The House Oversight Committee wants Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Commanders, to testify about allegations that he and others in the organization sexually harassed female employees. Snyder has informed the Committee that he will not appear before it next week, as had been requested.
I’m no fan of Snyder and I like him even less if he sexually harassed anyone. But Snyder is right to resist appearing before the Oversight Committee. There is no legitimate purpose that justifies spending taxpayer resources on investigating wrongful behavior that might have occurred in this single, relatively unique workplace.
Federal law provides a remedy for victims of sexual harassment. If some of Snyder’s employees consider themselves his victims, they should have taken him to court. If they are time-barred from doing so, Congress shouldn’t provide an alternative forum for considering their complaints.
What legitimate purpose is served by the Committee questioning Snyder? The House Oversight Committee exists, in the words of its ranking Republican member James Comer, “to ensure the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government.” Sexual harassment in a private workplace is deplorable, but has nothing to do with the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the government.
Congressional investigations serve a purpose when they are related to potential legislation Congress might consider. As noted, though, robust federal law outlaws sexual harassment and creates a strong remedy. As far as I know, no meaningful consideration is being given to changing federal law in this area, nor should it be.
Moreover, if the Oversight Committee’s efforts were related to a legislative purpose, the Committee would be exploring workplace culture in a range of industries. Instead, its interest apparently is confined to one workplace in one industry — sports. This is an industry that employs relatively few women (compared, say, to sectors like finance, hospitality, and retail) and is far from a typical American work environment.
Congress sometimes investigates momentous events and scandals even when no direct legislative purpose is implicated. The investigation of the January 6 rioting can be viewed as such an inquiry.
There’s nothing momentous about a cheerleader’s allegation that Snyder put his arm on her thigh. Such behavior is improper, of course. But even if recurring, it’s not the stuff of a proper congressional investigation of an employer in the private sector.
What, then, is the real reason for attempting to drag Snyder to Capitol Hill? Ranking member Comer says it’s “to distract the American people from President Biden’s self-inflicted crisis.” But this is just boilerplate — repetition of the standard, all-purpose GOP talking point.
The real purpose, I think, is to curry favor. But with whom?
One possibility is with the MeToo lobby or portions thereof. Another possibility is to do the bidding of Snyder’s enemies who want him out as owner of the Commanders. That’s what I suspect is the motive.
One theory I’ve heard is that Jeff Bezos wants to buy the team. This might explain why the Washington Post, which he owns, is all-in on this and other efforts to bash Snyder.
However, Snyder is the kind of guy the Post would be bashing regardless, so a Bezos-related angle isn’t required to explain the paper’s conduct here. I neither discount nor embrace the theory.
Whatever its motive, the Oversight Committee’s quest to examine Snyder is, as the ranking member says, “an egregious waste of taxpayer-funded resources.” Snyder is right to resist and I hope he runs out the clock until Republicans take control of the House next January.