woman’s self-esteem and empowerment. If such is not therncase, and a hostile workplace environment becomes insurmountable,rnworkers should have access to outside counselorsrnwith whom the involved parties could be required to resolverntheir conflicts. The company could be required to pay forrncounseling or mediation, but such payments would be far lessrnthreatening to the employer and more productive than punitiverndamage awards. Conflict resolution, rather than punishment,rnshould be the primary focus of such mediation. The lotterysizernincentives to sue a boss would disappear if complaints didrnnot result in huge payoffs. With the continuing decline of laborrnunions, workers in businesses large and small could benefitrnfrom a professional conflict resolution process that wouldrnnot be limited to racial, sexual, or religious victims but wouldrnbe available to anone involved in serious workplace disputes.rnRefusal to cooperate could result in the employer receiving anrnescalating series of fines, but these financial penalties wouldrncome at the end of the process, not as the first volley.rnThere is faultv logic and basic unfairness in laws that protectrnonh’ particular groups from hostile environment and speechrncrime laws. A society that makes Polish and dumb-blond jokesrnan actionable offense should not fall off its chair when lawyers,rnexercising flawless logic, claim that hatred and prejudice haverngrown against them to the degree that they, too, are now victims.rnHarxev Saferstcin, president of the California Bar and therngreatest li’ing example of chutzpah run amok, has proposedrnthat lawver-bashing be designated a hate crime. Yes, all of therntheater-goers who cheered wildly when the Jurassic Park dinosaurrnate the lawyer could be charged with hate speech.rnShakespeare could be purged from the schools for advocatingrn•••mrnp,^yrnburyrnGREAT TOPICSrnPop Culture—Aprilrn1994—George Garrettrnon the .sorry staternof popular culture,rnPaul A. Trout on thern40th anniversaryrnof Fahrenheit 451rn(with commentaryrnfrom Ray BradandrnThomas Flemingrnsfe’tirni^i.i.’rn^C ffi^-rn•> A ‘>V >1«V , rin,^rnon tuning out technology. Plus R.H.W.rnDillard on Federico Fellini, Bill Kauffman onrnrock and roll in middle age, Samuel Francis onrnSlar Trek and the cultural elite, and WilliamrnNorman Grigg on the new race war.rn”I Don’t Hate the South”—May 1994—M.E.rnBradford on Donald Davidson. Fred Chappellrnon the writer’s responsibility, J.O. Tate onrnthe film Gettysburg, and William Pratt on AndrewrnLytic. Plus Thomas Fleming on Southernrnchauvinism and Samuel Francis on the anniversaryrnof Brown v. The Board of Education.rnthat we kill all the lawyers.rnIn a nation where it sometimes seems that lawsuits are onernof our few growth industries, it is dismaying to see the SupremernCourt treat the nations’ employers with (to borrow a legalrnphrase) such callous disregard. It is disappointing to see that arnlaw that threatens freedom of expression is so quickly givenrnunanimous approval by the Supreme Court. Judge Sealiarnwrites, “As a practical matter, today’s holding (on the sexualrnharassment case of Forklift Systems) lets virtually unguidedrnjuries decide whether sex-related conduct engaged in by (orrnpermitted by) an employer is egregious enough to warrant anrnaward of damages.”rnLeaving such complex issues in the hands of “unguidedrnjuries” who will decide guilt or innocence is alarming only tornthose who inust pick up the tab. Juries will not receive a definitionrnof what constitutes a hostile environment because thernJustices have not devised one. The Supreme Court will be responsiblernfor nothing so much as a definition of the crime forrnwhich it so cavalierly punishes the nation’s employers.rnCongress, too, has limited its responsibility, exeinpting itselfrnfroiTi the punitive damage penalties it has legislated for thernprivate sector. If a congressman “permits a hostile environment”rnto exist, no one will confiscate his house.rnThe 1991 Civil Rights Law, which for the first time allowsrnpunitive damages for permitting a hostile work environinent, isrntoo vague and open-ended, too ambiguous, too fluid, and toornpunitive. It will have a chilling effect on creativity, free speech,rnand the advancement of women in the workplace. It willrnbenefit no one except personal injury attorneys and a few jackpotrnwinners. ?>rnGREAT ISSUESrnHealthy, Wealthy,rnand Wise? ThernHealth Care Debatern—June 1994—rnGarrett Hardin onrnwhy discriminationrnis needed inrnhealth care services,rnLlewellynrnH. Rockwell, Jr., on the AMA.rnYuri N. Maltsev on the Soviet experiencernwith socialized medicine,Thomas Flemingrnon the lack of a real health care debate, andrnRobert Weissberg on the death of naturalrncauses.rn.i^i. . ^rnTitlernPOP CULTURErn”I DON’T HATE THE SOUTH”rnHEALTHY, WEALTHY, AND WISE?rnTHE HEALTH CARE DEBATErnBACK ISSUES ORDER FORMrnEach issue $5.50 (postage and handling included)rnDate Qty.rnAPRIL 1994rnMAY 1994rnJUNE 1994rnCostrnTola] EnclosedrnNamernAddressrnMail with check to: Chronicles * 934 North Main Street * Rockford, IL 61103rnlULY 1994/27rnrnrn