In our society’s new culture of disclosure awakened by the national MeToo movement, where deep wounds are publicly exposed and reputations quickly shredded, one cardinal rule should apply:
Powerful people who are proven to have committed misconduct should be held accountable for their actions — but so should those who spread false claims of misconduct.
It’s the only way to ensure the scales of justice stay balanced. And when pseudo-victims cry wolf, it doesn’t do real victims any favors.
The question now confronting Washington state senators is this: What kind of accountability is appropriate for an elected leader who makes loud allegations of mistreatment, but whose claims are ultimately deemed unfounded after being investigated?
There are no easy answers in the case of freshman state Sen. Mona Das, D-Kent. She gave a public speech in June in which she declared that her fellow Democrats used language laced with hate, sexism and racism in private caucus meetings.
“After they close that door, that’s when it gets real,” Das told a hometown audience. “That’s when my 28 colleagues got real. And that’s when I heard hate, misogyny and racism and sexism from people you would not expect.”
There’s a time and place to air such grievances. A Chamber of Commerce membership luncheon is not it.
A recently completed internal Senate investigation found no evidence supporting Das’ claims.
Sen. Randi Becker, R-Eatonville, says Das committed “offensive conduct” and should answer for it. Becker proposed a range of penalties, from a public apology to a written reprimand to reimbursement of public funds spent on the investigation.
Now a Senate committee must sort it all out before the Legislature reconvenes in January. Senators must make sure the inquiry was fair and thorough, consider whether Das should face consequences, and set a tone for healthy working relationships in 2020.
To bury the investigation and leave this case hanging would diminish the work that went into the Senate’s new Policy on Appropriate Workplace Conduct. The hard-fought policy was adopted last year after several women came forward saying they were subjected to harassment and other misbehavior while working at the Capitol but had no clear path for redress.
How much impact has the MeToo movement had on Olympia? In the past year, three male legislators resigned or lost reelection after accusations of sexual assault, harassment or other misdeeds were leveled against them.
The claims Das made about her fellow Democrats seem minor by comparison. She didn’t file an official complaint; her raw feelings poured out in a speech to her constituents. She didn’t name names; she condemned what she perceived as a general institutional bias inside the caucus room. And she didn’t cite any improper physical contact; born in India and raised in the U.S., she criticized senators’ use of “coded language” that demeans women and “brown folks.”
Is it possible that a rookie lawmaker overreacted to the seniority politics and frank discussions that happen behind closed doors? Yes. Is it also possible that veteran lawmakers could learn a few things about unconscious bias? Again, yes.
Becker, who chairs the Senate Republican caucus, has called on the Senate Facilities and Operations Committee to discuss consequences for Das. The committee’s chair, Sen. John McCoy, D-Tulalip, confirmed there will be a discussion at the next meeting, likely in November.
It’s prudent for the committee to take up the matter, though Becker’s call to action seems overcooked and one wonders why Republicans are so fired up about what happened in the other party’s caucus room.
Could it be indirect political payback? Das helped fortify Democratic control of the Senate when elected to the seat held by Sen. Joe Fain of Auburn. Fain was Senate minority floor leader and a rising star in the state GOP. His fortunes turned overnight when a woman came forward last fall claiming he’d sexually assaulted her in 2007 — a charge he denied.
Ironically, there was no Senate investigation of Fain because he’d lost his reelection bid to Das before it could be launched.
Make no mistake, the remarks Das made in her Kent speech were ill suited to the occasion, and her attempt to blame a news reporter for mischaracterizing her words was shameful. (She has since apologized to the reporter.)
Saying “racist” at a chamber of commerce lunch is like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater: If you do it, you’d better have very strong proof.
Das clearly wants to be a force for marginalized voices in government. We only hope this episode doesn’t lead to further marginalization.
