Encore: “Forgetting What We Know”

Rosemary's director is more horrible than her baby...because he's real.

Rosemary’s director is more horrible than her baby…because he’s real.

I noted with horror that Roman Polanski has a new film out that is, as usual, garnering rave reviews. Polanski is a perpetual burr under my metaphorical saddle, and when he is out of the spotlight I am a happier person. One of the early reviews, under the heading “About the director,” describes him this way:

“Roman Polanski is a Polish film director, producer, writer and actor. Having made films in Poland, Britain, France and the USA, he is considered one of the few truly international filmmakers.”

This leaves out what I would argue are the most important parts of his biography, namely that he is a child rapist and a fugitive from the law of the United States. He is also an ethics corrupter on a grand scale. When his name once again made its unwelcome intrusion on my senses, I recalled that one of the very first posts on Ethics Alarms, on Halloween of 2009, was inspired by Polanski. I read it again last night, and reflected on how the blog recently passed its 1,000,000th page view since its launch that same month. I like it, and not many people read it at the time. With a few small edits, I decided to post it again.

Here it is:

Ethics evolves. It isn’t that what is right and wrong actually changes, but that human beings gradually learn, sometimes so slowly it can hardly be detected. For example, slavery was always wrong, but for centuries very few people who weren’t slaves understood that fact. There was never anything immoral about being born gay and living accordingly, but it has taken all of the collected experience of civilization to make this dawn on most of society. While we are learning, and even after we have learned, there are always those who not only lag behind but who work actively to undo the ethical progress we have made. We assume these individuals will come from the ranks of ideological conservatives, misapplying valid concepts like respect for tradition, suspicion of change for change’s sake, and a reliance on consistent standards, making them slow to accept new wisdom . Sometimes, however, the people who try to make us forget what we know come from the left side of the political spectrum, misusing values such as tolerance, freedom, empathy and fairness in the process. This is especially true when it comes to the topic of sex. Liberals fought so long and well to break down the long-established taboos about sex that many of them lost the ability to comprehend that unethical conduct can  involve sex in any way.

The most striking recent example is the bizarre defense of Roman Polanski, best known as the director of the horror classic, “Rosemary’s Baby.”

Polanski has been a fugitive from American justice since 1978. In 1977,  he was charged with raping a 13-year old girl, who told a grand jury that the director had plied her with champagne and drugs, taken nude pictures of her in a hot tub, and then had sexual intercourse with her despite her pleas to be taken home. His lawyers negotiated a plea agreement that dropped the rape charge in exchange for Polanski pleading guilty to the lesser charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.” ( Polanski was 44 when he had sex with the young teen.) When it appeared that the judge in the case might not accept the plea deal and force him to face the rape charge, Polanski fled the U.S. Since that time, he has directed films in Europe, staying out of countries that could extradite him, and traveling primarily between France, where he was protected by that nation’s limited extradition practice, and Poland. He got careless this year, and on September 26, 2009, was arrested at the Zurich airport when he arrived to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Zurich Film Festival. Swiss authorities are preparing to send him back to the U.S. [ Note: Polanski ultimately was freed, and again escaped justice.]

This is not a complicated situation. Statutory rape. A rape under circumstances—drugging—that would be rape with an adult victim, with the drugs rendering consent meaningless. Fleeing from justice. By what logic could someone argue that Polanski is a victim, and that law enforcement officials are the wrongdoers? There is none. Logic will never lead us to such a conclusion. Despite this undeniable fact, many individuals with respect and following in the entertainment industry as well as some journalists, argued that Polanski was being mistreated.

Some arguments were offensive. On “The View,” Whoopie Goldberg argued that drugging and having sex with a 13-tear-old wasn’t “rape-rape,”  implying that statutory rape is an archaic crime rooted in outdated concepts of sex, rather than the real crime of forcing a woman to have sex in an alley at the point of a knife. Some were ignorant: the eminent legal scholar Debra Winger pronounced Polanski the victim of “technicalities,” and suggested that the case should be “dead” because it was three decades old. Winger is apparently unaware that major crimes like rape are not subject to any statute of limitations, and that’s no technicality. She and others also claimed that Polanski had a right to flee because the judge  “reneged” on the absurdly lenient plea deal agreed to by the prosecutor at the time. Wrong: judges are not bound by plea agreements that they feel are inappropriate; watching any TV lawyer show would teach them that. (Winger once played a lawyer, the law partner of Robert Redford, in fact.) Some of the arguments for Polanski were just jaw-droppingly stupid, such as the claim by some of his fellow directors that international film festivals should be respected as sanctuaries from arrest, like a church.

