Views Are Clear, Answers Aren’t, on Sexual Harassment

When then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and his former law clerk Anita Hill squared off in 1991 over sexual harassment, America chose up sides. Each camp accused the other of distortions, exaggerations and outright lying. To this day, the country still could ask: What really happened?

In the four years since, the country hasn’t reached consensus on the larger debate of workplace harassment. Everyone may condemn it, but not everyone defines it the same way.

We all know what murder is. We all know what bank robbery is. We don’t all know what sexual harassment is, except in its more blatant quid pro quo form between boss and employee.

The only certainty is that the charge is explosive--like racism--and capable of producing two damaging scenarios: either a cover-up when it actually occurs or a smear campaign when it is charged without merit.

This vexing issue has surfaced again locally with an as-yet unreleased report surrounding the 1993 suspension and later dismissal of Richard Donoghue, the former interim and later deputy superintendent in the Orange Unified School District.

Donoghue, 50, wasn’t accused of quid pro quo harassment. Rather, he was charged with fostering a work environment in which sexual bantering and joking were tolerated. That took various forms, including allegations that he leered at female employees and made crude jokes.

While hearing officer Geraldine Randall did not condone all of Donoghue’s actions--she said they warranted a disciplinary warning, not suspension--she found that his suspension without pay was politically motivated. She said a small group of school district officials had an “ulterior motive” when they brought the charges against Donoghue and his top lieutenants.

I received a copy of Randall’s report and quoted extensively from it in Wednesday’s column. The Board of Education has yet to make it public.

The report is full of cautionary tales. For instance, Donoghue was hit with 67 “charges.” That sounds so mountainous as to suggest guilt, but here are a sampling of some of the charges, quoting from Randall’s report:

* Charge No. 3: During the period August of 1990 through October of 1992, [accuser] observed that during business meetings with you, when just about any female would come into the room, you would “grope” their bodies with your eyes.

* Charge No. 4: During the [same] period, [accuser] observed that when a female came into the office, instead of looking her in the eye and talking to her, you would look at her breasts.

* Charge No. 47: During the [same] period, while in meetings with [accuser], you made numerous comments and jokes in a “Howard Stern” fashion. In your business meetings with [accuser], you would repeat what she termed “disgusting comments” from the radio program you had listened to that morning.

* Charge No. 27: During the period between May of 1992 and April of 1993, [accuser] informed [two other employees] that she felt uncomfortable being alone with you or having to ride alone in a car with you.

For the record, the only one of the four that Randall upheld was that Donoghue quoted from the Stern show.

*

Altogether, she found that 20 of the 67 charges had whole or partial substantiation. Even then, she referred to many of those 20 as “repetitious.” Only two of the original 67 charges involved physical contact with another person, and Randall dismissed both of them.

After reading Randall’s report, I was struck by the large number of charges that involved perception or interpretation of his actions. Randall cited the fact that the district made no real effort to determine the truth or falsity of the charges before suspending Donoghue.

My conversations Thursday with the opposing attorneys show how intractable these matters may be. Donoghue’s attorney, Neil Barker, said: “What it underscores to me is that, given the seriousness of charges of sexual harassment and the damage that being accused of the charge can do, perhaps we need to be more careful before we allow such charges to be brought. The threshold that persons making such charges should have to meet before a charge is given any official sanction probably needs to be higher.”

Mary Jo McGrath, whose law firm carried the ball against Donoghue, said Donoghue’s sexually oriented humor made him unfit for the high positions he held. McGrath focused on a lewd joke Donoghue admittedly made around other adults in a district office. The remark involved a reference to some high school girls, and McGrath said it amounts, in her mind, to condoning child molestation.

The joke is a sophomoric locker-room remark--too crude to tell here--but when I asked McGrath why she considers it tantamount to molestation, she replied, “Aren’t we talking about sexual contact?”

When I suggested that many people would consider it a joke, however offensive, she replied, “Maybe I’m out to lunch. Maybe we ought to turn everybody loose on the kids. He’s a superintendent of the school district, he sets the whole tone for behavior. As he goes, the district goes.”

Sadly, the arena of sexual harassment still amounts to choosing up sides. One person’s joke is another’s condoning of molestation. One person’s leering glance is another’s nervous affectation. One person’s crude but funny birthday card is another’s source of discomfort.

Donoghue’s dismissal cost him dearly. Only with the releasing of Randall’s report has the board agreed to reinstate his back pay. His camp claims vindication; the other decries the decision.

When it comes to sexual harassment, not even resolutions of the case produce resolution.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.