Bryant’s rape accuser can’t become a footnote
If there’s a perfect word to describe the #MeToo era, it’s “inconsistent.” I’m not referring to the kind of “inconsistency” we usually hear about in relation to sexual assault: i.e. inconsistencies in the stories of victims. I’m referring to the inconsistency with which we, as a group, judge the cruel authors of those stories: the alleged perpetrators.
If a man is accused of sexual assault in the year 2020, the unofficial tenets of #MeToo demand that we believe his accuser and shun the accused. Even when we fail to shun him — when he is invited back into the fold (ahem, Louis C.K.) — we give him a damn hard time. We don’t let him forget what he is alleged to have done. Some say this is unfair. #MeToo counters that the pain a perpetrator inflicts should not be a footnote in his legacy.
But it appears there is a statute of limitations on “#MeToo” style punishments.
Because if the man in question was accused of a heinous crime before the #MeToo era — in other words, if he was accused of rape before we, as a society, thought critically about rape — we tend to go a lot easier on him (ahem, Bill Clinton). And when that man is a mega sports star who dies alongside his daughter in a horrific accident, we vilify anyone who doesn’t go easy on him.
I’m talking about Kobe Bryant, who died Sunday morning in a California helicopter crash that took the lives of eight others, his daughter Gianna among them.
Let me be clear: this was and is a massive tragedy, not only for Bryant’s family, but for the families of everyone killed.
Let me be clear about something else: There is no shame in grieving anybody, no matter how flawed he is, because grief is not a choice. We can’t help who we grieve anymore than we can help who we love. Fans grieving Bryant should not be subject to scorn.
But by the same token, neither should those who don’t appear to grieve him be subject to scorn.
To whit: recently suspended Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez.
On Sunday, Sonmez, herself an alleged victim of sexual misconduct, tweeted out a link to a 2016 story in the Daily Beast that chronicles the disturbing allegations of sexual assault against Kobe Bryant. In 2003, a 19-year-old woman alleged Bryant blocked her path in a Colorado hotel room, choked her and raped her. According to the Daily Beast quoting the detective on the case (who was paraphrasing the sexual assault nurse), the alleged victim’s “injuries were consistent with penetrating genital trauma … not consistent with consensual sex.” (The case was settled out of court in a civil suit.)
As a result of this tweet, Sonmez received an avalanche of hate on social media, including death threats. In response, she tweeted: “Well THAT was eye-opening. To the 10,000 people (literally) who have commented and emailed me with abuse and death threats, please take a moment and read the story — which was written 3+ years ago, and not by me. Any public figure is worth remembering in their totality.”
Apparently not in the opinion of her employer. The Washington Post quickly put Sonmez on “administrative leave” for reasons that aren’t exactly clear. The Post’s managing editor, Tracy Grant, told Business Insider that Sonmez is on leave while the paper determines if her tweets violated the “newsroom’s social media policy.” In other words, we can’t be sure if Sonmez was penalized for sharing a news article about the darker side of Bryant’s life or (as reporter Matthew Keys suggests) for posting a screenshot of her email inbox to Twitter, in which the full names of her haters are visible.
After an internal review, the Post said late Tuesday she was cleared to return to work because she was “not in clear and direct violation of our social media policy.” It called the tweets “ill-timed.”
Either way, it’s unfortunate that Bryant’s fans can’t make room for the fact that some people have complicated feelings about their idol. And what’s interesting is that Sonmez’s post was, despite the backlash it generated, extremely respectful. She didn’t urge anybody to trash Bryant. Like a good reporter, she simply pointed to a piece of a major story mostly glossed over in the wake of its subject’s death — or, in some cases, omitted entirely.
There is no shame in grieving a person accused of rape. But there is shame in telling others they must forget that he has been accused of rape; there is shame in shaming victims of sexual assault into silence for merely suggesting that Bryant’s legacy should possibly not be limited to basketball and community activism. If it makes you angry to be reminded of his alleged transgressions, I have an easy fix for you: read any of the hundreds of thousands of overwhelmingly positive tweets and news articles about the man. In this instance, you are on the winning side.
Also, try to muster enough empathy to understand that acknowledging the totality of his legacy is not an insult to his family, nor to anyone who loved him.
But not doing so is an insult to the woman he allegedly raped and to sexual assault survivors writ large.
Rape is not an asterisk.