What a terrible human being.
I don’t mean Rudy Giuliani. Maybe the former mayor of New York City really did harass and “sexually assault” Noelle Dunphy, seen above with Rudy, after he hired her (she says) in January 2019 when the old prosecutor was 75 years old. Even if that is true—and, frankly, no man over 60 these days is likely to be able to avoid committing legal harassment, as in creating a “hostile work environment,” working closely with a young woman who is looking for offenses to protest (See: Joe Biden, the late George H.W. Bush, and too many others to count.)—Giuliani is at least partially the victim here. Use the wrong word and it’s pervasive sexism; touch a shoulder without consent and it is “assault.” Yes, there is no excuse for men of any age not to keep up with the evolution of ethics in this area and others, but kindness, compassion and the Golden Rule dictate a reaction other than lying in wait for an opportunity to exact revenge or worse, exploit a past relationship for current personal gain.
Rudy is currently under attack from all sides, primarily as part of an organized effort to punish the allies of Donald Trump, particularly the lawyers. Already named as a co-conspirator in the latest indictment of Trump, Giuliani is in the process of being disbarred in the District of Columbia on the theory that he “helped destabilize our democracy” and “done lasting damage” to the oath to support the U.S. Constitution that he had sworn when he was admitted to the bar. [No further comment from me: I have a conflict in this matter] Dunphy or her lawyer decided that this was the perfect time to pounce, with Giuliani already being savaged in the news media like anyone who doesn’t publicly reject Trump. So she not only chose now to sue him, she also included embarrassing quotes the old man made when he thought the two were alone and his comments were private.
She was, you see, secretly recording him.
And thus we have today’s New York Times headline, “Giuliani Maligns Jews and Women in Transcript Filed in Harassment Case.” What was the comment that “maligns Jews”? This:
“Jews! They want to go through that freaking Passover all the time. Man, oh, man. Get over the Passover. It was like 3,000 years ago. OK, the Red Sea parted. Big deal. Not the first time that happened.” Says the Times, “In another portion, he engaged in a derisive discussion of the size of Jewish men’s genitals.”
Sexism? “In another transcript, Mr. Giuliani says that he is physically aroused by Ms. Dunphy’s intelligence, adding, ‘I’d never think about a girl being smart. If you told me a girl was smart, I would often think she’s not attractive.'”
The transcripts of the unethical (but legal!) recordings also indicate that Giuliani “often seems to be rambling. He remarks that there are not many Republican celebrities and uses a homophobic slur to describe the actor Matt Damon…”
The Horror. A 75-year-old man rambles in a private conversation with someone he thought was trustworthy. Rudy’s latest travail is redolent of the disgusting Daniel Sterling scandal, in which surreptitious recordings made by his supposed girl friend were used to tar the NBA owner as a racist and force him to sell his team. Sterling was a creep, and in many ways so is Rudy Giuliani, but as I wrote in my final post about the former’s betrayal, the “Sterling fiasco was born of a disgraceful and wide-ranging rejection of fairness, decency and privacy. I never thought I could hate it more than I already did. I was wrong.”
That hate is now officially transferred to Dunphy. No one reading this post hasn’t said something, indeed many things, in the presence of a trusted friend, lover, family member or colleague that would lead to catastrophic consequences if made public. Maybe the statement was said in jest, or anger, or irony, or just bad taste and judgment. Statements like that get made because the speaker is not editing every word, has turned off ethics alarms, and trusts his or her companion because that companion has indicated that they could be trusted. But when the companion is someone like Dunphy—an Ethics Villain— that representation was a lie. The opposite is true: the individual intends to catch the speaker in an offensive and embarrassing statement that can be used to harm him or her…when the time is right.
Those who are cheering this added wound to Giuliani’s reputation had better pat down or strip-search everyone they have a candid conversation with from now on, or better yet, never assume any conversation is private again. This is the culture and society that people like Noelle Dunphy are creating for us to live in: a nation where trust is impossible, mistakes are fatal, and everyone is a target.
