I become so weary of the either/or false choices we are presented. We are almost taunted into accepting the idea that any defense offered is somehow "victim shaming," which is of course nonsense. The state of mind of the accuser, the background of the accuser and the actions of the accuser all provide insight into the likely truthfulness of the accuser. Yes it's true "victim shaming" has occurred, and we ought to make every effort to protect women and encourage them not to fear telling the truth. But we can't cross a threshold that eliminates the ability of the accused to defend his reputation, which merely by the fact of the accusation has already been heavily damaged.
This is framed these days as a man/woman issue when it is correctly a human/human issue. We have a responsibility to respect the rights of both parties and to respect the fact that either could be telling the truth. But the NFL issued a statement publicly branding Ezekiel Elliott as an abuser. Should we prevent him being able to offer any public defense? Those inclined to accept Elliott's guilt keep reminding us this isn't a criminal case and is more akin to a civil case, where preponderance of evidence trumps reasonable doubt. I would argue it is neither. It is an employer enforcing discipline on an employee under the strictures of a collective bargaining agreement.
But we can't stop there. We can't be naive. This is also a PR battle. The NFL made public accusations. It is now slamming the NFLPA for -- supposedly -- attempting to poke holes in the accusation by presenting alternate facts. Those alternate facts present the accuser in a poor light. But they are, it would seem, facts. And I struggle to understand why it is "public shaming" to point out those facts. Yes it creates an uncomfortable situation for the accuser, but this is true in almost any situation in which one is accused of doing something illegal, immoral or criminal. The character and motives of the accuser are as much an indicator as those of the accused.
We are a nation built in part on the concept that the accused has a right to a defense. At what point did we decide that wasn't true for a man accused by a woman of having committed violence against her? At what point did we say this is sufficiently reprehensible that the accusation alone makes the accused guilty? And if it turns out he was innocent, the fact his reputation was destroyed is merely unfortunate collateral damage.
At what point did we decide the accuser's reputation is more important than the reputation of the accused? They are both human beings. Both of them have already endured a measure of public shaming. There are people who will never believe her, absent 100% proof. There are people who will never believe him, absent 100% proof. He is at a disadvantage because of the inherent difficulty of proving a negative.
But is it reasonable to take the position that Elliott and his defenders must not use facts to defend his reputation before it is tarnished beyond repair? Is his reputation meaningless because he has been accused of a heinous act? Is this what we've come to? Have we gone so far that even his family cannot point to facts that suggest their son might just be innocent? And if they do so that explains everything -- of course he is a woman beater because look at the insensitivity of his family in defending their son by pointing to her actions, motives and behavior? Aha! Now we have the answer.
Is this where we've come? Is this the outcome we want?