Even more legitimate commentators lost their bearings. In a stunning Op-ed called “The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski,” Washington Post columnist Ann Applebaum argued that it was wrong to arrest Polanski because:

  • Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz and his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was butchered by the Manson clan. This is a non-sequitur. Personal tragedies and hardship never can justify or mitigate harm done to another.
  • Polanski has suffered for his crime “in notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.” An astounding statement. He has lived well in Europe and continued to work as a film director. The justice system does not acknowledge lawyer fees as punishment, and rightly so. If fees, notoriety, and professional stigma are sufficient punishment for child-rape, surely Bernie Madoff, currently in prison for the remainder of his life, should go free for the lesser crime of defrauding investors out of billions of dollars.
  • His victim, now in her forties, says she forgives him. Victims do not, should not and can not waive the criminal laws. Forgiveness is an excellent ethical value, but there is understandable self-interest in Polanski’s victim’s attitude: she has moved on in her life and has no desire to revisit this traumatic experience. She is not the only stake-holder here, however. Society has a legitimate interest in prohibiting rape and sexual violence against children, and that means that rapists must not evade punishment, no matter what the preference of their victims may be.
  • Polanski is 75.  (Note: He is now 79.) The fact that Polanski is facing his just punishment for a crime he committed now, in his Golden Years, rather than when he younger is 100% his own fault. Applebaum made the equivalent of the apocryphal plea by the defendant who murdered his parents that he deserved leniency because he was an orphan.
  • If Polanski wasn’t famous, “no one would bother with him.” I think she’s wrong about this, but even assuming she is correct, famous fugitive rapists advertise to the world that if you are rich and powerful, you can get away with rape. There are excellent, practical, societally valuable reasons to take special care that famous criminals are brought to justice.

The real, and true conclusion, is that if Polanski’s crime didn’t involve sex, neither Applebaum nor his other defenders would lift a finger to support him. It took liberals and women’s rights advocates decades and decades to get across the concept that rape, sexual domination, sexual discrimination and harassment were not about sex, but about misuse of power, abuse of trust, and the disrespect and unfair treatment of women. Yet all it takes is a popular and artistically respected director to make some forget that lesson.

Or a popular TV talk show host. David Letterman, forced by an extortion scheme to admit on the air to a series of sexual affairs with staffers, was able to cast himself as the victim and avoid professional consequences. Yet he was essentially no different from the infamous male corporate executives of the pre-sexual harassment era, using their female subordinates as company-paid harems. Gloria Steinem and other feminists fought to hammer into American culture the concept that when an individual has power over one’s livelihood, there can be no true “consent” to sexual relationships initiated by the boss. I would have written “successfully hammered,”  but the lesson vanished when the boss was funny old Dave.

Talk show host (and Letterman employee) Craig Ferguson tut-tutted against “holding late-night talk-show hosts to the same moral accountability as we hold politicians or clergymen.” The code word here is “moral”: Ferguson and others were suggesting that objections to Letterman’s conduct were rooted in moral rectitude, the idea that sex—recreational sex, older man/younger woman sex, adulterous sex— was wrong. But Letterman is accountable, exactly as any supervisor (including a politician or clergyman) is accountable when he abuses his position and influence to turn the workplace into a personal sexual hunting ground. His escapades weren’t “personal conduct”—another of the bogus defenses raised on Letterman’s behalf—because they occurred in and affected the workplace. Letterman’s predatory sex was thus workplace conduct, and legally prohibited conduct at that. This was classic third-party sexual harassment under Title IX, a “hostile work environment” created when other female employees receive the message that they are required to be sexually accessible in order to succeed. Letterman’s conquests’ “consent,” invalid anyway because of his position, couldn’t mitigate the toxic and inherently unfair culture the illicit relationships created.

It should have been no surprise when former Letterman writer Nell Scovell, writing on Vanity Fair’s website, recently revealed that the sexually-charged atmosphere on Letterman’s show caused her to feel demeaned as a woman and led to her resignation. All those “consenting personal relationships,” in other words, caused her professional hardship. Yet even Scovell, good industry liberal that she is, has forgotten the lesson. “I don’t want compensation. I don’t want revenge. I don’t want Dave to go down (oh, grow up, people). I just want Dave to hire some qualified female writers and then treat them with respect,” she wrote.
“Oh, grow up people.” Grow up: don’t require accountability or consequences when unethical, harmful workplace conduct involves sex…because sex is good, remember?  Remember the pill, abortion rights, Woodstock? Except that sex, like many good things, can be involved in very unethical, harmful conduct. Until individuals like David Letterman and Roman Polanski “go down” for such conduct, it will continue, and innocent people will continue to be hurt.

