Even though Vice President Pence usually remains in the shadows when compared to Trump’s crass persona, he grabbed the spotlight recently when a Washington Post profile on the second lady mentioned that Vice President Pence “never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.” This revelation took the internet by storm. Many denounced Pence, arguing that this rule objectifies women, while others defended Pence for acting in accordance with his religious values. Meanwhile, the backlash surrounding the whole issues refreshed a classic debate: how much judgement are we allowed to yield over the private lives of public figures?
For a little background about this rule, look to the church.
This rule- not to travel, eat, or meet alone with a women other than one’s wife- is called the Billy Graham rule and is popular among evangelical pastors. Famous evangelist Billy Graham used this rule and taught it to preachers in his ministry to follow the biblical commands of “fleeing sexual immorality” and “avoiding the appearance of evil.” The idea is that pastors are held to a higher standard of accountability as leaders of their churches, so it is not enough to abstain from adultery. There is also a pressure to abstain from even the appearance of wrongdoing. This prevents malicious gossip and false accusations. And it’s completely understandable that leaders of any sort would want to avoid these things.
The issue gets complex when you consider the consequences of this rule, not just for women in the White House, but also for women in the church. The argument against the rule is as follows: the very nature of the rule equates women with sexual temptation, which is highly problematic. If a leader cannot look at the member of the opposite sex without uncontrollable sexual temptation, then they do not have the good character required for leadership. If they do not have the capacity to shut down any attempts at seduction from the other person, then they do not have the skills required for leadership. Meanwhile, this rule keeps women from advancing. Can you imagine a workplace where your male colleagues can meet with your boss one-on-one but you can’t? They’ll be more likely to receive personal mentorship,and they’ll be more likely to form personal relationships with key decision makers. Meanwhile, women are left out in the cold. This rule, and the culture behind it says: women should be prevented from advancement because men cannot control their sexual desires. Meanwhile, the rule does not even account for people with same-sex sexual desires, or address asexual people who may have no temptations at all but still may be expected to abstain from meetings with the opposite sex.
However, there is also an issue with the way the mainstream media has attacked Mike and Karen Pence. Obviously, this sort of strict rule cannot work in the White House. However, the sentiment behind it should be examined further. The principle behind the rule has been attacked because it equates women with “sexual tempations,” but maybe that’s oversimplified. The rule was cited in a larger piece about the marriage between Mike and Karen Pence, and there’s a lot to be said for this level of spousal commitment.
Meanwhile, political leaders are under intense levels of scrutiny. The use of the Billy Graham rule is probably less about avoiding tempation and more about assuring the public that they will not find a scandal within the Pence’s marriage. It prevents the possibility of false accusations. Meanwhile, it serves as public demonstration of commitment between husband and wife.
Moreover, this whole debate has forced a bigger question: Do we have a right to criticize the inner workings of Mike Pence’s marriage? My tentative answer is yes. In the past couple of weeks, the Pences have been socially condemned for how they choose to keep their marriage strong, and at times I have wondered whether or not a marriage was too private a matter for public judgement. However, when the private rules of a marriage affect public affairs, they become fair game. It’s clear that Mike Pence’s rule will dictate which White House employees will get elevated access to the Office of the Vice President. Unless he acts to prevent unfairness.
There are ways for Pence to uphold both his religious convictions and gender equality. He has to provide the same access to male and female White House staffers. He can do this by refusing to meet with subordinates alone, which actually would be a useful practice anyway. Male employees are just as capable of lying about the events of private meetings as female ones. He could always have Secret Service detail present, as they are confidential but add a third party presence. Or, Pence would mediate his rule to include exceptions. For example, meeting alone with women in public would probably be workable, as the public eyes would hold him accountable. Also, Pence may have to learn to make exceptions to his rule for the purposes of national security, where private meetings are a necessity. Meanwhile, Pence already has one rule for meetings, so it wouldn’t be too difficult to add this other one: never use private meetings to provide unequal access to opportunities. Before meeting privately with a male employee, ask if the meeting is something that his female counterpart can attend, also. The key is expanding access for women whenever possible. Pence is allowed to follow his own religious code, but he is obligated to do so in a way that permits female inclusion and advancement.