Politics gets in the way of principals

An unprecedented silence is emanating from the halls of prominent women's organizations.

Establishments such as the Feminist Majority, Women's Legal Defense Fund and the National Organization for Women have labeled themselves watchdogs and protectors of injustices committed against women. Yet, for some reason, these same organizations have turned a blind eye to one such inequity.

Nearly every newspaper in the country has reported on the charges placed against President Clinton on behalf of Paula Corbin Jones but hardly any comment or reaction came from the outspoken feminist groups.

Why the silence? Why the ambivalence? Why the lack of support for Mrs. Jones?

In early 1994, Arkansas attorney Daniel Traylor was trying to develop a legal case for Jones, who had publicly accused President Clinton of sexual misconduct.

Traylor contacted several women's groups for help at the outset of Jones' allegations but stated that he received, "little or no encouragement from any of them."

Women's groups often file "friend of the court" briefs in cases involving sexual harassment, abortion and discrimination. But not one group signed on to Jones' case.

When Anita F. Hill charged then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, feminists didn't think twice.

In their view any woman who claimed that she had been sexually harassed should not be second guessed.

Feminists and liberals proclaimed that women, "don't just make these things up" and that "one just doesn't get it" if one presumed Thomas innocent until proven guilty.

They asserted that sexual harassment plagued women for many years and that men who committed such acts were protected by the "good old boy" network, which usually blamed women for bringing sexual advances upon themselves.

One of Hill's biggest supporters at the time was Judith L. Lichtman, president of the Women's Legal Defense Fund. She argued that Hill had the right to be heard before the Senate passed judgment on Thomas's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

But in regard to Jones' allegations, Lichtman stated in the Washington Post that allowing the case to proceed while Clinton is still in office, "would be damaging to the office of the presidency and to the country."

Some of Jones' supporters felt that feminists would be all over this case if it involved a Republican president.

When Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, was asked if this were true she said, "I don't know."

It has long been suggested that feminists are more concerned with political influence and the support for liberal causes, than the interests of women. There seems to be much truth to charge.

During the last presidential election, women's groups were very active in President Clinton's re-election campaign. They have always looked upon him favorably and considered him a friend to their agenda. During the campaign Clinton pledged to continue to support their cause and to consider future legislation that would help to further their objectives.

Unlike Anita Hill, the sexual harassment charges filed by Paula Jones was never given much attention in the media, however since the November elections, the story has resurfaced. The press began to reconsider the case partly due to an article written by Stuart Taylor Jr., in the American Lawyer magazine comparing the Anita Hill allegations to Paula Jones' allegations.

In his article Taylor makes a compelling case that Jones' declarations of sexual harassment have more credibility than Hill's. He also points out that the allegations against the president are more severe.

Clarence Thomas was merely charged with using sexually explicit language, the president however, is charged with committing sexual advances.

Subsequently, Newsweek magazine published a piece which outlined the story in great detail. This sparked some interest in other branches of the main stream media, which in turn demanded a response from silent women's groups.

With their backs against the proverbial wall, feminists were placed in an ideological pickle of principles versus politics. Should they support Jones with the same fervor as they did Hill or surrender to politics?

At this point feminist groups were handed an opportunity to put to rest any question of political bias which clouded their position regarding Jones' case. This issue of principles versus politics is ordinarily viewed as the litmus test of whether a group really believes in what they preach or whether politics takes precedence.

The feminist response was no surprise. In an on-line discussion in "Slate," Susan Estrich, a USC law professor, radio talk show host and self-proclaimed feminist, confirmed what many of her adversaries speculated. Her response to Stuart Taylor regarding the question of principles versus politics was, "You [Stuart Taylor] believe in principle. I believe in politics."

Although Estrich was only speaking for herself, the women's movement followed by not supporting Jones but rather supporting a postponement of her testimony under the guise of, "hindering the president's ability to govern."

Had feminists supported Jones it would have assigned them more credibility in the eyes of supporters. Nevertheless, they surrendered a principle in which they claimed to be foremost in their agenda in order not to disturb their political devotion to the president.

In essence they sold their ideological soul in the name of political allegiance.

The women's movement of late has done more to harm their cause than all of it's intended good. They have become a group lost in their own rhetoric, where principles only matter when not challenged by politics. As such, they will only support those cases which forward their agenda and neglect the ones which carry a political price. This incident will surely upset the foundation of the feminist movement and possibly weaken future rhetoric regarding women's rights.