Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.comment From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: The Packwood file...on balance Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 16:20:05 EST Message-ID: Lines: 107 \SE G;COMMENTARY \SS (WS) \HD The Packwood file...on balance \BY Cal Thomas A little more than a year ago, Clarence Thomas narrowly escaped the efforts of ardent feminists and their Senate supporters to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court over uncorroborated allegations that Justice Thomas had sexually harassed Anita Hill. Reams of newsprint and hours of television time were devoted to the subject, and the consensus was that such a serious charge, if it could be proved, was sufficient to deny anyone a seat on the court. Some thought just the charge alone was reason enough. Now comes another case of alleged sexual harassment, this involving a U.S. senator, Bob Packwood, Oregon Republican. According to at least 10 women, several of whom spoke on the record to The Washington Post, Mr. Packwood has a record of sexual harassment and intimidation going back to 1969. While Clarence Thomas is thought to be pro-life and in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade, Mr. Packwood has been a consistent supporter of abortion rights and other "women's issues." Apparently this helped him avoid exposure because women who supported Mr. Packwood politically were reluctant to bring him down by telling what they knew. Watching how this plays out with feminist groups and those in the press who believed Miss Hill's allegations against Justice Thomas will tell us something about the political double standard that some liberals exhibit. Ideological opponents of Justice Thomas used Miss Hill as a sledgehammer in their attempt to keep him off the court. These same people are ideological allies of Mr. Packwood. Will they be equally as forceful in demanding his censure, expulsion, resignation or recall? In a lengthy article in last Sunday's newspaper, The Washington Post chronicled 23 years of alleged sexual harassment of mostly staff women in Mr. Packwood's office. Their credibility is enhanced by graphic detail and by those they told of the alleged incidents at the time they are said to have occurred. Further credibility is given to their stories by Mr. Packwood's response. After first denying the charges against him, Mr. Packwood's attorney and friend Jack Faust issued a lawyerly statement in which he said, "Denial is not credible." Mr. Faust seemed to trivialize the issue that has become a rallying cry not only for feminists but for many women who do not consider themselves political activists. "There's nothing to be gained in a denial. The best thing to do is accept it, not make an issue of it and go back to work." Mr. Packwood issued a limp "apology," which sounded anything but contrite or repentant: "If any of my comments or actions have indeed been unwelcome, or if I have conducted myself in any way that has caused any individual discomfort or embarrassment, for that I am sincerely sorry. My intentions were never to pressure, to offend, nor to make anyone feel uncomfortable with anyone either on or off my staff." If the allegations against Mr. Packwood are true, it is impossible to imagine him believing that any of the women could have been pleased with his advances. They include kissing, grabbing, locking women inside his office and generally seeking what one accuser says was "physical and psychological power" over her. Julie Williamson was a 29-year-old legal secretary who worked in Mr. Packwood's 1968 campaign. Miss Williamson says Mr. Packwood hired her for his new Senate office in Portland and that there one afternoon in 1969, he walked in and kissed her on the back of the neck. Miss Williamson says she told him, "Don't you ever do that again," but then she says he followed her into an adjoining room, where he grabbed at her clothes, pulled at her ponytail and stood on her toes. "He couldn't get the girdle off and I kept struggling and he just gave up," says Miss Williamson, who is now 53 and a Democratic political consultant who supported Mr. Packwood's opponent, Rep. Les AuCoin, Oregon Democrat, in the recent Senate race. Most of the alleged incidents took place while Mr. Packwood was married. Mr. Packwood divorced his wife last year, citing irreconcilable differences. Georgie Packwood says she has been aware of the allegations for many years. What will the various group and feminist leaders who tried to crucify Clarence Thomas do now in the face of such overpowering evidence? Will they apply the same standard that sexual harassment disqualifies a person for high office? Or will the rules be different because Mr. Packwood has been such a supporter of "women's issues"? These charges against Mr. Packwood should be fully investigated by the Senate's office on employment practices, established after the Thomas-Hill hearings to deal with such issues. If the charges are found to be true, the minimum penalty should be censure. The Senate has exempted itself from federal laws prohibiting sexual harassment, so it may require the people of Oregon to initiate a recall, nullifying their recent choice of Packwood over AuCoin. The political fate of Bob Packwood will tell us whether liberal groups really care about sexual harassment as an issue when one of their own is charged with it, or if it is to be used only against political enemies when even the slimmest of evidence cannot be proved. Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM