Op-Ed: Sure, give back Harvey Weinstein’s money. And then actually do something to support women

Harvey Weinstein had to know that he was foul. Even he had to realize that his grotesque bathrobe seduction routine was, in truth, the modus operandi of a serial sexual harasser and abuser. Perhaps he recognized his evil, or merely sought to cover it up. As such, the former movie mogul busied himself performing the role of a feminist. In public, he said the all right things about empowering women. He championed the careers of female talents such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Judi Dench and Meryl Streep. In January, one day after another accused sexual predator was inaugurated as president, Weinstein even showed up at events such as the Women’s March in Park City, Utah, home to the Sundance Film Festival.

Naturally, he also used his fortune to drive home that he was a good ally to women. He tried to purchase his absolution by giving money to Democrats and liberal feminist causes, including a $100,000 pledge to Planned Parenthood in May (which he never actually delivered). Those politicians and entities now can’t move quickly enough to refund Weinstein’s money, or to give it to charity. USC’s School of Cinematic Arts is certainly done with him. It declared on Tuesday that it would reject Weinstein’s $5-million endowment intended to serve female filmmakers.

Like a politician in this predicament, USC had little choice. It was pressured to sever ties by a student, Tiana Lowe, who declared in her change.org petition,“I’d like USC to finally muster the moral spine to refuse Harvey Weinstein’s blood money in exchange for its soul.” Fair enough.

But the university, and everyone else giving back Weinstein’s “blood money” these days, has a responsibility beyond saving face. Refusing a donation to appear feminist isn’t any better than making a donation to appear feminist — if that appearance is divorced from reality.

Any person or institution that claims to want to end sexual harassment in executive offices, hotel rooms and casting agencies must help change the misshapen power dynamic that makes predation possible in the first place. (Rape and harassment are crimes primarily derived from power, not hormones.) USC and others need to focus less on ass-covering in the wake of a public scandal, and more on — oh, increasing the number of female CEOs and filmmakers. And, yes, I realize that the latter group is exactly the population that Weinstein’s donation was intended to support.

The challenge is a mighty one. Women make up the slight majority of the moviegoing population, according to the MPAA, and three of 2016’s most profitable releases had majority-female audiences. Yet a 2017 study from San Diego State University found that among the top 250 grossing motion pictures last year, only 17% of the central filmmaking jobs were filled by women. The number of women directing these films was just 7%. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ejected Weinstein from its membership, but 76% of Oscar voters last year were male. Women received only 39% of new membership invitations — yes, only; they are more than half the population, folks.

In this light, USC, with one of the preeminent film schools in the world, has a special duty to educate and encourage women who seek to balance these ridiculous ratios. A lackluster 41% of the film school’s students are female.

And one thing these numbers don’t reveal is how many women drop out of the entertainment industry because they become convinced that indulging monsters is the price of success. Other than the lurid details, that’s what was truly depressing about the Weinstein exposes — the women who suggested that their contact with the studio head led them to give up their dreams.

So though it makes sense to give back Weinstein’s money, it also makes sense to create a fund for female filmmakers. Perhaps another Hollywood mogul, who’d like to signal his virtue in the wake of the Weinstein revelations, will locate $5 million in his couch cushions. Or USC could supply the cash itself from a university endowment that reportedly hit $6 billion in February.

The predatory behavior of famous men only seems to grip the public fascination for as long as it takes to condemn them. Other Harvey Weinsteins are out there faking it like they’re good guys. If we remain content with denouncements, they will stay in the shadows, and nothing will change.

Jamil Smith is a journalist in Los Angeles.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook