General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How about we do this? We don't demand people resign without an investigation being completed [View all]WhiskeyGrinder
(22,340 posts)When an employee is accused of doing something racist, a strong HR department can run it through their processes and determine whether discipline is warranted. If the employee isn't covered by a contract of some kind, at-will employment rules with be in effect, and the employer can keep or fire the employee as it sees fit. We run into trouble with elected officials, who are employees and in many cases have ethical rules they "should" follow, put into place either by the body they serve in or the party they belong to or the state they're in, but it's a lot fuzzier than Joe Blow at the marketing firm.
When the news about Northam broke, many people, including me, called for him to resign. His strategy seems to be to brazen it out -- he clearly thinks it's the right thing to do, and either he's not covered by ethical rules that anyone feels like enforcing, or there simply isn't enough political will among those who have the power to assemble a committee, a board, a hearing or a review of whether he "should" step down or not. And that strategy so far seems to be working, although his interview with CBS today didn't do him any favors.
As a result, a lot of people will feel this is an imperfect solution. Some feel he got off easy, some feel like he can move forward and work on himself while staying in his position as governor. So when I say, "what would an investigation look like," I'm asking whether we have the will to strengthen ethics rules, laws, processes, policies or whatever, whether we want to establish processes that hold people accountable in instances like Northam's, whether people think we should. TBH, I don't think the will is there right now, and ad hoc responses will continue to be the norm for awhile.