This is my experience with Representative John Conyers, Jr.
As an intern in his office in 1986, I experienced him as a kind and gentle soul, who believed deeply in the equality of all people, and worked every day to advance that equality.
It was a largely African-American staff (for a largely African-American district), and I, the son of an Irish immigrant mother who was a maid, and a first-generation Irish-American father who was a public school building custodian, was treated so kindly by everyone there.
I spoke to Rosa Parks in the Detroit office every morning. Conyers gave me more than the usual intern work, allowing me write a few floor speeches, to get a taste of policy research, and to interact with the lawyers on the staff.
It was a grim time for progressives, as it is today. Conyers stood as a beacon of hope at that time.
John Conyers, Jr. had served his country in the nightmarish Korean War, in the then recently integrated armed forces, and was deeply skeptical of the use of American military forces abroad.
Conyers was always a friend of the underdog, victims of violence and abuse, and the arts, especially jazz. He was close friends with Representative Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in Congress; he was also one of the few original co-sponsors of the federal gay rights bill.
Shortly after MLK’s assassination, Conyers filed a bill to make the birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a national holiday. People laughed at him at the time. Conyers prevailed.
(During my time there, the national holiday was celebrated for the first time.)
Conyers was especially concerned with the long term unemployed and with the plight of prisoners.
He is the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives.
I, for one, would like to know more, before condemning such a human being, and before assuming all of the accusations are true.
They may yet prove true, but I would like to know more, and I would like him to be given the dignity of administrative due process. (He is not up for election for ten months.) Conyers, 88, deserves, and has earned through a lifetime of service to his country, at least that.
None of this excuses the behavior if it turns out to be true. But that being said, I do wonder whether, as a country, we might not need to return to seeing the greys in life, and not just the stark right and wrong absolutes that seem so appealing today. Maybe appreciating the very American life of John Conyers, Jr., yes, the ACCUSED John Conyers, Jr., would not be a bad place to start.
Maybe we can then learn about the life of his accuser. I hope we learn that she also has a valuable American, and human, story.
Then let’s take a brief respite, from our unbearable smugness.
Fine. Give him the dignity of administrative due process. (But according to what I read, this isn’t in dispute.) Certainly, honor his career and his service. I don’t think anyone is smug about this, it’s a sad story.
I think there is a growing smugness on the left as we look on in horror at the oval office and that charlatan in Alabama. I live in trump country, and one aspect of that election that I’ve heard almost no commentary on, but that hear all the time out here, is that part of the reason that people felt disrespected in 2016 was this very smugness. The urge to perfectionism and a scolding mentality is just not helpful to anybody, including Al Franken, and it plays right into his hands to start denying people due process.
Our culture that disrespects women must change, but it won’t happen by denying the accused an opportunity to defend themselves.
Into Grump’s hands.
“I live in trump country, and one aspect of that election that I’ve heard almost no commentary on, but that hear all the time out here, is that part of the reason that people felt disrespected in 2016 was this very smugness.”
Let the choir say: Amen.
This is a fantastically thin slice of specious. By your own words, the present occupant of the white house is an objective horror. And the fella in Alabama, — again, objectively– is a charlatan.
It seems to me than anybody who voted the horror or are contemplating voting for the charlatan have earned an objectively healthy dollop of dis-respect and throwing some accusation of ‘smugness’ towards people who told them not to is an objectively childish response to avoid the truth of their own, objectively bad, behaviour..
Duh.
From Conyers’ lawyer today.
https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/933516056613785600
“If we are talking about resignation & resigning over allegations then half the ppl in the House, half the ppl in the Senate, including the president of the USA would have to step aside, step down & or resign.”
Sounds good to me!
Sorry, I don’t expect a Congress of saints, especially when you can’t make distinctions. Let the witch hunts begin!:(
How about at least more than half not being sexual harassers????????????
Well, I’m hoping and assuming that is in fact the case of course, but I have a very high threshold for saying that terms chosen by the voters that have sunset dates anyway should be artificially truncated. I say let the appropriate legal processes play out and resign upon conviction if it comes to that. Until then let their respective voters decide.
