Introduction
First there was Harvey Weinstein in the New York Times. Then there was Kevin Spacey in BuzzFeed. In the Los Angeles Times, director Brett Ratner. Then Louis C.K. and Jeffrey Tambor. Roy Moore and Al Franken. Charlie Rose. Garrison Keillor. Matt Lauer. Lorin Stein. Mario Batali. James Franco. R. Kelly, again. Woody Allen, again. Blogs started lists to keep track of the allegations, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, depending on who mattered enough to count. It didn’t take long for the accumulation of names to pass the stage where anyone could plausibly pretend this was about the downfall of a few bad apples.
The accusations of sexual abuse that made the headlines were usually about famous men, and many of their victims were famous as well. Plenty of the allegations recounted abuses on movie sets or in the penthouse suites of luxury hotels. But ordinary people saw themselves in the stories, too. The boss who offered you extra shifts in exchange for a date. The dinner when you told your mom who touched you, and she said never to tell anyone again. The meeting when you told the principal a classmate had raped you, and he suspended you instead. That time when you felt you could not say no. That time you said no and it didn’t matter. So we said “Me Too.”
Others recognized themselves in a different aspect of the stories. They could be one of those men. They could be a name on a list.
Almost as soon as the flood of stories broke, critics and commentators raised concerns about the men accused. What about due process? they asked. I heard that question in two different tones. One was the even, perplexed voice of a real questioner, searching in good faith for answers: What is the best, fairest way to respond to troubling allegations? The other was indignant, loud, interrupting: How dare we threaten a man’s good name? How could that ever be fair? To these critics, any consequence at all was a violation of due process.
While awaiting trial on rape charges, Weinstein attended a monthly performance night at a New York City bar. During her time onstage, one young comedian, Kelly Bachman, pointed out the “Freddy Krueger in the room.” “I didn’t realize we have to bring our own mace and rape whistle to Actors Hour,” she joked. After the set, two other performers directly confronted the Hollywood producer. Both were escorted out. One, Zoe Stuckless, later recalled: “This guy was leading me out the stairs, just repeating ‘due process, due process’ to me.” A Weinstein rep would echo the objection in a public statement, decrying the incident as “an example of how due process today is being squashed by the public.”
* * *
FOR THOSE OF us who had been involved in the campus sexual assault movement, this backlash was familiar. At the time the Weinstein story broke, I was a year out of law school, working at the National Women’s Law Center, a feminist nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. As a law student, I’d split my time between feminist advocacy and criminal defense. After graduation, I started a fellowship with the Law Center, focusing on discriminatory student discipline meted out against girls of color.
I connected to the girls with whom we worked partly because I, too, had been introduced to the law as a student in need of legal help. In 2011, when I was an undergrad at Yale, I had joined fifteen friends to file a complaint against our college with the U.S. Department of Education. By tolerating sexual harassment, including violence, against students like us, we said, the college had violated the law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, popularly known as just “Title IX.” The Department of Education investigated Yale and spurred it to change its policies. The school abandoned its opaque, labyrinthine set of reporting systems and debuted a clearer process for survivors to come forward. It also started publishing regular reports about what kinds of sexual harassment complaints it had received and their outcomes, giving the community some insight into behind-the-scenes decisions. The process still wasn’t perfect, but it was much improved.
Around the same time, a friend of a friend named Dana Bolger was organizing against Amherst College’s abysmal handling of sexual abuses. We talked on the phone, and then frequently over email and Facebook. Online, we connected with students and young alumni of other colleges who had faced similar issues. In those conversations, we swapped advocacy strategies, pooled our experiences, and came to see common threads. One was that few of us had known about our legal rights under Title IX when we needed them. Over the summer of 2013, Dana and I decided to put together accessible legal explainers for student survivors. We called the project Know Your IX. In collaboration with other activists, we wrote up the basics of Title IX’s protections against sexual harassment and offered tips about organizing on campus. We published those resources on a website and disseminated them on social media. Our plan was to wrap up before the fall. Dana still had a semester of college to finish. I was about to start law school.
We did not wrap up. Know Your IX grew from a summer project to a national campaign. I wish I could say it expanded because of some strategic insight our team shared. But the truth is that the scope of the problem and the need for an organized student voice was much greater than we had anticipated. Know Your IX did not only need to bring the law to students; we also needed to bring student voices to lawmakers. Our first big action was a protest outside the Department of Education at which we delivered a petition with over 175,000 signatures pushing the department to enforce Title IX and hold schools accountable for wrongdoings. Although we initially met resistance from government officials, over the next few years many of our demands became federal policy. At our urging, the department started publicly announcing when its investigations turned up Title IX violations; finally, schools might see a reason to follow the law. We sought and received guarantees that undocumented survivors could file Title IX complaints with the government without risking deportation. We pushed officials to provide clear instructions that schools needed to offer survivors services like mental health care free of charge. We helped legislators pass good laws and defeat bad ones, like proposed statutes that would have forced schools to turn over all reports to the police. (More on that later.)
