How Does NOW Know?

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

October 6, 2009

Recent developments in the David Letterman extortion controversy have raised serious issues about the abuse of power leading to an inappropriate, if not hostile, workplace environment for women and employees. In the case of Letterman, he is a multi-million dollar host of one of the most popular late-night shows; in that role, he wields the ultimate authority as to who gets hired, who gets fired, who gets raises, who advances, and who does entry-level tasks among the Late Show employees. As "the boss," he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace -- and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees -- including employees who happen to be women -- in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation.

* * *

The National Organization for Women calls on CBS to recognize that Letterman's behavior creates a toxic environment and to take action immediately to rectify this situation.

http://www.now.org/press/10-09/10-06.html

NOW certainly would be correct in saying that when a boss asks a subordinate for a date, there's usually an unequal power relationship that prevents the subordinate from feeling completely free to say "no." They'd be just as correct if they said that it's generally not great for office morale to have employees thinking that a hookup with the boss was the surest way to success. And of course, they'd be right on target if they pointed out that, as a rule, such relationships are best avoided, because the fallout from the breakups is dangerous to both parties, especially the lower-ranking one.

But "usually," "generally," and "as a rule" are not the same as "always." And so far, we don't know that anybody on the Late Show set felt a "toxic environment." The women who were involved with Letterman haven't complained about their relationships with him. The staffers who weren't involved with him haven't publicly griped that they couldn't get ahead without getting with him.

So, on the facts we know at this point . . .

. . . it seems possible that the ladies who dallied with Dave did so because they wanted to;

. . . it seems possible that their freedom to say "no" was never in question because they had hoped they'd be asked, and were planning to say "yes;"

. . . it seems possible that they saw more to gain than to fear from an up-close embrace with the boss's power;

. . . it seems possible that the relationships got started because Letterman and the ladies liked each other for reasons above and beyond mere objectification;

. . . it seems possible that they are fine with the way the relationships went;

. . . and it seems possible that nobody else on Letterman's staff felt unfairly excluded from any of the possible benefits of working on the show.

NOW does itself no favors by ignoring those possibilities. By presuming a crime before any victim can be identified, it reduces itself to a parody. No advocacy group is credible when it's safely presumed that they'll see offensive behavior even before they've bothered to look.