For instance I worked in an office where one of the bosses had a bawdy sense of humor. He had a running joke of “let’s you and me run off to [small town consisting mostly of trailer parks]” but he was just kidding, and everybody knew it. And then we got a wide-eyed innocent new hire, compared to all us jaded 24-year-olds, who got really offended and thought he was sexually harrassing her. He had a good heart. If he thought people were taking offense, and most of us weren’t, he would’ve stopped. If she had accused him–well actually, she kind of did without him having so much as touched her–I would have signed a letter of support attesting to his character. Not refuting a specific instance I would have no way of knowing about, but just in general.
But the thing is, despite his jokes he was one of the first bosses I had who was paying the women in the place the same pay scale as the men, and who would promote a woman over a man if he thought she could do the job better. You wouldn’t have to sleep with him to get promoted, or even laugh at his jokes. Just do your job. In the 1970s that was…rare, IME.*
So, see, it depends on the circumstances, and actually mostly I would say no. But I am privileged to the point where, whenever I was sexually harassed, and I was, I could just quit. “Stop with this bullshit or I’m leaving, and I’ll have another job tomorrow and you WILL miss me.” And the same would apply to whether I signed a letter of support. If I felt pressured into it or just didn’t want to sign it, I wouldn’t. If it’s gonna get me fired if I don’t sign, then so be it. Their loss.
I’m glad you state that simply and explicitly, the last sentence. OP does seem to be saying that, but not clearly. But I don’t agree that a letter (nor this one in particular as I read it, stand alone) of support is necessarily saying the accusers are lying. Because by common sense the statement ‘Tom Brokaw was always decent to me’ doesn’t prove he wasn’t to somebody else. Only therefore if we lacked common sense would we take that statement to implicitly include the additional phrase ‘and anyone who says he wasn’t decent to them is lying’.
And IMO testimony to good character is relevant in questions of character, which a lot of these cases are rather than crimes. If a person is accused of rape, it’s less relevant whether they were a good person otherwise than if accused of tickling without permission, stolen kiss or boorish sexual comments, IMO. Not that good behavior erases bad behavior. But nobody is perfect, and it’s a basic feature of human interaction to consider how often a person behaves badly, with a special category of behavior for which the frequency is irrelevant (or anyway much less relevant), called ‘serious crimes’.
That said Brokaw’s own memo to colleagues cast loads of aspersions on the named accuser, Linda Vester. Which is why I distinguished in my initial response an expressions of support which cast aspersions on accusers from ones which don’t. IOW, obviously, it all depends. And if it looked like the support letter was also supporting the accused’s venting letter against the accuser, I’d factor that in. And one might argue this case does look like that.
Some friends of mine and I wrote letters of support for a mutual friend facing a long prison sentence.
It did not help.
Brokaw’s memo not showing in the link for me.
But ‘letters of support’ are kinda stupid. It basically says ‘he could not have mistreated her because he did not mistreat ME’. The fact that these women signed it does nothing to prove or disprove the allegation.
That said, I have no time for allegations of something that happened 20+ years ago. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. At this point there is no way to tell without corroboration.
A letter of support makes perfect sense if every person who signs it was an eye witness to the events in question. Otherwise such letters shouldn’t exist.
If the point of the letter is the provision of meaningful evidence, sure. If I have some material information relevant to the defense of the accused I HAVE to write the letter. It’s the correct thing to do. However, if the letter is just “Jim is a great guy,” I don’t want to sign that letter. The issue isn’t whether or not he was a great guy to me, and lots of people who seem nice are evildoers when I’m not looking.
Well, Easy For Me To Say
That said, it’s easy for me to say I’d refuse to sign such a letter now. I’m 46 and have a professional reputation to trade on. If my current employer tried to make me do something unethical I could quit and be working somewhere else tomorrow. 20 years ago, when I was a nobody and desperately needed my job? Well, I’m not arrogant enough to tell you I wouldn’t have buckled under the pressure then.
Maybe somebody making this general point can explain why they think a letter of support is necessarily disputing the facts of a given allegation, or why it must. Rather than just assuming that that’s obvious: I don’t think it is.
Again IMO if a person is accused of a serious crime, statements of their general general good character, especially before trial, are basically irrelevant. In that case I’d agree.
But I see a difference where a person is simply accused of wrongful acts which aren’t serious crimes. ‘She lied to me’, ‘he tried to kiss me without permission’ etc. Let’s set aside for a moment splitting hairs about Vester’s accusations v Brokaw as to whether they could possibly be considered serious crimes* and semi-hypothetically assume an accusation of unquestionably bad behavior which isn’t a serious crime. In that case I think the whole picture of the person’s character and behavior is more relevant than it is wrt to a serious crime. Not much difference if you were always a jerk or always a good guy but in either case then murdered or raped somebody. But rarely being a jerk is a lot less bad than always being a jerk. And virtually nobody always acts rightly. Such a letter can be read IMO as ‘this person was no more than rarely a jerk based on our many experiences’**. And the fact that lots of colleagues would, or wouldn’t, say that about somebody is potentially relevant IMO.
Again though there are at least three problems with such letters, one general: you never know what further accusations will follow and make the behavior look less isolated, assuming ever true. One is somewhat specific to this case: people might be pressured to sign one. And one specific to this case: it could look like the letter, which doesn’t criticize accusers, is also supporting Brokaw’s letter which does personally attack the named accuser.
*some media articles say ‘assault’ and ‘grope’ but she doesn’t actually seem to be saying it was things that would ever practically speaking be charged as crimes.