The Know Your IX team worked alongside students across the country who were organizing to change their schools for the better, such as Columbia undergraduate Emma Sulkowicz, who made front-page news with her visually stunning “Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight).” Students at other colleges as well as ones still in high school investigated their schools’ policies, drafted reforms, and demanded change that would make their classrooms safe and equitable. The work was hard, but often the students won. Schools created proper channels to report harassment. They changed policies to recognize, for the first time, male survivors and violence within queer relationships. They opened offices to provide free support for victims. They began programs that taught students basic principles of sexual respect.
As would later happen with Me Too, the successes of the Title IX movement came with critics—professors, lawyers, and pundits who found fault with both the student movement and the new policies schools were implementing. They worried that colleges, in particular, had “overcorrected.” Where once it was survivors who faced mistreatment, they opined, now alleged assailants were the ones who had to fear injustice. In particular, critics complained that disciplinary procedures—the rules laying out each step in the adjudication—often failed to protect the rights of students accused of sexual assault. Some of the stories reported were deeply disturbing. A student at Wesley College, for example, was invited by administrators to what he believed was a preliminary conversation about a serious allegation against him. When he arrived, he learned it was instead a formal disciplinary hearing for which he’d had no opportunity to prepare. School administrators failed to provide him with full information about the accusation, or even with correct material about the school’s policies. That hearing earned Wesley a public reprimand from the U.S. Department of Education. Similarly, the University of Southern California faced a lawsuit from a student, identified as John Doe, who had been suspended after being found responsible for facilitating a gang rape of his sexual partner. A state court ruled against the university, holding that its process was unfair because Doe was never informed of what, exactly, he was accused of doing, and never given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him. As a result of this deficient process, the court found, Doe was denied a meaningful chance to defend himself.
I struggled with how to respond to these stories. I worried that critics would wrongly attribute schools’ procedural mistakes to the important progress student activists had made for survivors, putting our victories at risk. But I also saw criticism of disciplinary procedures as a natural part of our project. Our whole purpose was to make schools respond to reports of sexual harassment fairly, so that no student would be unjustly deprived of the chance to learn and thrive. And I was hardly shocked that schools were sometimes mistreating students accused of sexual harms—after all, they had been doing the same to survivors for so long. In law school, I spent a year reviewing lawsuits from students who claimed they were wrongly suspended or expelled for sexual assault. Their complaints of procedural defects echoed those I had long heard from survivors, and also from students facing disciplinary charges that had nothing to do with sex. They were unaware of their rights. They never got the chance to tell their full story. The decision-making process was opaque and, to the extent it was discernible, appeared biased—either toward one side over the other, or toward protecting the university’s own interests. Of course, I thought, those problems should be fixed—for everyone’s sake.
In her excellent book Down Girl, the philosopher Kate Manne describes what she calls “himpathy”: the common knee-jerk concern for men accused of wrongdoing that casts aside the women they may have hurt, women who are automatically seen not as victims but as untrustworthy threats to the good names of good men. I share her concern and disgust. Yet I still had, well, empathy, or at least sympathy, when I read accounts of accused students who struggled to navigate disciplinary proceedings. I felt this with some discomfort, because the line between valid compassion and misguided “himpathy” is all too easily crossed. I felt—I feel—constantly uncertain about whether I’m on the right side of that divide.
But the fact is that sexual harassment is too prevalent for any of us to feel confident that we can maintain a cool distance. Whether or not we’re aware of it, we all love people who have been harassed, just as many of us have been. And many of us love someone who has been the harasser, likely without our knowing. This combination of prevalence and ignorance means most of us, I think, have had a flash of a nightmare question: What if someone I love were accused of harassment? Of rape? What would I do, how would I feel, if someone named my college roommate? My husband? I like to think I would live my politics. I would want those I love held accountable if they had sexually abused someone. In the process, though, I would want them to be treated fairly, and have the chance to present their account of what had happened, too.
I don’t mean to invite false equivalency. Harassment is so much more likely to occur than an accusation, let alone a false one. And I am wary of feeding a narrative that accused harassers are the true victims, the most deserving of our concern. But we can care about multiple things at once. We must.
