By Susette Talarico

With all the talk about the crisis facing the president and country due to the pathetic “affair Lewinsky,” why is there so little mention of sexual harassment?
Although some commentators and, perhaps, the general public may take the position that consensual sex is a private matter and of no concern to the legitimacy of Clinton’s or any presidency, it seems that a basic point is overlooked. Can sex between a person in a position of clear authority and a subordinate be understood as consensual?
Many universities, corporations and public agencies have expended considerable effort drafting sexual harassment policies to guide employees. In many instances, these policies clearly prohibit sexual relations between a superior and a subordinate. University faculty are not supposed to be involved with students over whom they exercise authority. The same holds for corporate executives and administrators in both the public and private sector. The very obvious and immutable power differential in such associations is automatically assumed to make consent on the part of the subordinate all but impossible.
To appreciate this, imagine the probable consequences in the following hypothetical situation. Consider a university president who works with an intern who has been assigned to his/her office to learn about higher education administration. What would happen if this president engaged in an affair with the intern? Even if truthful when asked about the relationship, he or she would be out of a job. The same thing would occur in many corporate offices if an executive behaved similarly. In these situations, it wouldn’t matter if the intern had consented, because of the obvious differential in power.
Should the president of the United States be exempt from the same standard? Many of those who a mrgue on behalf of Clinton and direct their criticisms to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr argue that Clinton and Lewinsky were consenting adults and that their behavior has no bearing on Clinton’s position as president.
This logic, however, seems similar to Clinton’s efforts to dodge responsibility when he asserted in his deposition in the now-dismissed Jones lawsuit that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was not sexual. If there is pervasive acknowledg-ment in the sexual harassment policies of both public and private institutions that relationships between superiors and subordinates are not only inadvisable but wrong, should the president be held to a lesser standard?
All of this, as many have emphasized, is particularly ironic, since Clinton has advanced many feminist causes. But consider his longstanding philandering, its implicit insult to his wife and daughter, his cavalier disregard for the women in his Cabinet, his shameless treatment of his secretary, his and his supporters’ efforts to degrade the women who have complained about his behavior, and his most recent abuse of power vis-a-vis Ms. Lewinsky. Clinton is no feminist.
To be sure, Ms. Lewinsky does not seem blameless in the affair. Among other motivations, she may have been contriving to please Clinton in the hopes, as she put it, of getting a job without having to work for it. But he was the one with power and the one who should have known better. Clinton’s behavior is not simply aatter of morality or the private business of consenting adults--it is sexual harassment.