Gloria, Gloria

By MARGARET CARLSON

In general, I want to go anywhere Gloria Steinem goes--right up to her recent op-ed piece in the New York Times in which she argued that even if all the allegations about the President turn out to be true, he is guilty not of sexual harassment but of simply making a few gross passes and each time dutifully taking no for an answer.

If you believe Paula Jones, the President is guilty of a whole lot more than a crude pass. If Clarence Thomas had laid Coke cans end to end, each with a pubic hair on top, sufficient to encircle the Capitol, his behavior would not have been as offensive as the Governor of Arkansas inviting a state employee to his room, dropping his trousers and asking her to kiss it. And if Kathleen Willey is to be believed, then the classic Hollywood casting couch has been moved into the Oval Office--and if that is not a sexual quid pro quo, what is?

Steinem forgot this: the law, at women's urging, has expanded so that even one pass, if egregious enough, can be legally actionable. Repeated efforts are not needed. The far better argument would be to admit that we, and the world, have changed since the Thomas hearings. For one thing, lots of men get it now. Women are heard loud and clear; one accusation alone can be ruinous.

How did it come to this? Feminists didn't want to end sex in the workplace. After all, to paraphrase bank robber Willy Sutton, that's where the men are--not to mention where we spend most of our time. Many women want to date up on the organization chart and don't like the welter of regulations from the human-resources department that caution executives against it.

Before Clinton's troubles, there were already concerns that sexual-harassment laws had gone too far. Jones' case shows that an innocent bystander who has been promoted can now be subpoenaed and required to show that the promotion was based on merit and not on having slept with the boss. And who really thinks the poor sap who spoke at work about a sexual innuendo on Seinfeld should have been sued? And while a woman's sexual history is not relevant, her behavior after an alleged incident can reasonably be considered.

Thomas should not have been slammed for pointing out that Hill followed him to another job and invited him to speak where she was teaching, just as it is legitimate for Clinton to point out Willey's affectionate notes, her book proposal, her publicity hunt via 60 Minutes. By the same token, it was just as wrong for Thomas' critics to get hold of his video-rental records as it was for Kenneth Starr to subpoena a bookstore last week to pry into Monica Lewinsky's reading habits.

The facts emerging in the Jones case, most legal experts say, cut against her. Willey? The public is tilting toward he-said, away from she-said. Lewinsky? Starr will have a hard time convincing a poll-driven Congress that lying about consensual sex means you lie about everything; it is the only thing many people lie about. An impeachment for lying looks like an impeachment for sex, too much of a punishment in either event, and a huge ordeal for the country.

Senator Trent Lott's trial balloon--censure the President if any of this proves to be so--might be just right.