The Whistle-Blower

There is a nouveau-archetype evolving in our ever changing world, especially pertinent now because the Republican nomination for President is heating up: the whistle-blower. Republican nominee Herman Cain has been accused of sexual harassment by about four women in the last few weeks, occurring somewhere in the last ten or fifteen years. There is extensive evidence against him. Sharon Bialek (the only woman to come forward) lost her job in the 1990s and asked Cain, then the president of the National Restaurant Association, for help. She even remembers the clothing she was wearing at the time of the inappropriate conduct.

This is not the first time in history that someone has come forward against a politician in order to prevent them from winning a seat. In 1991, Anita Hill came forward against Clarence Thomas, running for a position on the Supreme court. He still won the seat, and as a consequence, Ms. Hill was judged, called delusional and a scorned woman out for revenge. She was viewed as someone meddling in politics, attempting to slander a candidate for personal gain.

This appears to be what is happening and will continue to happen to Ms. Bialek: already, her entire past has been chronicled, as well as her past job history and testaments to her character. It seems that everyone, especially the media and Herman Cain's campaign team, is trying to find a way to prove she's lying, whether in reality or through manipulating public opinion, it makes no difference.

Throughout literature, canon, history, and popular media, the one who spills the beans is seen as weak, spineless, and cowardly. Even as children, we mark the "one who tells" as a tattletale. Thus, in addition to the sexual harassment the women go through, there is an additional toll placed by those who should be listening. According to Laura Beth Nielsen, a researcher at the American Bar Association and an associate professor of law and sociology at Northwestern University,

"I can't tell you how many accusers have gone bankrupt, gotten divorced, or start having drinking or drug-use problems... Even if they win, they feel like they've lost. Some say, 'I'm glad I made the point that they couldn't do that'. But by and large, they feel pretty chewed up and spit out by the justice system" (Chicago Tribune, front page of the edition from Sunday, November 13, 2011)

So why do we hate the whistle-blower so much and why do we treat them in the way we do? I think the answer is multi-fold. It's partly because victims use public media in order to tell their story, which reminds us too much of the people who enter reality competitions like American Idol or Survivor just for fifteen minutes of fame. This occurrence is so common nowadays that we have lost respect for ordinary people (not politicians) propelling controversial viewpoints through the news. Perhaps we also view sexual harassment as something to be accepted or ignored, yet a major counterpoint exists in the reaction to the Penn State scandal, recently revealed; however, the difference is the nature of this scandal, involving young boys versus a grown woman with a past. Also, sexual harassment may not be viewed as a real crime because it's not necessarily rape and no one dies or gets maimed.

Irrespective of the reasoning, from now on, the public should operate under the knowledge that by exposing their harassment, the whistle-blower is putting him or herself into more danger than if they just remained quiet. Scrutinizing them for evidence of lies, bad character, or desire for fame is not necessary to the extent we make it seem. This is not meant to deter questioning the situation, but rather to keep that questioning productive, constructive, and considerate.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know!