Where is the fairness? Seeking justice for sexual violence reveals deeply ingrained misogyny and inequity
“I believe you.”
It is a powerful phrase tied to the #MeToo movement often criticized for an instant condemnation of alleged perpetrators of sexual violence and harassment. However, the system in which we hold those who perpetrate these crimes is set up against the very people who come forward. Saying “I believe you” doesn’t mean that we disapprove of healthy skepticism or that we condone the instant condemnation of perpetrators, but with a history of denying survivors the right to tell their stories, empowering them is a step towards justice.
Catlin Gabel School (CGS) students need to ask themselves this: when an individual or institution we care about perpetrates sexual misconduct, what do we do that is fair to everyone involved that focuses on the justice necessary to take place?
We have social movements that exemplify progress in feminism and a deterioration of our society’s patriarchy, but then once we take these social movements and put them into a personal context, we revert back to our own subconscious misogyny. The #MeToo movement was a foot in the door, yet the real work of combatting sexual violence still lays ahead.
I interviewed two professionals over email to get their thoughts on the culture of sexual violence and what justice in this context looks like. Lauren Trout is a restorative justice facilitator for the Jefferson Parish District Attorney's Office and Jefferson Parish Public School System in New Orleans, Louisiana. Lisa Knisely is an advocate for survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual assault with a PhD in philosophy and gender studies. She is now getting her Master’s of Social Work.
“I see a really huge positive in the #MeToo movement giving us space to create some new language and visions for all the harm that people have experienced mainly due to sexism and misogyny,” Trout wrote. “My hope is that while we are re-visioning what's in front of us (stories of harm, people coming out of isolation, a reckoning with systems of oppression, etc.), that we can also create new visions about what to do about it.”
Finding steps beyond giving a platform to highlight stories includes finding the root of the problem and ways to acknowledge the harm.
“I'm not a person who thinks #MeToo has ‘gone too far’ or some such, but I think we are far off from solving the bigger issues that create a culture in which sexual assault is so pervasive,” wrote Knisely. “I don't think we can solve this problem without understanding what people who cause harm are thinking when they do it.”
CGS has been surrounded by discussions around these issues as alumni have filed lawsuits against the school for sexual misconduct by former employees. These discussions have brought student sentiments to light, and most of it hasn’t been pretty. For many at our school, this is the first time we have been put in a situation where we feel we have had to support an institution (CGS) or individual(s) facing public criticism for causing harm in relation to sexual misconduct.
I have observed the rhetoric used on campus surrounding allegations made by alumni after lawsuits started being filed. When students know and are acquainted with a person accused of sexual misconduct, they describe the accusing alum with words and terms like, “bitch,” “attention-seeking,” “dramatic,” “exaggerating,” and “liar.” This was in contrast to the general messages of support that many adults and students expressed when alumni accused people we do not know.
We cannot see the hypocrisy of our language. We supported Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when she gave her testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27 that Judge Brett Kavanagh sexually assaulted her. However, we seem unable to support survivors when we feel our beloved teachers and school are under attack, or so we believe.
In response to the media’s representation of the investigative report, many of us fall victim to an “us versus them” mentality. We either support the school, or we support survivors. We either support the teachers we love, or we support those who accuse them of not being the role models we thought they were. When these allegations have tangible personal effects, it is so easy to fall back onto our deeply rooted misogyny.
We as a student body are in a place of cognitive dissonance. The school is being tested to see how we will hold up in this #MeToo era where we can recognize the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and assault.
However, there are positive aspects to being in this place of cognitive dissonance. In a situation where we know and care about a person accused of sexual misconduct, we question the “cancel culture” that often appears in the aftermath of #MeToo stories and on a larger scale, and we start asking ourselves whether the ones who cause harm are redeemable.
Knisely gave her own perspective as to whether perpetrators of sexual violence should be condemned.
“I don't think we should condemn anyone. I don't believe in the condemnation of rapists; I believe in the condemnation of rape. Let me try to explain. One part of the reason rape happens is because we as a culture have set up a system of uneven power,” she wrote. “In addition, we have not cultivated a culture in which consent is a deeply meaningful concept… I absolutely do think that people should be held accountable when they cause harm to others. However, I don't think moral shaming or legal punishment of people for causing harm actually leads to a system in which we have real accountability.”
One way to seek this accountability is through something called restorative justice. As Trout explained, “Restorative justice is a theory of justice that views crime, conflict, misbehavior, broken rules/laws, etc. as harm to relationships (as opposed to violations of systems/systemic laws). Restorative justice emerged as a theory of justice in the criminal justice system in the 70's/80's, but it has indigenous roots from all over the world.”
Restorative justice is a system that holds people accountable but also does not treat people as expendable or unworthy of love unlike our current system, which places value on “the laws and the punishment of those that broke the laws/rules.”
“Restorative justice argues that yes, rules/laws are extremely important, as they give us safety and boundaries, but when rules/laws are broken, what’s ultimately happened is that someone has been hurt; because we aren't in relation to rules/laws, we are in relation to each other!” wrote Trout.
However, there are limitations to a system of restorative justice, as Upper School Dean of Students Brandon Woods explained.
“Restorative justice can be difficult to implement because it requires willingness on the part of the person who caused harm to accept responsibility and the desire to face the recipient(s) of the harm and determine what measures it will take to restore the person who committed harm into the community. A system like this requires a great deal of trust in the system itself and in the community,” said Woods.
CGS is at a critical moment, where we can take one of several paths. We can revert to our subconscious misogyny to protect our school. We can condemn the school. We can place the blame solely on individuals and ignore a problematic culture. Or, we can lean into this gray area, somewhere in between, wrestling with the larger questions of justice and fairness.
The gray area is not an easy place to be in, but for our liberation, it is a place worth moving towards.