Ethics Alarms 
The city of Newark is already there. There is actually a policy in place that says that if you hear someone say something racist, even if you are not the target of the statement and even if you are not involved in the conversation, you are required to turn that person in to his boss. If you fail to do so, you will be fired instead. Granted, no one should be saying racist things on the job in the first place, but if two idiots make a stupid joke that would stay between them but for someone they didn’t know was listening in, or if someone invites someone to make a joke, in the hopes of later turning them in on it, that’s not right. That goes especially where the only punishment will be termination. No warnings, no re-education, no suspension, termination within the hour. That goes especially more where the only thing the person did was try to exercise some discretion and not try to destroy someone. I guess it doesn’t matter, because the point of being at work is to work, not to joke. Still, do you think that fear makes the workplace more or less tolerable? That’s what I thought. What’s more, how do you think it feels to have to go back through everything you said to make sure that you didn’t say anything not only that was not forbidden, but that couldn’t be misinterpreted? I already had a narrow shave when I remarked on cold weather using the britishism “brass monkey weather” in other words, whether that is so cold it coukd freeze the balls off a brass monkey. One of the secretaries flipped out and said that she was going to have me fired. The boss looked up the expression, said it was not actually a racist term, so no one would be disciplined, but warned me that I should watch my privilege and govern my language more strictly to prevent others being offended by a mistake.
Are there no repercussions for a false accusation?
Of course not, what was I thinking.
Not with this secretary, because any kind of corrective action taken against her would be turned into a major labor grievance. She was the stereotypical loudmouth black woman with a huge chip on her shoulder who was going to get her revenge on the world. She retired 3 years ago and I must say things have been a lot quieter since.
Wait: is the stereotypical black woman white? She sure looks Irish to me.
No. I’m talking about the person I dealt with in my office, not the person in the original post. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
That’s horrifying. Imagine working with a bunch of potential petty tyrants ready to spring at any well-intentioned but misunderstood remark.
Comic Relief Time
“In another transcript, Mr. Giuliani says that he is physically aroused by Ms. Dunphy’s intelligence, adding, ‘I’d never think about a girl being smart. If you told me a girl was smart, I would often think she’s not attractive.’”
I guess Mr. Giuliani is a believer in Beckhap’s Law.
Beckhap’s Law:
Beauty times brains equals a constant.
MR. GIULIANI: — the way — the way natural selection works. Jewish men have small cocks because they can’t use them after they get married. Whereas the Italian men use them all their lives so they get bigger.
MR. GIULIANI: Come here, big tits. Come here, big tits. Your tits belong to me.
Give them to me (indiscernible). I want to claim my tits. I want to claim my tits. I want to claim my tits. These are my tits,
MS. DUNPHY: Oh, yeah.
MR. GIULIANI: These breasts belong to me. Nobody else can get near these, okay? I don’t care if they’re flirting or they give you business cards. These are mine, you got it?
MS. DUNPHY: Yes.
MR. GIULIANI: Understand? I’m very fucking possessive. I’ve gone easy on you.
MS. DUNPHY: I don’t know.
MR. GIULIANI: I’ve been easy on you.
MS. DUNPHY: You’re pretty tough on me.
MR. GIULIANI: I’ve been easy on you. Give them to me.
MS. DUNPHY: Maybe —
The link to the transcripts expires so use https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch and use the index number 650033/2023
Another transcript (Exhibit 107):
MR. GIULIANI: You are my bitch.
MS. DUNPHY: (indiscernible) bitch.
MR. GIULIANI: You’re my whore. You’re my fucking slut.
Who talks to someone like this? Were they having sex?
I mean, I just cannot imagine talking to someone like that regardless of the situation.
It sounds like this was during a sexual encounter. If it was how do we know who choreographed the banter? This is not my cup of tea but it is for others in such encounters.
If not, did she immediately turn in her resignation and report the event to a third party?
Rudy says they had a “consensual” relationship, and she wasn’t his employee.
I must have misunderstood. How is she suing if he was not in a position of power over her. I’m lost.
The article says the lawssuit says she was an employee. Rudy says it was just a relationship, personal nor professional.
Do you believe she wasn’t his employee?
