Truth, Lies, "MeToo," and the Kavanagh Hearings

I rarely blog on current events, and even more rarely provide a link to a national news source.  But the events of the past week or so in relation to the US Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanagh provide a unique fulcrum that seems to be exposing a fundamental shift in the fabric of Western society - a shift that has been underway for some time, but is just now becoming glaringly obvious.

I am not speaking of the abhorrence expressed toward sexual assault of all sorts.  That cultural shift is long overdue, and, while applied very inconsistently and with much confusion, is, in my eyes, a positive shift.  I wish that the abhorrence toward sexual assault would be accompanied by a recognition that the radically increased sexualization and sexual activity of North American teens and pre-teens is both unhealthy and confuzzling.  (Confuzzling = causing great confusion within teens and pre-teens in terms of what is acceptable sexual behavior and what is not.  E.g., is asking a girl to have sex with you at a house party evidence of sexual liberation, or an example of unwanted sexual advances or even sexual assault?)  I applaud the nearly-universal condemnation of sexual aggression, sexual harassment (including off-color sexual jokes in the workplace), and date rape.

The cultural shift which is of considerably greater concern to me is what Christie Blatchford at the National Post (among many others) rightly identifies as the death of the culturally guiding principle of "the presumption of innocence."  Christie Blatchford, Kavanagh hearings signal the death of due process (National Post)  Blatchford's brief commentary is succinct, and powerfully drives home the point that Kavanagh himself sought to establish in yesterday's embarrassing (to everyone, Western civilization included) hearings: namely, that in the post-#MeToo context, an ancient and unsubstantiated (and, after 35 years, entirely unsubstantiable) allegation of sexual misconduct is enough to absolutely destroy someone's public credibility and livelihood.

Was Kavanagh guilty of sexual misconduct or even sexual assault in his teens?  I don't know (though I strongly suspect the answer is "No"), and neither do you.  What I do know is we should ALL be absolutely petrified of the new reality in which one unproven allegation can result in immediate conviction in the public sphere, and wreak such catastrophic effects.  As things stand right now, it is almost exclusively middle-aged (white) men who stand in the crosshairs of the new cultural reality.  (As a member of that particular demographic, the new cultural reality does make me somewhat uncomfortable and concerned.)  But as Blatchford acknowledges, the shift in the cultural reality signals the end of due process, and if due process can be denied to one person in one demographic today, it can just as easily be extended to apply to those in other demographics tomorrow.

There are numerous other philosophical and ethical issues related to the Ford-Kavanagh hearings that are of grave concern: (1) If substantiated, would Kavanagh's sexual misconduct 35 years ago be representative of a persistent and still-persisting demeaning attitude toward women? (2) Is the testimony of one person regarding an event sufficient to counter or overturn the contrary testimony of numerous persons?  But the key issue, the primary takeaway, from recent events is the concerning public evidence that one is no longer innocent until proven guilty - if, that is, the one in question is a male and the accusation is of some sort of sexual misconduct. 

Is the new reality that one is guilty until proven innocent?  Or just guilty with no possible redress?  Let's be frank: there is no way for Kavanagh to "prove" that he is innocent of the allegations launched by Ford.  You simply cannot prove that you did not do some particular thing at some unspecified place on some unspecified day 35 years in the past - that's absolutely impossible.  So if he is indeed guilty until proven innocent, then he is simply guilty.  And, regardless of one's political stances, regardless of whether one wants this Republican nominee to sit on the Supreme Court, regardless of how much one dislikes President Trump, one ought to be gravely concerned over the subversion of the principles of fairness, justice, and due process that have been on display this week.