Look, as before, I am weighing in on this subject a little late and not saying anything that hasn't been said before, but it seems to me that the "Me Too" movement, in insisting that believe women who make accusations, is making the same mistake as the anti-date rape movement on college campuses -- it is conflating two different things.
What does it mean that me should believe woman who say they have been harassed (or date raped)? What it should mean is that if woman comes asking for compassion, empathy and support, she should be believed and supported without conditions. Friends, family members, therapists, and others in her support system should not fact check; they should not ask for proof; they should not tell her all the mistakes she made along the way and the things she could have done differently. They should simply accept her pain as she expresses it and give her the support and encouragement she needs.
But that is when there is only one person involved. There is no real cost, after all, to supporting the accuser emotionally. But when it comes to punishment against the accused, that is a different matter altogether. So when a college is deciding whether to expel a student, a human resources department is deciding whether to discipline an employee, when an insurer is deciding whether to pay out a claim, when a newspaper is deciding whether to publish an accusation, a lawyer is deciding whether to file a sexual harassment suit and (in the most extreme cases) police and district attorneys are deciding whether to arrest and bring charges, automatically believing the accuser without fact checking is a different matter altogether.
Anyone who doubts this need only consider Washington Post's report on Roy Moore. It carried conviction because it was thoroughly researched with names, dates, places, events corroborated by other sources, contemporaneous confirmation and so forth. When one of the accusers proved to be false, planted to make the paper look bad, reporters caught her by doing fact checking. When the accused is facing consequences (including hostile publicity), this sort of fact checking should always be done.
Nor does it do to say that false accusations are very rare, especially against men who are able to retaliate. There are at least three reason.
First, the accused has rights as well as the accuser. In case of criminal charges, civil damages, or even a hostile story in the press, these are legal rights protecting against unjust prosecution, civil action, or libel. In the case of firing or expulsion, it depends on the terms of the school admission or employment contract, but even if there is no legal right at stake, there is a moral right to be considered even if there is no legal right.
Second, with a movement now afoot to believe accusers, it will become easier to make accusations, even against very powerful men. Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, John Conyers, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer and others have been toppled, as well as less famous men. But as it becomes easier for real accusers to come forward, it becomes easier for false ones to come forward as well.
Third, when it comes to politicians, there are definite incentives to make false accusations. Jaime Phillips of Project Veritas approached the Washington Post with a false accusation against Roy Moore in order to undermine the real accusations. Roger Stone somehow got advance word of the first accusation against Al Franken. And unknown persons forged a sexual harassment suit against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. So clearly there are incentives here to make false accusations.
So what do I propose instead? Unconditional compassion and empathy for any accuser who wants compassion and empathy and nothing more. Even if the accusation is false, no one is harmed by a little misplaced compassion and empathy. But a process of investigation for an accuser who wants any sort of action taken against the accused. The rumor mill is a good place to start. It has become clear, for instance, that Roy Moore's penchant for underage girls was an open scandal in his home town, to the point that shopping malls were on the lookout for him. Likewise, it was common knowledge among women on Capitol Hill that they should not get into an elevator with John Conyers. And there were plenty of rumors among people in the know about Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer as well. This should probably not be sufficient (it certainly is not admissible in court), but it is a good source of leads to investigate. An actual rape leaves medical evidence. A traumatic experience leaves psychological evidence, confidences is real time, etc. Making sure people were in the places at the times they allege does not prove anything, but it can disprove.
It is also true that milder instances probably do not leave evidence. In the case of Al Franken and Leeann Tweeden, there was ample evidence that they were in a raunchy skit together in the USO, and that he is photographed groping her. Most of the other cases were pinching bottoms in a photo op and the like. We can prove or disprove that they were at the place and time together and did a photo op. But an unwanted pinch or kiss is probably not possible to prove or disprove with any confidence. So no doubt there will be milder cases that go unpunished. But let's face it. There are milder cases of just about every sort of misconduct possible that go unpunished. That is simply common sense in recognizing that not all offenses are equal.
No comments:
Post a Comment