We should have learned that by now. In fact, we did, but there are cultural pressures that are working to unlearn it, as there always are with ethics enlightenment.

8 thoughts on “Encore: “Forgetting What We Know”

  1. Sure, he raped a young girl, but he makes really amazing movies…

    So, if a young girl needs to get drugged and anally penetrated against her will, then so be it.

    Take one for the team, damnit.

  2. Hello, Jack,

    That was a well-thought-out analysis, so don’t mistake the following trivial note for criticism. It affects neither your reasoning nor your conclusion. It could easily be wrong, for that matter.

    I read “I don’t want Dave to go down (oh, grow up, people)” as equivalent to “Yes, I just said ‘go down’. Stop giggling like a child.”

  3. There was never anything immoral about being born gay and living accordingly…

    That at the very least depends on what you mean by “living accordingly”. A few years ago I happened to see a magazine on a rack that listed some of its articles on the cover; one was “how to turn straight boys”. Even if you take the nothing immoral position and you suppose that “boy” doesn’t mean under the age of consent, it is necessarily a fact that, in our time and place, someone who is changed like that will suffer in various ways at the hands of others. It therefore follows that someone who seeks to bring that about – as opposed to finding those who are like that – is acting unethically given the circumstances, and that even if the act is impossible of achievement – if nobody can be turned as opposed to discovered – a person who believes it can be achieved and attempts it is still acting unethically (compare and contrast it with the attempted murder of someone by means of a harmless substance erroneously believed poisonous).

    … values such as tolerance, freedom, empathy and fairness …

    Of those, only the last is a value, and even then only in one sense of the word. In another sense, it is like the others: an abstract condition used as a means furthering values.

    By what logic could someone argue that Polanski is a victim, and that law enforcement officials are the wrongdoers?

    It’s not an either/or. The girl was a victim, and Polanski was too, since it was not a case of “it appeared that the judge in the case might not accept the plea deal and force him to face the rape charge” but rather that the judge had accepted the deal and appeared to be about to resile on that after it had been used to induce admissions against interest (without that last, your counter might well stand). Certainly, that may be understood as less of a breach of ethics, but it still made Polanski a victim of such a breach. (The real ethical dilemma is the one that confronted the judge after he realised what he had committed to – if he did, rather than finding a shift in what was convenient.)

    The justice system does not acknowledge lawyer fees as punishment, and rightly so.

    As a general principle, it is not rightly so, precisely because any general principle must cover cases in which it has been abused – and there are such cases, e.g. when large sums of cash are seized and cannot be recovered for lack of funds to sue for the cash, or when a defendant’s assets are frozen and he or she is thrust into pleading guilty to reduce actual suffering.

    • A judge is under no obligation to follow the sentencing suggestions put forward during a deal, and in fact is ethically required to reject them if they are too easy on the guilty party.

      Polanski was already guilty, btw. It was a sentencing deal the judge tossed.

      So no sympathy, and your excuse-making is…

      Well, this is you we’re talking about, so I’m not actually all that surprised…

    • This is fun. If people tried to communicate to avoid the non-ambiguities that appear to trouble you, we would be reduced to charades.

      1.It is clear to any rational person that “gey and living accordingly” does not include “turning” straight boys,” any more than straight and living accordingly means beating up gays.

      2.Tolerance, freedom, empathy and fairness are thing valued in an ethical society, and that nourish such society, and therefor qualify as values. Freedom, unlike the others, is not properly a virtue, but the most useful list of virtues includes “autonomy”, which really means, in that context, permitting others autonomy and not autonomy itself. I have many published lists of both values and virtues, and all four words appear prominently. Doesn’t bother me one bit.

      4. Abuse isn’t punishment.

      3.Polanski: no breach at all. The judge was not bound to stick to anything, and had no binding commitment under the law or ethics—he can change his mind at any point until the matter is closed. Polanski had the avenue of appeal, like anyone else. By no stretch of the wiord is a confessed child rapist who loses a celebrity based slap on the wrist in lieu of punishment a victim. Society is the victim if he is not appropriately punished. The justice system has no obligation to NOT be fair, which is what giving breaks to high-profile elites is.

      • If one searched the site Patterico.com for mentions of Polanski, they would eventually find a post that details the case because Mr. Frey (Patterico) works (or worked) for the man who was the prosecutor in the case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.