Republicans’ handling of the Kavanaugh confirmation is likely to have longstanding effects on the courts and the balance of political power in our country. But its greatest influence may be to start a radical democratization of employment practices across the country.
Republican senators have repeatedly used the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” to describe how they assess the sexual assault allegations multiple women have leveled against Brett Kavanaugh. At first this usage confused me. Kavanaugh is not in front of a criminal court. He does not face prison time or other punishment (although in fairness, I don’t know how comfortable those black robes are). He’s seeking one of the most powerful and privileged jobs in the country.
Then I realized that Republican senators are initiating a breath-taking move to level the playing field between job seekers and employers. After seeing “innocent until proven guilty” applied to this showcase job search, how can we not find it fair to apply this same standard to everyone seeking a position with a little more seniority and potential for growth?
How would this new standard be put into practice? Here’s a start: Applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to any seeming inaccuracies or discrepancies in their resumes. For instance, if an applicant’s resume says they worked as “CEO” of “Amazon Inc.” but a quick Google search turns up that the actual CEO was some other guy, the applicant may reasonably explain that the term “CEO” as used by him and his friends actually means someone who buys a lot of a company’s stuff. You’ve heard that the customer is always right, haven’t you? So the customer is kind of like the CEO. That’s what he meant.
Another critical point is that all reference letters must be reviewed by the applicant. After all, the principle that any evidence against the accused must be shared with the defense is almost as important as innocent until proven guilty. Any section with criticism will be considered an unfounded allegation, unless there’s video footage of exactly what really happened. Otherwise, it’s just a “he said, she said” situation, and such uncertain evidence cannot be used to make important decisions.
Any job applicant who fails a drug test must be asked in person if they really used that substance. If they answer, no, they’re not a heavy drinker or drug user, that’s the end of that. Unless you were there when the substance was ingested, how can you know? If other people come forward saying they were there and saw the applicant ingesting said drug, well, then we’re back to the “he said, she said” problem again. You just can’t be sure enough to deny someone a job over that.
Also, anything that happened in an applicant’s life before the age of 21 will be dismissed from consideration. We’ve all learned over the last week or so that boys will be boys. And if sexual assault must be forgiven because boys are / have been / will be boys, then so must regular assault and burglary and vandalism. There’s no way to draw the line between forgivable and unforgivable, so we must just throw it all out. If further accusations against Kavanaugh arise from his post-21 life, we will raise the age cut-off appropriately.
If a job applicant becomes angry, emotional, or confrontational at any point during a job interview, he may blame the interviewer for asking probing questions about his background, experience, and how he’s likely to approach the new position. Anything other than praise and encouragement can trigger dark feelings of self-loathing and self-doubt in many people. Hirers need to be aware of that and avoid tough, gotcha questions, like “Do you have experience working with Microsoft Excel?”
I admire the Republicans for initiating this open-minded, tolerant, and forgiving approach to a process that is all too often harrowing. It may unleash all kinds of new energy in the economy as people who once were afraid of rejection put themselves out there. Surely that’s what they intended. The Republicans wouldn’t suggest we have one standard for wealthy white men and a harsher one for everyone else.