**it words it more positively than that, but does not actually go on to say ‘and we have proof he was never a jerk, so whoever says he ever was is lying’.
If I had worked with someone for decades, and was the proper sex to see how they acted when they were alone with me, if this was completely against their character and I’d never seen ANYTHING that would validate that, yes I would sign it.
With the “guilty until proven innocent” trial-by-twitter environment we have right now, I’d sign it. You have to overcome this crap. If somebody does something like this you need to report to proper authorities in a timely matter. Not plaster it all over the internet. I HATE that.
That said, I’ve heard rumors that some of the signers for Brokaw were pressured. That’s wrong. I wouldn’t do if I were pressured.
If the accused colleague had a thing for buxom, statuesque, long-haired blonde white women, I really doubt a short, flat-chested, Afro-sporting dark-skinned black woman would have the right perspective to know whether the guy was a creeper.
Just saying. Creepers don’t creep on everyone with a vagina. Most have a specific type they target. Rachel Maddow is a soft butch lesbian who is considerably younger than Tom Brokaw. So why should we assume she has any special insight into Tom’s sexual proclivities?
Personally, my answer is I don’t know and can’t. It is for all hypothetical ethical dilemmas. I know what I would like to think I would do – which would be to refuse in this case – but that’s not the same thing.
I think this is true of most people, but many don’t admit it. It’s why you have Internet Tough Guys who will always confidently state they’d do the right thing/react heroically.
Movie theater shooting: “I wouldn’t hide and wait for him to come to me! I’d wait until he was reloading and charge him and take him down!”
Pissed off customer screaming at cashier for something not the cashier’s fault: “I’d loudly call out the jerk and tell him to shut up!”
Asked to write a letter defending an accused sexual harasser: “No way would I do that. I’d just refuse!”
And also:
Someone is being or has been sexually harrassed: “I wouldn’t take that crap! I’d go directly to HR/manager/parents/cops!”
I think having women brigade for Tom Brokaw reenforces the notion that sexual harassment is something that men aren’t sensitive to and thus can’t be trusted to bear witness for or against.
I think characterizing sexual harassment as “just being a jerk” is not right.
If he was just being a jerk, i.e. no sexual harassment is even rumored to have occurred, then the letter is irrelevant because who even cares. If it was sexual harassment and not just jerk behavior, then the letter is also irrelevant though for a different reason - anecdotes of others’ experiences can’t change the case. Once is once too many.
I haven’t read this particular letter, but my impression was that they are usually relevant at the sentencing stage. not the “is he guilty” stage, and the point isn’t to say “he couldn’t have done that” but rather “he has been a good person in all these other ways, please consider that when sentencing him”.
Whether or not I was willing to sign such a letter would depend on the circumstances. In the one case where I have been asked (and it was a letter such as I describe, regarding an altogether different crime) I declined. But I had friends who had a different relationship with the person in question who did sign, and I don’t think less of them for signing.
No, I wouldn’t because, even if you’ve known a guy at work or as a neighbor, and even if they’ve always seemed really friendly and nice, you just might not know them at all. When you sign a letter like that, you are undermining the victim’s case on an ASSUMPTION of innocence based on what is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion. I wouldn’t do that.
I seem to recall a young woman who faced the wrath of the internet after it came out that she wrote a letter on behalf of Brock Turner (Stanford rapist) saying what a great guy he was and chalked the charges up to political correctness. I’m sure she had nothing but positive experiences with him, but the victim of his assault had a different experience. Like others have said, these types of letters seem pointless-I don’t know why courts even accept them.
Long ago I was friendly with a couple (I was also the husband’s co-worker) who went through a messy divorce. The wife accused her soon-to-be ex-husband of sexually abusing their very young female child.
I did not find this believable based on what I knew of the husband. I did not volunteer any letter or testimony on his behalf (nor was I asked to). The situation was investigated but no charges were filed as far as I know.
Years later, and I’m still friendly (long distance-wise) with the husband. I still feel like I let him down by not coming forward to authorities to support him. On the other hand, I wasn’t entirely sure who was telling the truth.
As others have mentioned, particular facts of the matter are important. If lower-level employees are feeling pressured to sign a letter or petition, that is ungood.
It’s unlikely that a guy would be around thousands of women over the course of decades and only harass one or two of them. Obviously even an egregious harasser will not harass everyone, but most will harass quite a few. Not all, but most.
So there’s a difference between a situation where two women come forward and 100 others say they’ve never experienced or seen anything of the sort, and a situation where two women come forward and 100 other women say nothing at all - leaving open the possibility that he was a typical harasser.
Not that this is conclusive evidence, of course. But it has a bearing on the likelihood of the two competing scenarios, and adds some context to the matter.
In my jurisdiction the law is that a person on trial for a criminal offense has a general right to introduce evidence of his good character, on the theory that it is improbable that a person who bears a good reputation would be likely to commit the crime charged against him. (Relying generally on Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 862 (1949)).
The accused is not limited solely to reputation evidence regarding truthfulness, but may offer evidence to prove good character for any trait relevant in the case.
That’s for evidence at trial; presumably for sentencing the same general rationale would apply, and even extend to unsworn letters of support where the writers are not subject to cross-examination.
Sorry to hijack, but this annoys me. That statement is equally as valid as this one:
Yes. And why isn’t NBC believing Brokaw?
Neither of us know the true facts of this situation. And yes, a (large) number of accusations seems to point to guilt, but it isn’t proof.
To answer the OP, I probably wouldn’t write/sign such a letter. If asked directly, I’d state the facts (“I haven’t witnessed the behavior this person is accused of,” or whatever).