I don’t know, I think there might be some middle ground between sinners and saints. We have laws and standards.
I agree, Jim.
We need to come to terms with the degree of misconduct, but also the timeline on which it happened. Would it make sense to purge half of the elected Democrats if they were guilty of sexual misconduct? Would women, never mind America, be better off? Would the Republicans reciprocate? (The last is a rhetorical question. We already know the answer).
If Franken is guilty of allegations, and Minnesota voters want him to go? He should resign, but there needs to be a fair and practical way to gather facts. We seem to be talking malfeasance on a grand scale, and picking off individual lawmakers one at a time is an incoherent and counterproductive strategy. As much as I dislike committees, a task force investigation is called for.
Mark I’m a little lost in your argument, but to take one point, no, it’s not up to the voters. We elect people and we expect them to uphold certain standards. As noted, any element of partisanship here (a la, a Republican would be worse) is beside the point.
I was speaking of Conyers not Franken. Franken’s case is tougher, I think. He might be able to ride it out. Conyers (allegedly) used government funds to buy someone off. There’s no ambiguity there, if it’s true. He has to go, and it is our responsibility as activists for stand for the greater good. I am sad to see his career end this way, but we can’t abide lawbreaking.
I may not be making much sense.
Ultimately, it’s always up to the voters. If voters want Conyers to stay, it will be harder to get rid of him. Democrats could censure him, push him to resign, but if his voters are supporting him, it will be difficult. Given that he’s a powerful black man, race could complicate matters. Polls will play a factor in his exit.
Ryan Adams pointed it out earlier: we have no safe, orderly way of addressing these issues. He got me thinking. What’s the process: allegations and resignation? That’s not sufficient. I agree with James that sexual misconduct is rampant. So do Kristen Gillibrand and Jackie Speier have introduced legislation to address the problem. So do Kristen Gillibrand and Jackie Speier have introduced legislation to address the problem. Speier said Wednesday that over $15 million has been paid to settle some 260 claims since 1997. They cover all harassment settlements, for things like race and age, not just for sexual offenses. (And these claims don’t include the damages paid out privately).
I differ with James on zero tolerance, which sounds tough, but in other realms has produced less than just results. As Speier says, “”Zero tolerance is meaningless unless it is backed up with enforcement and accountability,”
My main point is, there needs to be a process in place to deal with the allegations. Publicizing charges and calling for resignations ignores even a semblance of due process. It’s not hard to imagine nefarious people making false allegations that can’t be disproven.
Another problem–though some will say we must divorce politics from these crimes–is unilaterally disarming against the Republicans. If a Democratic senator resigned, and a Scott Walker appointed his replacement, a lot of damage could be done in the next year. We would be purer, but our government and country would be worse. Roy Moore can exist on a continuum.
There’s no question that there’s an urgency here, but a freak out and call for resignations is a bad idea.
I mostly agree with that, and I don’t argue for zero tolerance for sexual harassment (which by the way is not illegal).
But I do argue for zero tolerance when lawMAKERS break laws. The Conyers example — if it’s true — is really pretty cut and dry. As far as I know, there’s been no denial of illegal activity. Due process doesn’t factor into the equation. If he did deny it, if he sought such process — that’s another story.
Sexual harassment is, indeed, illegal. Like any crime, it varies in severity. Legal actions are also subject to the Constitution.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm
Due process is important, particularly going forward. That Conyers’ victim was paid off is not in itself a plea of guilt. Incidentally, Conyers does deny wrongdoing. And victim and he are bound by confidentiality agreements not to reveal details.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/full-text-john-conyers-statement-254720
Zero tolerance is a slogan in search of a policy. I have a feeling most people pushing zero tolerance are really saying “This is intolerable.” That was said about drugs and felons, and we’re now trying to unring that bell. There are THREE issues to address with this problem: 1) The punishment should fit the crime, 2) the will of the voters has to be considered, and 3) due process. Saying people must resign is not a policy.
Mark, let me ask you one quick question.
Do you think President Donald J. Trump should be allowed to give all of his 16 accusers no-show jobs on the White House payroll?
