EDITOR: During James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked, “Now, here’s the question. You’re big, you’re strong. I know the Oval Office, and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn’t you stop and say, ‘Mr. President, this is wrong. I cannot discuss this with you.’ ”
This statement struck a nerve, as I’m sure it may have with women who have been sexually harassed at work. Many have spoken up after they were terminated and been asked a similar question, “Why didn’t you say something sooner?” This often implies the woman is speaking up now because she’s a disgruntled former employee. In reality, the victim probably felt that if she ignored the advances, which can be very subtle, the harassment would stop.
Most workplace harassers are usually superiors who basically make the call as to whether you will receive a raise, a promotion or even get to keep your job.
Victims of sexual harassment usually don’t get a lot of support from co-workers because they don’t want to get involved. As in the case of Comey, those around Trump who should have spoken up appeared to not want to get involved.
EDITOR: The Press Democrat’s Thursday editorial referred to those of us who supported rent stabilization as “the combatants from Measure C” (“After Measure C, housing solutions are still needed,” Thursday). In the same paragraph, the editorial says that moving forward will require goodwill. Hmm, calling civic-minded folks “combatants” is not what I would call goodwill.
A chance to shine
EDITOR: I have procrastinated enough. I must add my voice to the discussion. The Chanate complex land (“Deal would save meadow,” Thursday) is an amazing and rare opportunity for Santa Rosa to lead in providing affordable home ownership to our teachers, nurses, social workers and sons and daughters returning from college or training programs ready to contribute to this community.
Why not set aside 80 percent or 100 percent of new housing committed to this cause? What could be the down side? The developer would definitely make a profit. Maybe it wouldn’t be a “killing,” but, really, do they need to make a killing off of our public servants and newly graduated children?
Town houses, condominiums with a shared-grounds keeping fee for, dare I suggest, $250,000 to $300,000? Why not go in this direction? Santa Rosa would become a model destination for the best and brightest if not the richest. Santa Rosa would shine in an otherwise dreary landscape of greed and what’s-in-it-for-me-ism.
EDITOR: The June 8 article regarding Sonoma State University faculty and President Judy Sakaki seemed mostly well-written and balanced. However, the headline — “Some SSU faculty blast president” — was very misleading. Having an exchange of ideas on values at a public university is most appropriate. However, the term “blast” implies aggression and conflict. I think most faculty, staff and students are very supportive of Sakaki’s overall policies and style of administration. I have heard many faculty and staff say SSU has been transformed, and it is a breath of fresh air. All the more reason for faculty, staff and students to express disappointment in an administrative decision; doing so is the real intellectual life of an open transparent university.