The arena of
claims of sexual assault is a very messy and indefinite space. Clouded by
evolving social mores that have condoned sexual violence as well as suppressed
the voices of victims, the current environment makes navigating the issues perilous
as well as uncertain. The situations that have recently arisen with Virginia
Lt. Governor Fairfax presents a case study for analysis, even though all the
facts are not yet known. Accusations and counter-accusations, both plausible,
are being tossed about in a context of political motivations beyond mere
exposition of truth, holding wrongdoers accountable or vindicating victims.
Fairfax is
accused of sexual assault by Vanessa Tyson, an associate professor of political
science, that allegedly occurred nearly 15 years ago [2004] at a Democratic
Convention in Boston. At the time, she was a graduate student working the
convention with presumed political aspirations and seeking advantageous
connections. Fairfax was, at the time, an aide to North Carolina Senator
Edwards with a position of influence that would be attractive to aspirants such
as Tyson and which he might be disposed to use for personal gratification.
These factors apparently converged as Tyson admits voluntarily accompanying Fairfax
to his hotel room and engaging in consensual kissing. Here the stories diverge
in current day iterations. Fairfax claims that the encounter was consensual.
Tyson claims that an initially consensual encounter became sexual assault and
that Fairfax allegedly coerced her to perform oral sex. There was no official
complaint or report of criminal assault at the time, which is not unusual for
such alleged events. Victims of sexual assault have historically been reluctant
to come forward because of potential shaming or fear of disbelief in their
accounts. They usually remain silent and shy away from discussion of such
topics.
This
situation can be contrasted with recent high-profile cases. In the case of now
Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, there was evidence of contemporaneous behavior
that gave circumstantial credibility to the allegations of past sexually inappropriate
behavior, including allegations by more than one woman and testimony of sexually
predatory behavior. Though allegations were not a manifold, a similar hyper-partisan
political shield was erected to protect the nomination of Clarence Thomas.
Indeed, the vigorous tactics by his supporters to truncate and circumscribe
investigation would suggest that a thorough investigation would have revealed
potentially damaging corroborative information. In the case of Bill Cosby,
there were allegations of misconduct and similar allegations from multiple
women allowed to come forward to tell their accounts. There was no political
shield to prevent investigation of evidence and testimony.
It should be
noted that Fairfax has not requested or suggested the need for any obstructive
protection from investigation of events alleged by Tyson. In fact, he has
stated that he welcomes a “fair, impartial investigation.” Fairfax has been
through at least two comprehensive FBI background investigations and been
cleared, despite awareness of allegations by Tyson of sexual misconduct. On the
other hand, Tyson has come forward at a time when she is doing research and
writing a book on allegations of sexual violence against women and children.
She claims to have come forward now, as a public service, because of “falsehoods
and aspersions of my character” she claims Fairfax has made. This seems
unclear, as she is the one who has advanced the allegations and aspersions
against Fairfax, who has responded with denial.
There is
more substance to be gained by an objective and fair investigation, despite the
invitation by the Massachusetts Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael
Rollins to investigate and possibly prosecute. Rollins has campaigned on issues
of advocating for female victims of sexual violence, and so her objectivity may
reasonably be placed in question. But there is information that Tyson was
active in women’s rights organizations and a Speakers Bureau in 2005, after the
alleged assault by Fairfax. These were events in which she encouraged women to
share their stories of abuse. She spoke at one event in 2005 in which she alleged
having been sexually abused by her father. Given this posture of stepping out
of the shadows and such activities advocating honesty and disclosure, an
investigation should reveal whether she raised the allegations of assault against
Fairfax she now raises. If not, then it is legitimate to question why she
waited until 2017, and a potentially political and profit-making context, to
surface these allegations.
Fairfax has
a political career to protect and his denial is also a contextual factor.
Validation of the allegations by Tyson would seriously damage his political future
as well as potentially removing him from office in the ambiance of the “#MeToo”
movement. Unlike Kavanaugh, Cosby and Weinstein, no evidence has yet surfaced
of a demeanor of arrogance or sexually predatory behavior. One other woman has
come forward with allegations of rape arising from a consensual social
encounter when she and Fairfax were both undergraduates on college years before
the alleged Tyson incident. However, no evidence of any official report of that
event has surfaced to date. Again, survivors of sexual violence deserve to get
an open and fair hearing of their claims, without peremptory dismissal. But
those allegations may also be subjected to scrutiny and validation, as
accepting such claims without scrutiny would be equally unwise and unfair. But
in a fight for his political career, Fairfax has the motivation to paint his
past and present as that of an honorable, law abiding public servant who
respects women and their rights. If that picture is flawed by evidence to the
contrary, then a fair and impartial investigation should expose those defects.
One of the
concepts I stress to my students when exploring historical accounts is “historicity.”
As an attempt to reach authentic accounts, it is important to view past events
in the context and through a lens of the time in which they arose. By the time of
the alleged events in the Fairfax dispute occurred, feminism was in its third
wave and moving into the fourth wave. The notion of a woman speaking out
against a violent sexual assault was far less radical, as was the social
acceptability of a woman going to a man’s hotel room in the context of what
would otherwise be deemed a business event. As “equals” both man and woman
would be equally responsible for their choice to be in such a situation, and
arguably free to leave if the situation changed. It is clearly conceivable that
each participant could have been seeking to exploit their respective position,
the other person and the situation, beyond the simple notion of a recreational
sexual encounter.
Problems can
obviously arise when attempting to reinterpret those past events. Both
participants may have a motive to suppress or hide their motivations for going
to that hotel room in 2004, and what took place. Both participants may now have
very different motivations to shape the facts and the interpretation of that
past event which bear very little resemblance to the motives that existed at
that time. Moreover, those competing motives may have less to do with exposing
the naked truth than with positioning each disputant for maximum political and
financial gain in the present. Even the District Attorney Rollins is not
without motive and agenda in this call for a “fair and independent”
investigation.
It is a rare
dogfight in which both participants do not get bitten. If a thorough
investigation ensues, then revelations will come. If the allegations by Tyson
are credible and corroborated by reliable evidence and testimony, then he
should be held accountable even if it destroys his political career. Equally
so, for that is the point of the women’s movement, if the allegations are not
substantiated and are shown to have been advanced and characterized for the purpose
of destroying the career and reputation of Fairfax, then Tyson should be held
accountable. That might include either prosecution for malicious prosecution or
a civil claim for defamation. All these high stakes consequences would probably
not be present if the allegations had been raised years ago when Fairfax was
not in such a prominent political position and Tyson was not in an obvious
position to gain financially and politically from publicity arising from the
allegations.
