportunities, writing opportunities, . . . .).

      Dave’s reference to his experience in government, to the extent that it reflects the experiences of women there, could be considered as an example of a different structure (that is, the workplace that defines bureaucracy). I wonder what the incidence is in K-12 schools, which are both bureaucratic and unionized.

      (Marianne’s example, of a trading floor might be yet another kind of harassment that occurs in environments where there are few women — construction, trades, police, military, first responders, . . . .).

      1. There also might be a qualitative difference between industries where women are a tiny minority (construction, securities trading, a similar dynamic exists on certain city streets), and experience public harassment from the group, and industries where individuals (Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wieseltier) wield large power–which are often industries where there are a fair number of women, such as publishing or academia–and women experience individualized pressure for sexual favors. Categorizing both such situations as “harassment” might obscure more than it reveals.

    3. “I’ve always been a pretty proud humorless prig”: here’s something that I can say a fervent “me too” to. Proud Humorless Prigs 4ever!

      And really I can’t say the other “me too,” except in very minor ways. It does vary from workplace to workplace; I remember at an old job at a nonprofit where the men and women interacted in quite healthy ways suddenly having to deal with an outside contractor who treated the women as if they were stupid and thinking, wow, this is what people are talking about. (Not so much about sexual harrassment, but where women are default viewed as idiots I imagine it’s easier to justify this sort of thing.)

  2. And, on your “fear” theory, this is circulating now about fear and politics: “https://www.sciencealert.com/study-turned-conservatives-liberal-politics-yale-psychology”

    There’s older stuff that argues that making liberals scared can make them express more conservative viewpoints (though I do not vouch for this research — I think I need to see a lot more than the press before I can believe this social science research).

      1. A liberal is a conservative who’s been sexually harassed (or whose daughter has been sexually harassed.)

    1. The experiment actually says that conservatives who told to imagine that they are superheroes who can’t be hurt are more likely to express liberal viewpoints.

  3. I’m wary of conflating celebrity culture with political culture. I think the two work a bit differently. I’ll have to think that through a little more, though, because yes, I know a celebrity was elected to a top political office. But there are some different expectations.

    The people being mentioned in terms of the Hollywood stuff are well-known serial harassers/abusers. Clooney and Damon are being jerks because there’s dirt on them; Clooney has had rumors circulating about his sexual orientation and Damon about his extramarital affairs. Neither involves sexual abuse of the Weinstein/Ratner/Spacey level, but they would probably see their images (as heartthrob/nice guy) take a hit. I can’t wait for Dan Schneider to go down, btw.

    The Donna Brazile stuff is kind of small potatoes compared to the sh*tshow that is our current administration. I also have a feeling that even for small potatoes, it’s not a big deal. I am aware I have a pro-HRC bias, so I will be try to be open to the other side, but what I’ve seen so far hasn’t been convincing.

    And I ain’t got time for any of this because I have to make a flash trip to the land of Apt11D this weekend for a bar mitzvah. Drop off the kid in LI to visit his cousins, dash to Jersey, return and maybe see a sister or two, then head back home to keep on grading. Ugh. At least i get to brag to my college friends that my kid is at our college.

  4. I await the adjunct post–as much as the other topics are interesting. I visited a school with HS senior where the president says “We have no T.A.s here.” OK, true. But how many adjuncts do you have, and how well treated are they? I’ll post more if this school becomes a front-runner.

    1. I’d like to second the recommendation for Aleks.com. It fit the learning style of one of my children very well and he used it for Algebra 1 and 2, Calculus and Trigonometry. I think it does depend on your child though, in what kind of teaching/teaching aids will work for them. (The Alek’s courses are online, repetitive, step-by-step explanations and then you are tested with examples to see if you have learned the concept. Also, no human interaction required—which seemed to be a plus for my son. And, they are not expensive, which was a plus for me.)

  5. 35 years in government and I saw/heard of very little harassment. Several cases, though, in which it was widely rumored that someone whose ascent was very fast and whose talents did not seem overwhelming had gotten her promotions on her back.

  6. As to Hollwwod, our family had a jaundiced view of show business and politics. The admiration is/was not universal.

    I hope the current paroxysm of disgust over the disclosures leads to a change in the laws governing confidentiality agreements. It should not be possible to pay someone to hide criminal behavior. Evidence seems to suggest many sexual predators are repeat offenders. Allowing lawyers to aid such people in making victims shut up seems counterproductive, as it leads to more victims.

    1. I agree — there seems to be increasing evidence that these secret settlements allowed individuals to continue to be perpetrators. In a number of these cases, the individuals could still chose to be silent in exchange for funds, but we shouldn’t help with the force of law. And, no one should be required to destroy evidence as a part of the settlement (as in the 32 million dollar settlement between O’Reilly & Liz Wiehl).

      1. I was hoping no one would notice…

        Could I excuse it by saying I was trying to prove I am not a bot? A website recently decided I must be a bot, and turned off my access last week. That meant I had to clear cookies, as many other websites also denied me access. There was probably a “do not talk to this bot” cookie involved.

        We have entered the age of algorithms. How many people could really pass a Turing test? I’m obviously challenged in this regard.

      1. That list looks kind of different if you look past the top ten. “http://www.chronicle.com/article/If-House-Republicans-Get-Their/241659?cid=db&elqTrackId=dfebc3089230490dbb4e5ab4f555ebe8&elq=906cab73cb54446290e12a47c59a1d38&elqaid=16432&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=7114”

        Berrea, Notre Dame, Wabash, Bryn Athyn, and a number of religious colleges. They could target Harvard and its ilk seeing the threshold at 1 million instead of 100K. But I guess that wouldn’t raise much.

      2. I like the characterization of Harvard as a large hedge fund with a relatively small eleemosynary educational enterprise attached. I am fonder of Berea.

      3. The Republican plan also imposes a 20 percent tax on any compensation in excess of $1 million paid to a university employee. I found it amusing, when Trump pulled out of the TPP, to see all the former Bernie Sanders supporters waxing righteous about the importance of free trade–because anything Trump does is bad–and it will be amusing here to watch liberals’ rabid defense of compensation of over $1 million paid by supposedly charitable institutions to their presidents and football coaches.

      4. I presume universities will deal with coaches & surgeons by foisting them off on another entity). For example, Howard Hughes Investigators are not listed as university employees on compensation records.

        But, I don’t think that the Dems are going to concentrate on all the various pinpricks the Republicans tried to apply to institutions and constituencies they don’t like. I think they’ll concentrate on the tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy. Do give me a heads up if you see a congressperson opposing the tax hike on university employees making 1+ million.

        And, BTW, you’re doing it again, the refusal to engage on the actual policy attempt by Republicans, and instead choosing to be offended by the imagined hypocrisy you propose that Democrats will engage in. It might at lest be worth it to wait until the hypocrisy is not merely a figment of your imagination.

      5. “and it will be amusing here to watch liberals’ rabid defense of compensation of over $1 million paid by supposedly charitable institutions to their presidents and football coaches”: Ha! No way. At least, every single faculty member I know would be thrilled to see highly-paid university administrators and football coaches make less or get taxed.

  7. Wow, looking at the directory and the fall schedule, that Rutgers math department is a train wreck for the average undergrad, even by R1 university standards. Unless you are a math major or a member of the honors college. Then it looks pretty good.

    Jonah should want to be part of the honors college. That looks like the best way to get a decent education at Rutgers.

  8. Unfogged commenters pointed out that there’s another stab at universities — disavowing the tax exemption for tuition waivers. It will be interesting to see how that one plays out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s