Because of our overlapping interest in fairness for all students, Know Your IX was sometimes able to forge fruitful relationships with members of “the other side.” Away from the media, with room to admit ambiguity and uncertainty, we had tough conversations with advocates for alleged student harassers. When it came down to it, we could often find substantial agreement and distill what we actually disagreed about to no more than a few logistical questions. Those conversations gave me hope that, with enough care and good faith, consensus was within reach. We could build procedures that treated all students equitably and with dignity.
But not all the critics of campus reforms were acting in good faith. Some spoke of “due process” when their real goal was impunity. In public, one Georgia state representative complained that state schools needed better procedures to investigate students accused of sexual assault. Privately, he bullied schools into letting particular accused students off the hook. As though that was a fair process!
Many of these critics misrepresented the facts on the ground, claiming hysterical feminists had pressured schools to adopt policies where mere allegations warranted expulsion. If you don’t call a girl back the next day, she’ll report you to the dean and you’ll be out by noon! They repeated lies—including basic inaccuracies about the law—so many times that the inaccuracies made their way into national reporting as fact. If I had a dollar for every article claiming the Obama administration invented the idea that Title IX applies to sexual assault, required schools to use a lower standard of evidence than most did before, or prohibited accused students from hiring attorneys, I could fund the fact-checkers those newspapers need.
Anti-feminist zealots are, of course, infuriating. But if I’m being honest, I had a harder time dealing with the moderates and progressives whose procedural objections seemed rooted in sexist assumptions. They demanded that schools provide special protections to students accused of sexual harms, protections unavailable to peers accused of other kinds of misconduct—as though sexual allegations were uniquely suspect. As though a student who said she’d been raped was more likely to be lying than a student who said his roommate had punched him in the face, or berated him with racial slurs, or committed any of the other forms of misconduct schools are regularly called on to address. Some critics on the left never acknowledged the young survivors on the other side of the table. They seemed to forget that two students’ educations were at stake, not just one. Prominent attorneys with progressive credentials openly dismissed sexual violence as trivial or the victim’s fault, the kinds of myths I’d naively thought the left would not tolerate.
I knew that we couldn’t dismiss all concerns about student discipline for sexual harms simply because some of the most vocal critics had dubious methods or motives. But it was often difficult to distinguish between the good-faith actors and the bad. The result was that some Title IX advocates abandoned complexity, dismissing concerns about due process out of hand, or rejected reasonable reforms because they came from “the other side.” Some used low rates of false reporting to excuse mistreatment of the accused, or were cavalier about the stakes for a student facing suspension. In light of the anti-feminist backlash, that skepticism of procedural criticisms was understandable. But it was still wrong.
* * *
THE TOXICITY OF the debates about school harassment procedures made me wary when a similar response emerged, perhaps inevitably, in the wake of the Weinstein story. With the rise of the Me Too movement, the conversation about harassment stretched past the confines of campuses to the workplace and our broader communities. In a way that felt new and long overdue, wrongdoers—overwhelmingly men—were starting to face consequences for the harm they caused. But many people seemed to believe that accountability for sexual abuses is per se unfair. And again, the more sophisticated right-wing voices knowingly wielded the language of due process to pursue impunity.
Having seen this fight play out before in the campus wars, I knew that we needed to proceed thoughtfully. Fair process is crucially important in responding to sexual harassment allegations; and yet concerns about fair process are often co-opted and weaponized to thwart progress. We need to recognize both these truths to respond to sexual harms in an effective way—to make a lasting contribution to equality, to safety, and, fundamentally, to the way we treat one another.
There is no single blueprint for how every institution—businesses and nonprofits, social clubs and political organizations, places of learning and places of worship—should handle allegations of wrongdoing. But there are common principles and values that can guide us. Those can help promote fairness to all and simultaneously resist reactionary movements that seek to roll back advancement on sexual harassment.
That common understanding starts with recognizing what sexual harm is and what victims need. Many people think of sexual assaults as crimes and crimes alone. A common response to a public accusation of sexual violence is that the victim should have called the cops, as though a criminal trial were the only path to truth and justice. But sexual abuse is also a civil rights violation. Among other things, that means a victim can bring her own civil lawsuit, seeking monetary damages and policy changes. That kind of legal action contrasts sharply with a criminal prosecution, which is brought by the government to vindicate its interests, not the victim’s, and seeks to send the defendant to prison—an outcome that a victim might not even want.
Copyright © 2021 by Alexandra Brodsky
