According to this, Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colorado, intends to ask that an official rule be added to the Congressional Code of Conduct, specifying that sexual relations between Congressional members and interns is unethical.
Well, now. I’m certainly not a fan of infidelity (for those who are married), and definately understand why there may be rules about fraternization within work place heirarchys, and also am actually in favor of those creating our laws being held to at least the same standard, if not a higher standard of conduct.
And, I think Condit was a bad boy for having a relationship with women not his wife.
But this whole ‘we gotta protect these poor defenseless, naive interns’ stance is bothering me.
This is a country where an 11 year old was ajudicated as ab adult in criminal court. One of the few countries in the world that allow for the execution of minors. And somehow, we feel the need to enact extra protection for college students, (and generally, if you’ve gotten an internship in DC, you’re among the brighter of those).
Yes, I understand that an older predatory person with power can be fairly seductive, but jiminy. These are not children in any other sense of the word. (I wouldn’t have any issue for regs about those in a supervisory capacity - would see that as similar to the corporate regs).
Perhaps I am terribly ignorant here, but what exactly is an intern’s job there? Are they just go-fers or what?
Offhand, though, I think that we should hold politicians to higher standards than the average schmoe, so I don’t see much of a problem with the legislation. I would be happier if it was allowed but I can live with legislation and not feel too bad.
And I have to admit that I’m a bit startled that this is coming from you. Not that you wouldn’t agree if someone else posted it, but that it would bug you enough to do the OP is a bit surprising.
I wonder if this isn’t another branch of the same tree that produces “Coeds go Wild!” videotapes. For some reaso, we all (as a society) seem to be endlessly titilated by college girls–we see them as this weird mix of sexually active nad sexually naive.
Another example of this would be the various “take back the night” movements. Rape is a problem for women across the economic strata, but it is the idea of rape on college campuses that gets publicity and money. On my non-cynical days I say this is because people with money are more concerned with people that could be thier daughters than they are with people that they will never neet in a non-service industry capacity. On my really really cynical days I say this is because The great Collective Rape Fastasy involves a perky california-blonde on her way to class, not a 20 year old on her way home from work at McDs. On my cynical days, I think that the idea that college girls are “asking for it” just a little–by being college girls–still lingers deep in some minds, even if those minds never recognize it for what it is, and it makes the whole senario slightly erotic instead of beinf just plain sordid. All this makes stories of coed’s being assulted/seducced whatever more interesting than stories about 20 years olds that function in the “adult” world.
Actually, don’t most companies have some sort of rule about superiors and relationships?
I’m not saying whether or not I agree, but here are a few good points in the law’s favor:
Most interns are connected to a school, and the person they are working with is their superior, and probably has connections to that student’s professor. It would be very unethical to have some sort of relationship, in that case.
It’s kind of like a student having an affair with a professor. Now, if this student isn’t working with certain member, it might not be as serious, but it’s definitely not a good idea.
Conflict of interests, unprofessional, etc etc.
Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
In the case that sparked this noble piece of legislation, Ms. Levy and a fellow intern-hopeful went to Rep. Condit’s office on a “meet the congressman” tour and Ms. Levy’s companion wangled a job in the office. Ms. Levy did not take a job with Rep. Condit, (preferring a different relationship than boss/employee). There would have been no issue of employment protocol in the Levy case.
The proposed law is simply more grandstanding. The relationships will continue, anyway, but it will become a source of blackmail if any congressperson allows it to be discovered.
Guin, absolutely many companies have such rules, and I don’t have a problem with that. However, the rules generally go for individual departments etc, so that, for example, Lockheed Martin wouldn’t allow a supervisor in the production department to have a relationship with some one they supervised on the line, but wouldn’t be able to demand that they not date some one in accounting for example.
And, this latter is what is being proposed. Interns may work for the legistlature, the pentagon, the FBI, the White House etc. In fact, Levy worked for, what was it, the Bureau of Prisons If Memory serves.
And that’s where I have a problem with it. Why in the world should they care if some one in Congress was dating some one at the Pentagon? These are adults, private life, not public, and there’s no supervisory issue to be concerned about.
(and, of course, if people were being kidnapped and forced to be interns, that’s a whole 'nuther thread )
There’s already a code of ethics for Congress which covers behavior like hanky-panky with interns. There’s no need for a specific rule, except that it makes for fun political grandstanding by the opposition.
Why not add a no-messing-with-the-interns plank for the next Democratic Party platform, while we’re at it?
My guess is that the Congressman got shot down by his intern when he made a pass, and now he’s retaliating by declearing all interns off-limits for the rest of Congress.
This is a pretty stupid and a very pointless piece of legislation.
Look at it. The law would only affect the legislators. Can’t they police themselves?
No, you say, obviously they can’t. That’s why we need this law!
But our current laws make adultery a crime. If senators not only don’t take that law seriously but don’t take their marriage seriously, does anyone honestly believe that this “no interns” policy will ever be followed by those who want to break it?
And if someone is accused of breaking it, everything else is going to come grinding to a halt while all the politicians try to figure what the hell happened and whether someone needs to be kicked out of office. For sleeping with someone. Is this good government to you?
the proposal is not a ‘law’ per se if I read it correctly, but an addition/ clarification to the “congressional code of conduct”, IOW Congress’ internal rules of behavior etc. the addition would allow for Congress to call for the removal from office of anyone commiting that specific ‘ethical violation’. IT has been stated here that such wording already exists, (though no link was provided). Anyhow, it wouldn’t result in a criminal prosecution if I understand that correctly,
It’s still pretty stupid, though.
I recall hearing somewhere that the “congressional code of conduct” is just a formality, and that members of Congress will rarely face any legal trouble unless their actions also violate some other law.
Yes, I agree that this rule is pointless, but it probably wouldn’t have much effect anyway.
The reason is because having sex with interns is occurring so often it’s a joke. Obviously these guys can’t keep it in their pants, so they gotta pass a law to stop it, or so they think.
Maybe what they should do is to pass legislation to make sure they have sex with interns responsibly. Like make sure they wear condoms, or don’t disappear afterwards, or sell their stories, etc., etc.
)