#WeToo in a Quagmire

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.