Miss Manners, can easily become a federal case. Workplace behaviorrnstandards are to be enforced from the outside, with thernboss as the designated censor. As Wayne state law professorrnKingsly Brown points out, “You’ve got employers censoringrnworkers’ speech out of fear of being held liable by the government.rnIt is still censorship, even if the mechanism is a civilrnaction by private parties.”rnCharles Krauthammer asks in the New Republic:rnHow to cope with the explosion of real deviancy? Onernway is denial. . .. Another strategy is distraction: definingrndeviancy up creates brand new deviancies that werncan now go off and fight that distracts us from real deviancyrnand gives us the feeling that, despite the murderrnand mayhem and madness around us, we are really preservingrnand policing our norms. . . . Defining deviancyrnup creates a whole new universe of behaviors to police,rnand—a bonus—a higher class of offender. More malleable,rntoo: the guilt-ridden bourgeois, the vulnerablerncollege student is a far easier object of social controlrnthan the hardened criminal or the raving lunatic.rnOur government has done to employers what sexual harassersrndo to women—turn their workplace into a hostile environment.rnThe litigious minefield that the boss must walk canrnseem as fraught with danger as the streets outside. Outside, therncriminals run the show. Inside the workplace, and inside thernmanager’s head, the litigious kooks are in charge. He who offendsrnthe most dignified and prudish among us can lose his job,rnor his business. He who is politically incorrect has lost his rightrnto free speech. The prim elite have taken control.rn”What I’m seeing lately is that companies are overreacting,”rnsays Ellen Wagner, attorney and author, in Fortune magazine:rn”Accusers are believed on the basis of very little evidence orrnnone at all. And the ultimate punishment, termination, is arnfirst resort rather than a last one.” “As for men,” says Anne B.rnFisher in Fortune, “the majority of whom wouldn’t dream ofrnharassing anybody, they are terrified of being falsely accused.”rnEmployers need also be wary of the flip side of the coin, beingrnsued for wrongful discharge if they fire someone who is innocentrnof alleged harassment. In contradiction to AT&T’srnspokesman, who implied that only Yahoos are worried.rnInvestor’s Business Daily reports that in the current sexual harassmentrnminefield both male and female managers are becomingrn”confused and skittish.” Nine out of ten Fortune 500rncompanies report that they have been sued for harassment, atrnan “average cost of $6.7 million per year to a large employer.”rnAllowing the government to micromanage verbal behaviorrnbetween men and women in the workplace gives it enormousrnpower, generating widespread, stifling effects of major proportionrndue to the sheer numbers of people the laws effect. Tornregulate speech between women and men at work is notrnthe same as monitoring the speech of a tiny hate cult like thernskinheads. We have empowered the government to regulaternthe speech of most of the people in America for half of theirrnwaking hours.rnA man coming out of a bad marriage may express anger andrnbitterness to a coworker friend. Should his emotional ventingrnand excessive generalizing about women be considered a prejudicernagainst women, an appropriate reason for the F.B.I, orrnother thought police to derail his career? Women and blacksrnand what happens to them are among the major issues affectingrnour culture. We simply cannot squelch dialogue at thisrnpoint, putting a permanent gag rule on doubts, fears, anger,rnquestions, or stupid statements regarding blacks or women.rnBacklash and arrested development will be the inevitable resultsrnof such social protectionism. Is it ever possible for white Americansrnto express questions or anger about the epidemic ofrnblack crime, particularly if they have been personally victimizedrnby it, and not be presumed a racist? One can only wonder howrnmuch damage has been done by the muzzling of free discussionrnabout the collapse of the black family and related issuesrnover the last 50 years. As David Boldt, editor of the PhiladelphiarnInquirer, said, “1 have this vision of America, with all 250rnmillion of us standing up to our chins in sewage and everyone’srnsaying, ‘Don’t make waves!'”rnWhat should a free society that has alwa s celebrated diversityrndo with outspoken employers like Mick Jaggerrnand the Rolling Stones, Don Riekles, Andy Rooncy, MargernSchott, Spike Lee, Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, lesbianrnbookstore owners, Whoopi Goldberg, Hooters Restaurant,rnJimmy the Greek, or feminist bar owners? Under current law,rncould a macho rebel like Axl Rose of Guns N’ Roses feel safernhiring a woman with the delicate demeanor of, say, JusticernRuth Bader Ginsburg? Could people like them work togetherrnwithout one or the other being financially or emotionally damaged?rnPerhaps a person like her would feci unnerved andrnoffended by a person as rude and crude as him. Perhaps hernwould feel unbearably tense and claustrophobic in the presencernof someone as prim and dignified as she. In the past, we haernalways negotiated such interactions as free-wheeling adultsrnwithout the suffocating threat of a personal injury attorneyrnbreathing down our necks. We have now become a nation ofrneggshell-walkers.rnAnd what about women and blacks, who are the primary intendedrnbeneficiaries of anti-harassment laws—what effect dornthese laws have on them? Former President of the NationalrnOrganization for Women, Karen DeCrow, said recently inrnUSA Today: “I have begun to worry about this younger generationrnof feminists. The New Puritanism is frightening. Whatrnwe had in mind 25 years ago was not a New Puritanism, butrnfreeing women from being eternal children.” The image andrnlegal status of women as perpetual ictims who need specialrnprotection from offensive speech will be a hindrance to the hiringrnand advancement of women. Men who lave never beforernhad a reason to discriminate against women now have one—rnthe fear of being fired, falsely accused, or sued. For everyrnwoman who wins a personal injury jackpot, t lere will be thousandsrnwho will not be hired or promoted due to employers whornare paranoid about lawsuits or accusations. How many employersrnwill quietly decide against hiring a woman to send onrnthe road with the company’s best and mosi aggressive salesman?rnHow many bar owners or constructior managers, facedrnwith a female applicant, will feel secure tha: their work environmentrncan be guaranteed free of sexually affensive speech?rnThose who may have previously been motivated to hire womenrnmay look at current punitive damage penalties and quietlyrndecide that hiring a woman is not worth the risk.rnWomen would become stronger and less segregated from thernmale club if they would develop the assertivcness skills to outwit,rnoutcharm, outmaneuver, and outwisecrack workplace harassers.rnIdeally, a sexist boss or coworker can be circumventedrnor conquered like any other workplace obstacle, increasing arn26/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn