A model for cool, liberated, feminist men
Howard Levitt, an expert in employment law, says Jian Ghomeshi won’t be working in broadcasting again.
Before his fall, Jian Ghomeshi was a model for cool, liberated, feminist men. That image was left in tatters when he was fired from the CBC and the resulting stories quickly reached public attention.
The question now being roundly asked is whether he will be able to return to the CBC after last week’s acquittal? The simple answer is no. In my crisis management work, I look at the prospect of rehabilitation from the perspective of the client’s perceived image before the infraction.
A public figure or executive can be rehabilitated only if the person’s “infraction” is not inconsistent with their public image.
Levitt gives a couple of examples of politicians who got in trouble with driving and alcohol but carried on in their careers unscathed, contrasted with one who got public outrage.
Why the difference? The offences committed by Lévesque and Klein were not inconsistent with what the public already believed about them. Campbell, on the other hand, was seen as someone who thought he was better than everyone else. The public was delighted to see him get his comeuppance.
That doesn’t seem like an ideal arrangement. All you have to do to get away with being an asshole is be widely seen as an asshole already. Hmm.
Anyway, he says Ghomeshi was seen as hip and lefty and feminist, and that won’t work any more. Again, that seems odd to me, because surely it’s pretty well-known that lots of hip lefty men who consider themselves feminists actually act like sexist assholes – isn’t it? And surely it’s also pretty well-known that lots of hip employers and organizations turn a blind eye to gross sexism in their hip popular star employees – isn’t it? Bill Cosby anyone?
But there is the little matter of other CBC employees. That part seems less odd.
He was fired because his sexual practices were antithetical to the CBC’s (and his own) brand and would cause the broadcaster considerable market damage if he had remained. The law permits employers to fire for cause employees who commit acts fundamentally antithetical to their brand.
It is noteworthy that, while this criminal trial (and the upcoming one), advanced quickly, we have heard nothing from his union, which has the exclusive right to represent Ghomeshi in any dismissal case. I suspect — though I have no inside knowledge — that the union has not taken the case and will not.
For one thing, it would put the union in conflict with other members who may not wish their funds to be used to prosecute Ghomeshi’s case and may even be testifying against him. That is largely the union’s choice, for which Ghomeshi would have little effective recourse if it decided not to.
Those non-male employees could be the ultimate barrier.
It’s annoying that it’s the perception of him that is going to prevent him from working in the field again, rather than any concern that he might, you know, do the same thing again, to other women. This does little more than encourage perceptions to be “managed”, i.e. to hide scandals and to shame or otherwise defame victims.
Don’tcha just love when physical and sexual abuse/rape is renamed a “sexual practice”, and thus negated as a crime? Me neither.
I think the better way to look at it is that people hate a hypocrite.
Though I think Levitt’s examples are questionable. A big part of the reason Levesque got away with what he did was that it happened in 1977, when attitudes towards drunk driving were different, especially compared to in 2003 when Gordon Campbell’s offense took place. But I think his overall point is sound: he could just as easily have pointed to recently deceased Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, who might have been able to survive the crack-smoking revelations if cancer hadn’t forced him out of politics.
Yes, but it’s all about… not sure the right term, perhaps “plausible deniability”? Before Ghomeshi’s behavior was reported, it was apparently widely rumored and treated as an “open secret” in the music and broadcasting community. But everyone is vague on specifics, and so people can turn a blind eye, assume that it’s all “boys will be boys” stuff, etc. It’s only when people are confronted with specific allegations that the dissonance of listening to someone who doesn’t live up to their professed values gets to be too much.
Oh, and a minor quibble, but: I’m not sure Bill Cosby was ever anyone’s idea of hip. Popular, yes, if you go back to the 80s, but never hip.
But if you doubt that the views of the audience matter, consider the difference between Ghomeshi (and to a lesser extent, Cosby) and Shermer. The atheist/skeptic community could be described a lot of ways, but “hip, lefty, and feminist” do not come to mind. And that’s a big part of why Shermer continues to be welcomed there while Cosby and Ghomeshi are shunned by many of their former fans.
Well, not exactly. To the extent that you have something like a democracy or a meritocracy, people attain leadership positions by offering or representing or modeling something that their supporters value. What Levitt is saying is that leaders can hold their position against scandal to the extent that the scandal does not compromise that core value proposition. (Use of marketing jargon intentional. It’s just like selling soap powder.)
For example, religious leaders are notoriously impervious to scandals involving venal sins, like sex and drugs and gambling. The reason is that what they offer their supporters is faith and piety, and faith and piety are not compromised by venal sins. In fact, being caught with their hand in the cookie jar gives them an opportunity to star in the “Confess Your Sins Before God and Beg For Forgiveness” passion play, which always goes over well with the faithful. In contrast, if they were to question or renounce their faith, they would be bounced out in a heartbeat. (See, e.g. Ryan Bell)
Trump is an asshole, and everyone knows that Trump is an asshole, and when the next news story breaks revealing that (surprise!) Trump is an asshole, it is not going to hurt his political standing. But the reason it won’t hurt him is not that everyone already knows it. The reason it won’t hurt him is that his core value proposition is racist isolationist populism, and being an asshole does not compromise that. (If anything, it enhances his anti-establishment cred.)