I have neither the permission or agency to share stories that aren’t mine. I’ll simply say I know far more women who’ve been harassed or abused by men in power than I know kind men in power. As a white man Terry, you were not going to be the target of his assaults. You have no idea what it’s like to work as a women or women of color in that or any other professional environment.
I think we saw a similar reaction on this site when James Marzilli was accused of inappropriate behavior. Suffice to say, the memory of his constituents and allies does not counteract the sworn testimony of his victims either. I’ve talked to women who worked on Beacon Hill who whisper that he wasn’t the only one and worse offenders are still holding elected office. I find that far more appalling and compelling than any talk of his valuation as an ally.
The acceptable number of harassers and abusers in Congress has to be zero. We need to create a transparent and clear process to achieve that goal and a fair process to address accusations that ensures presumed innocence can be maintained. Taxpayer money shouldn’t be allocated for defense or settlements.
Until that process is created, when credible women are saying their civil rights were violated-and that’s what we are talking about-then we shouldn’t hold up a civil rights record as an armor against that. The accusations against Conyers are credible and if true, he should resign.
And fuck the Republicans. They have consistently been an anti-woman party for a generation, for us to be the pro-woman party we have to hold ourselves to the highest feminist standard. And that means the days of coddling creeps like Clinton, Franken, and Conyers comes to an end.
I recall Marzilli’s behavior as quite a bit creepier than what either Conyers or Franken is accused of. I don’t think Terry suggested anything one way or another about what it’s like to be victimized, but I can’t abide your all allegations are created equal attitude even if we stipulate they are all true.
(My comment wouldn’t nest).
Do you think President Donald J. Trump should be allowed to give all of his 16 accusers no-show jobs on the White House payroll?
No show jobs would be illegal. I think bribery would fit in there somewhere. Unless public outcry was so much that he was driven out of office by choice, there would have to be an investigation. And then impeachment, which would be determined by his popularity and Republican congressmen and senators.
Fair enough.
“No show jobs would be illegal. I think bribery would fit in there somewhere.”
That is what Conyers is accused of — buying off someone with a no-show job.
Let’s presume he’s innocent — I agree with you.
Let’s presume he’s guilty — He should demand due process? Or he should take responsibility?
This doesn’t get to the level of purity tests. We can expect Congressmen to behave within the law.
NO SHOW???
Conyers settled a suit with someone. He didn’t give them a no-show job. Specifically, an “affidavit was filed with the Congressional Office of Compliance and she was, with public funds, allegedly paid a settlement of $27,000.” I don’t think taxpayers should be paying for the legal settlements of congressman.
If he’s guilty, should he avail himself of due process? Due process rights apply to the guilty and the innocent. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me, but you seem to be saying that only innocent people should avail themselves of their rights. We can expect congressmen to behave within the law, which includes due process, except in matters of sexual misconduct, when they should take responsibility for their actions and resign?
If people are selfish enough to engage in sexual misconduct, it’s likely most of them will lack the selflessness necessary to fall on their swords and resign.
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/editorials/2017/11/21/editorial-u-s-rep-john-conyers-must-resign/885207001/
From the link:
“After the alleged victim made a formal complaint through the U.S. Congress Office of Compliance, Conyers’ office endorsed an alternative route. If the woman dropped her complaint and signed a legal document attesting that Conyers had done no wrong, and if she agreed never to disparage him or make subsequent claims, she’d be re-hired as a temporary “no-show” employee and paid $27,111.75 over the course of three months. She accepted the terms.?
Typo — the final question mark should be a close quote.
I’d give you a thumbs up, but that feature doesn’t seem to be available.
Now, what’s your point? Except for the mutually agreed up on sleaze and the fact that this was negotiated as a part of a congressional process.
It’s abuse of power. He’s using our budget to fix his legal problem (allegedly). It’s small dollars but the principle is enormous.
I don’t understand how this flows from my comment prior to your question.
I’ve lost the thread. I’m not sure what question you’re referring to; the one about Trump?
My view, again, is quite simple on this.
Conyers harassed someone (allegedly). He allegedly used the government payroll to settle the matter. If you see nothing wrong with that or think it’s no big deal, then that’s where we disagree. I think it’s a huge deal.
