"Jury gives 4 cents to show black lives still don't matter"?

The title of an editorial in the Austin American-Statesman by Leonard Pitts Jr. in the Sunday, June 10, 2018 edition was "Jury gives 4 cents to show black lives still don't matter."

Maybe they don't, and maybe that's why the jury gave 4 cents to the family of a black man for his wrongful death at the hands of a St. Lucie County Sheriff's deputy.

But, Leonard Pitts saying it's so doesn't make it so.

Nothing in the editorial indicates that the jury gave 4 cents as a judgement because the dead man was black.  Could have been, but nothing in the editorial goes toward proving it.  Mr. Pitts doesn't even tell his readers what the racial make-up of the jury was.

I once supervised a case that went to trial where the jury gave one dollar to a woman because she was raped.  She was white.  Did the jury do it because she was white?  No.  They did it because the law required that they find in the woman's favor, but they didn't think she had been damaged.

It is possible that the jury in Mr. Pitts' editorial case felt the same way, and they would have felt exactly the same way if the deceased had been white.

So, all I'm saying is that we, Mr. Pitts included, should not leap to conclusions.  We should not assume that every bad thing that happens to someone black is because they are or were black.  Many times it's the case, but many times it's not.  There has to be some evidence, and Mr. Pitts offered none.

Has the #MeToo Movement Gone Too Far?

My answer to the question of the title is, yes.

Here's my explanation of why.

On Sunday, May6, 2018, the Austin American-Statesman ran an article on the front page headlined "Judge axed for remark sparks #MeToo debate."  If the article is to be believed, an administrative law judge who heard a medical occupational license dispute between a doctor and two female patients who accused him of becoming "... visibly aroused while performing tests on them.  He moved uncomfortably close, they added, and pressed up against them."

The judge ruled against the women and for the doctor, concluding "... the medical board lawyers hadn't proved the charges, citing 'many implausibilities and issues of doubt raised by the evidence.'"

The judge wrote an opinion in which he used a phrase the medical board lawyers found particularly galling.  He wrote that the doctor's office assistant was an "attractive" woman who had nothing bad to say about him and never saw him act inappropriately, sexually or otherwise.

The judge was fired. (In Texas, administrative law judges are hired.)

He was fired despite the fact that many lawyers, some of whom had lost cases before him and some of whom were women, spoke up for him.

Then there is the matter of Morgan Freeman.  It was reported by CNN that Mr. Freeman was accused by several women of treating them inappropriately.  Upon careful examination, however, it was found that none of the women accused Mr. Freeman of doing anything overt.  They accused him of doing things which they interpreted as bad behavior:  standing too close to them, looking at them in the wrong way, or saying things which were not overtly sexual, but which could be interpreted in a sexual way.

This is too far.  Perhaps the judge needed to be fired.  Perhaps Mr. Freeman said and did things that were inappropriate.  But, neither of them did anything that was overtly inappropriate.  It was only inappropriate in the minds of some of those who heard them or saw them.  This is too far.

Let's get some things straight.  There is some behavior that is criminal.  Rape is a crime.  Sexual assault is a crime.  Having sex with a child is a crime.  These things are always criminal and they should be, no matter where or when they happen.

There is some behavior that can make one civilly liable.  When it come to sex, primarily when an employer (or supervisor) treats someone differently because they are a particular sex than they would or do treat people of the other sex.  (This can happen even if the employee is a male or both the employer and the employee are the same sex.)  This is wrong.  It should always be wrong and there should always be a penalty for it.

But, boorish behavior generally is not illegal.  Men can act as crudely as the want (or have to) toward women, as long as it's not a crime and it's not in the workplace.  Catcalls, stares, looks, words.  They can all be inappropriate, but as long as they are not a crime or in the workplace, they are not illegal.

I recently heard a woman, supposedly part of the #MeToo movement, say that "we" will not stop until all statutes of limitations are removed from sexual crimes or workplace sexual behavior lawsuits.

There is either a lack of knowledge or a certain craziness involved in such a statement.  There are reasons for statutes of limitations.  The memories of victims, perpetrators, and witnesses all grow dimmer as time passes.  Memories even change.  Documents become progressively harder to find.  It becomes all but impossible to defend against a claim, even a false claim, if the claimed behavior is old enough.

Let me give you an example.  I am absolutely committed to the idea that everyone who applies for a job should be judged strictly according to their abilities, not their sex, race, nationality, or anything else.  It is difficult for me to imagine how I could be more committed to that concept.

I started hiring people for the Travis Count Attorney's Office about thirty-five years ago.  I gave everyone I ever interviewed the chance for a private interview.  They came into my office, sat down, and talked with me, sometimes for over an hour.  I have interviewed literally hundreds of people.

If someone who I interviewed thirty-five years ago made a claim against me, a claim that I had done something inappropriate to or with them because they were female, I would have no way to disprove it, no way to defend against it.  It would be totally wrong, but there wouldn't be any way I could prove it!

Yes, the #MeToo movement has gone too far.  When it makes men like me, who are absolutely committed to the concept of treating people in the workplace the same regardless of their sex, worried that someone may make a claim against me, when it supports women who make claims based on their perception of behavior, when judges get fired because they described a woman as "attractive" in an opinion, it has gone too far.

A good movement.  A needed movement.  But, it needs to be kept within boundaries, and it's starting to leak out of those boundaries.