I have no idea. Presumably it will be easy to determine one way or the other.
Funny: I had a Jewish roommate who had a long routine about the same anatomical topic, and it was locker room humor before that.
MR. GIULIANI: — the way — the way natural selection works. Jewish men have small cocks because they can’t use them after they get married. Whereas the Italian men use them all their lives so they get bigger.
*Eye roll* it’s stuff like this and Cuomo’s behavior that gets all of us Italian men a bad name. 🇮🇹
MR. GIULIANI: Come here, big tits. Come here, big tits. Your tits belong to me.
Give them to me (indiscernible). I want to claim my tits. I want to claim my tits. I want to claim my tits. These are my tits,
Sounds like something out of a bad porno flick.
That said, the point stands that most of us wouldn’t want conversations that we had behind closed doors being broadcast to the world, and this is the reason why.
Sorry…do you NOT think Giuliani maligned Jews?
He said they had small dicks because they never use them.
I don’t think it matters what he said. Read the post. He might have been joking. He might have been in a bad mood. He might have been blowing off steam. There are no thought crimes in America. Giuliani has had good working and social relations with Jewish people throughout his life and career. In ethics, it is what one does that matters, not random comments said for the benefit or entertainment of a single individual in a private conversation.
How does it not matter what he said, when you yourself asked “What was the comment that maligns Jews?” before using a cherry picked example of what he said to show he wasn’t maligning Jews?
Ryan, I know this is hard for you, but you are really and truly treading the line which has SPAM Hell on one side. This is a stupid comment, a gratuitously obnoxious one, or a trolling one. The post was very clear about the primary ethics issue involved: people should not have their private conversations judged as if they were public statements. I didn’t “cherry pick” that example; it was the example that was used first in the source article. I used it to illustrate the kind of recorded statements being exposed. I could have used any of the others, and I could have similarly explained why any of the others were not fair evidence to be used to denigrate Rudy. I didn’t go through all the allegedly anti-Semitic comments and the others in the transcript because a) that wasn’t the main focus of the post and 2) IT DOESN’T MATTER.
To clarify, Giuliani’s statement does not constitute signature significance because running one’s mouth to one’s… ahem, “close” associates… does not reflect the considered perspectives under which one acts?
I hardly ever say anything anymore without thinking about it first, but I can accept the principle, since humans aren’t as disciplined as I am in that respect.
I checked the definition of signature significance in the Concepts a Special Terms, and it looks like it is supposed to cover actions. I assume public statements that are planned or that are made from a position of responsibility count as actions. Does that mean private statements can never be signature significance, because they don’t allow us to predict with enough certainty the choices a person will make? That is, a person may voice horrible thoughts to friends while still being worthy of trust, whereas a person who releases a premeditated horrible statement to the public or a public official who spontaneously says something horrible in public may reveal they are untrustworthy?
I am sure I will be much maligned for this comment, and I emphatically state here that I am not “blaming the messenger.” I am trying to enlarge the discussion, and react to an issue that most men would shy away from.
Question: In that photo with Giuliani, what the heck is Dunphy wearing? I am a professional and have held positions with universities, think tanks, consulting firms. And even if I had the bustline of Ms. Dunphy, I would never show half my breasts and my cleavage in a business setting. This isn’t because I am afraid I will be assaulted or mistreated by men. It’s because I really am that professional, expect to be taken seriously, and because breasts and sex have no business in the workplace.
Are we to believe that Dunphy and women like her don’t even think about the image they present? That a dress correct for the beach or a party is also perfectly correct in the workplace?
I can’t think of a male wardrobe choice that would compare well to the Dunphy situation, except to say that we judge people on their appearance all the time, and dressing “for the occasion” is a fact of life. She didn’t make that choice very well. Whether it in any way affected Rudy Giuliani’s behavior can never be known, but it is and should be one (and only one) factor as we decide what to think of and believe about Noelle Dunphy.
“I am sure I will be much maligned for this comment.”
Not by me.
I can’t think of a male wardrobe choice that would compare well to the Dunphy situation”
Perhaps a Chaps & a Codpiece ensemble…?