Conyers has stepped down as Ranking Member on House Judiciary. I’m a bit confused here and I usually know this stuff. I thought RM was simply a factual acknowledgement that you have been there the longest.
I think it also means you’re next in line to be Chair if your party takes over.
Voluntarily stepped down or was pushed to step down?
Pelosi issued a statement about it and said “he agreed to step down.”
https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/934834856781107201
My suspicion is that Pelosi felt the pressure on this after her disastrous performance on Meet The Press this morning that was met with swift and universal derision from the left and center-left commentators.
https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/934793745727393792
Truly embarrassing.
Are people really objecting to her calling him an icon of the party? He is.
People are objecting to her punting on the accusations and pushing things to a bullshit process, which, in the House, is also how his victim received a secrete settlement. People are objecting to her saying “he’ll do the right thing.”
I know this issue matters little to you, but it matters a lot to many other Democrats, and her response is an unbelievably bad misreading of the room. In fact, it is a perfect example of why women so rarely come forward about sexual harassment, because women in power won’t even believe them.
The tweet you linked from Pelosi strikes me as pretty strong. Of course we need due process. If she punted on MTP maybe it was because she (gasp!) didn’t want to pop off without knowing more.
Again, her statements on the show (which more people would see) are exactly the types of things that keep women from reporting sexual harassment and assault.
Her later statement was only a couple hours later and what happened in between was a large, swift, and universal condemnation of what she said during the show.
Here’s how not to “pop off” as you say – acknowledge the gravity of the accusations in the current climate, say there should be an investigation, and say that Conyers should resign if the allegations are true (although, really, at this point, with the news that has come out, we are already past that). What you don’t do is praise the man, imply the women are not credible (“I don’t know who they are, do you?”), talk of due process, and just say he will do the right thing.
This commitment to people in your party no matter what they do is disgusting. It’s also a perfect example of why the majority of Americans hate politicians and parties.
Her comment was ham-handed, but she’s not going to avoid politics either.
Conyers is (maybe was) immensely popular with his district. He founded the Congressional Black Caucus. Politically, it would look bad for her to call for the resignation of a popular black politician whom some refer to as an icon. This is politics, but it’s not merely partisan, it’s intra-partisan.
In my opinion, she should have stayed with “due process.”
6 6s for the above comment.
My commitment is to due process, and to allowing voters to decide the fates of their elected officials. You seem to make it awfully personal toward the end of your comment.
You are hypocritical since you deny Republicans that process. Either we believe ALL women matter or we don’t. No grey area for me. Throw them out and replace them with a better (ideally female) progressive.
Worth noting that elected women of color in the Congressional Black Caucus are calling on him to resign. So are former women of color who served as his staffers in the past. If black women can stand in solidarity with the accused, including people who worked for him and recognize his value to the Civil Rights movement, why is it so hard for the white men here to do the same?
This is about standing in solidarity with women, not the predators we choose to defend because they are on our side of the issues. No side justifies the side of predatory behavior. Full Stop.
I noticed that too. I wish we knew exactly what he did (or as close to exactly as we can get).
I don’t really mind that Pelosi is giving Conyers some deference; he’s had a long and distinguished career. His decision to forgo a possible Chairmanship is not nothing either (there are financial implications, and prestige).
But if it’s as prevalent and bad as some have suggested — well, we need to know that.
Conyers is toast. He needs to go.
Yes it’s looking that way.
Unless he gets caught up in legal proceedings and consequences rendering him unable to serve he should be able to stay, though maybe announce he won’t seek re-election. He’s up every two years anyway and I don’t think a vacancy and a special election are necessary.
Since we can’t link in comments anymore here is the hyperlink
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/report-congressional-black-caucus-members-want-conyers-out.html
@jconway, why do you assume I will deny Republicans due process? I do happen to think that the allegations against Moore are among the most heinous and the most credible, but I for one have not called for him to summarily get out of the race. I have even expressed a bit of understanding for those still tempted to vote for him on ideological grounds. I have suggested expulsion might be appropriate if elected, but assume such a vote would be proceeded by things like hearings and an investigation – in other words, due process. I don’t believe all allegations are created equal either on the substance or the credibility.