Chuck Edwards’ plea to avoid censure shows why he clearly deserves it | Opinion
It didn’t seem like things could get much worse for U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards, after sexual harassment allegations and a damning ethics report torpedoed his political career.
Read more ACC officials, coaches join pro athlete eligibility conversation. What they said
But the Western North Carolina congressman keeps digging himself a deeper hole.
Edwards sent a lengthy letter to his colleagues pleading that they reject the House Ethics Committee’s recommendation of censure. A censure resolution would have to be approved on the House floor.
It’s a 22-page reminder that Edwards still doesn’t get it.
In the letter, Edwards once again attempted to defend his inappropriate behavior toward two young female staffers. He argued that his behavior did not constitute sexual harassment because “something that could be interpreted as romantic is worlds apart from establishing an unwanted sexual advance.”
“An affectionate friendship is not a sexual proposition,” Edwards wrote. “A gift is not sexual misconduct. A compliment is not sexual misconduct. Poetry is not sexual misconduct.”
The letter also included a “quick reference” sheet outlining 15 questions that members of Congress should ask themselves before accepting the committee’s findings, such as, “Can permissible friendship be transformed into misconduct by aggregation?”
What Edwards seems to be implying is that his behavior was not inappropriate simply because he does not view it as such — as if his interpretation is the only one that matters. He apparently believes that because his overtures were not explicitly sexual, they cannot be wrong. This ignores the fact that even well-intended behavior can be unprofessional and inappropriate in a workplace, particularly when it occurs between a boss and his employees. It also invalidates the way it made his staffers feel. His staffers are not meant to be his friends — they are his employees.
Read more Search our new Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools salary database for latest figures
Worse, Edwards insists in the letter that his behavior does not constitute misconduct or harassment because the staffers demonstrated “reciprocal affection and voluntary participation.” That also is not an acceptable defense. For one, it severely overlooks the fact that while his behavior did make his staffers uncomfortable, they both testified to the committee that they did not realize it was wrong until they got older, and they felt unable to reject him for fear of professional consequences. But ultimately, it is Edwards’ responsibility as a superior to reinforce appropriate boundaries with his employees, even if those employees test the limits themselves. The burden should not fall on staffers to ensure he sticks to them.
Edwards argues that “context matters,” but there is no context in which his behavior would be acceptable. “Pretty” and “breathtaking” are never appropriate compliments to give a female employee, and jewelry, flowers, massages, and guns are not appropriate gifts. It is not appropriate to send a female employee a custom puzzle that, when assembled, reveals a handwritten note inviting her to dinner and an Adam Sandler show, or print out an employee’s text, draw a heart next to it and call it “my proudest personal moment.” And it certainly isn’t appropriate to hire a singer to perform a romantic Ed Sheeran song at an employee’s birthday party and tell her it’s “from a special someone.”
For some reason, Edwards thinks that this letter will help clear his name. It does the opposite. In attempting to undermine the committee’s report, he has only strengthened its conclusions. By clinging to the argument that his behavior was not just acceptable, but even normal, Edwards has only made himself look worse, and that apparent lack of self-awareness is in part why he ought to face consequences.
If Edwards really wants to preserve what’s left of his reputation, he should acknowledge that what he did was wrong and apologize. Unless he’s willing to take responsibility, he’s better off not saying anything at all.
Deputy Opinion Editor Paige Masten covers politics and the 2026 elections for The Charlotte Observer and The News & Observer.
Read more How did the ‘diviest of dive bars’ become a Montford staple? With some ‘Cheers’
