The #MeToo movement is at a crossroads
Somewhere on U Street I gave him a nod and let him cut into my lane. A couple blocks from home I noticed that beat up minivan was now behind me. He’d followed me to my apartment. Clutching the pepper spray in my coat pocket, I confronted him: “Why are you following me?” He looked sheepish, “I thought you were flirting.” The incident taught me two things: sometimes what appears to be malfeasance is just a misunderstanding and sometimes men are just stupid.
The incident has me wondering if there is room for misunderstanding in the #MeToo era. What about mistakes? Should all misconduct be treated with the same strict no tolerance standard? Are there ever mitigating circumstances? What about stan dards of proof ? A person who has committed harassment, assault, or abuse should pay for his crimes but for how long? Is redemption possible?
The #MeToo movement has lanced a boil of corruption and depravity that had been festering under the surface of polite society for too long. The movement has empowered women to talk about their experiences, to report misconduct, and to seek legal redress in egregious cases. Serial harassers have lost careers, reputations, and elections. No longer will powerful men in corporations, Hollywood, media, Congress, the music industry, and other institutions harass and coerce female subordinates and coworkers with impunity while their handlers cover up their misconduct.
Where does #MeToo go from here? Up until now, #MeToo has rightfully focused on exposure and redress. The events of the past few weeks, however, suggest that the movement is at a crossroads. The movement could degenerate from the pursuit of justice to revenge which most certainly will result in cynicism and backlash. Alternatively, #MeToo could take a road less traveled towards a more just and fair society.
Vengeance is like a devastating forest fire that makes no distinction between dead and diseased wood and living trees. Judging by the chants and signs held by the angry crowd beating on the doors of the Supreme Court a few weeks ago, standards of evidence and the concept of innocent until proven guilty were in ashes. They wanted the allegation believed in absence of proof based on the sex of the accuser. That’s not justice. Vengeance demands men pay whether they are guilty or not because their destruction will somehow atone for incidents of sexual harassment or assault that have gone unpunished in the past.
Innocence and guilt are not the only important distinctions in the pursuit of justice. Age of the accused, how long ago it happened, the severity of the misconduct, and mitigating circumstances all matter. If “pushed” and “female” are all that count then allegations against gubernatorial candidate Jared Polis should stick. But the real story is that 20 years ago he pushed a female employee to keep her from running out the door with stolen files. Thus the allegation is without merit. Men can be falsely accused.
Finally there is the question of redemption. How long should someone pay for their misdeeds? What if someone is contrite, has paid a legal or social price, and has changed their ways? What then? Has the accused paid an appropriate price? Has there been a sufficient amount of time since the incidents to merit his restoration? These are the questions facing Colorado Rep. Jovan Melton’s voters in a few weeks. Same goes for fans of comedian Louis C.K. and other men who have abused or harassed women in the past.
There are actions so despicable that the perpetrator should go to jail or spend his remaining years unemployable. But for others, redemption should be possible. Shouldn’t it? What is justice without mercy?