Reading Response #1

25 October 2009
For my ENG106 class we had to write four responses to editorials from nationally known newpapers.  This is a response to "The ‘Rape Supporter’ Ploy" written by Kathleen Parker.

In recent weeks, 30 Republican members of the U.S. Senate have received phone calls from upset citizens asking why the senators support rape. These phone calls stem from a recent tussle over Sen. Al Franken’s “anti-rape” amendment to the Senate defense appropriations bill. The intention of this bill, passed 6 October 2009, is to prevent the Pentagon from contracting with companies who require their employees to use arbitration to settle disputes concerning discrimination and sexual assault. At first glance, I understand the confusion this caused my fellow citizens, however, they have fallen victim to lack of knowledge. If they had only taken the time to dig a bit further into the issue they would understand why these courageous 30 senators chose to vote against this bill.

Kathleen Parker writes in her editorial, “The impetus behind the amendment was the 2005 horror story of Jamie Leigh Jones.” Jamie Leigh Jones was an employee of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq who alleges that she was drugged, gang-raped, and then held captive in a shipping container for 24 hours without food or water. The atrocities she suffered were despicable. They were made even more deplorable when she sought legal recourse. Jones’ employer argued that her employment contract required her to pursue her complaint through arbitration instead of in the courts.

Yes, there needs to be legislation preventing companies, who contract with the Department of Defense, from inhibiting employees who are victims of discrimination or sexual assault from seeking justice in the court room. However, this amendment as it is written is “overbroad and might not be enforceable.” The Defense Department issued a letter to the senators stating enforcement of such amendment “would be problematic.” The Pentagon went on to state that a statutory prohibiting all companies, across the country, from inhibiting their employees seeking legal recourse through the court system in matters or discrimination or sexual assault would be superior.

Obviously, those who accused the 30 Republican senators of supporting rape failed to take the time to discover all the facts before they jumped to conclusions. Their assumption that these 30 senators support rape is misguided. If they had taken the time, they would have discovered that even the White House opposed the amendment as written. They would have also learned that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last month in Jones’ favor, “agreeing that the alleged gang rape wasn’t related to her employment and that she, therefore, wasn’t bound by the company’s arbitration agreement.” I feel Parker best summed it all up when she wrote, “Though it appears that there are plenty of bad guys in this story—may they get their due—the 30 Republican senators have been unfairly smeared for doing the harder thing, maybe even for the right reasons.”