#MeToo: What next for the name and shame campaign of sexual predators?
On October 24, 2017, a student shared a cautionary list of 63 names of alleged sexual predators on Facebook, after an article titled "HimToo: A Reckoning", was taken down from the Huffington Post. The abrupt removal of the article which named some of the most illustrious people in the academia, made women question their own silence, like never before. The list was shared and circulated as an open Google document where names and details of incidents can be added anonymously. An editing feature on the document enabled women to do what years of training had taught them not to - speak up about sexual hurt, making the internet a testimony for their critical speech-acts.
The advent
When the Shitty Media List, a spreadsheet listing men allegedly involved in sexual abuse, harassment and predation in the publishing and media industry in New York came out, it was lambasted for being appropriated by the far right, against the liberal media. That any criticism of the people who align with progressive ideologies makes it susceptible to right-wing slander, is a token guilt trip used to shut out valid criticism.
Is the safety and sustenance of any ideology dependent only on a set of prominent names? Does guarding the names of people in the #List, associated with the liberal ideology, help strengthen the ideological school of thought, or is this a reactionary move which doesn't appreciate the importance of being self critical? The tearing hurry to dismiss the list, stems from a definitive failure of not only engaging politically and academically with the #MeToo campaign, but also a complete lack of critical reflection and engagement with one's own politics and worldview.
When the hitherto unheard people gain a voice because of a transnational exchange of information made possible by technological advances and support structures built across national boundaries, the biggest barrier they transcend is, the tutelage of the feminist protagonist - those who believe a social media network circulating names of alleged predators is on account of women's "anger and frustration", or the temptation for "instant vigilante justice".
The New Yorker article on the use of informal communication channels, The Whisper Network after Harvey Weinstein and "Shitty Media Men", discusses why women need whisper networks to warn each other. It is not uncommon for women to pass on "reasonably accurate" information to each other about instances of sexual misconduct by men at the workplace, ranging from predatory to criminal.
But why should women prefer to trust such informal channels over seeking direct legal recourse? Because of the unendurably high costs of outing men in positions of power. The Vanity Fair piece, O'Reilly, "Shitty Media Men," and the Harassment Double Standard, draws from the case of Bill O'Reilly, whose career prospects remained more promising compared to the women who accused him despite news of him settling multiple sexual harassment cases coming out in the public domain. Reilly who was accused of "non-consensual relationship with a former colleague", has been in talks with the Sinclair Broadcast Group despite losing his earlier position at Fox, while many of the women who named him did not have their contracts renewed. Even if perpetrators of sexual harassment are punished by the system, their career prospects do not seem to suffer as much as that of the complainant's.
The narrative popularised by those disenchanted with the cautionary #List is that, it is the outcome of a snail-paced justice system. This narrative fails to take cognisance of the important fact that the adverse costs borne by the complainants even in the instances where justice is successfully delivered, outweighs the cost borne by the convicted people, in positions of power.
Another important cause for this spontaneous call to action is the lack of any institutional means of preventing a range of behaviours which amount to sexual misconduct at the academic workplace. There is a need to address all such acts which do not fall in the category of sexual harassment, but may potentially induce sexual harm. It is not always possible to identify or prevent an act which brings sexual harm, till the time one encounters the moment of explicit or extreme misconduct.
The Facebook testimonials of women who have faced alleged sexual harm from people named in the #List talk about a range of behaviour they were unable to identify till the time they faced a distinct moment of escalated harm. One testimonial reads as follows, "He was a professor in my previous University. I did not simply add him to a list out of anger for this, although I should have (?). He was someone I was hoping would be a friend to me. This is about harassment I faced from a man he introduced me to. A a 'hot jat man' as he put it, Tellis wanted me to introduce him to 'hot girls' in my campus to fuck... After a point the 'Jat man' started asking me for sex directly."
Another testimonial says, "An auto ride from JNU to Priya. Ben told me some theory about how people give out vibes, especially sexual vibes. When I said I don't subscribe to this theory of vibes, I was told how these vibes allow one to judge how good a person would be in bed. Ben told me how I give out strong sexual vibes. This conversation made me really awkward and I decided to change the topic." She further states, "This man had come back and plonked himself in the middle. I don't have any issues sleeping next to men. So I did not think much of it. But then few minutes later, I knew his hands very all over me."
Lack of the ability to check predatory behaviour in its initial stages, makes women more vulnerable to severely harmful acts of sexual misconduct. While cautionary advice can be an effective means of preventing predatory acts, it is in no way a substitute for a larger code of conduct in academic institutions.
Beyond the digital life
#MeToo seeks to redefine how campaigns could innovate upon its methods to enable a transnational exchange of both information and solidarity. Even after being in the news for a while now, the campaign to call out alleged sexual predators is being seen as a fresh phenomenon where technology has come to play a major role in stitching together voices of protest. The incredible potential of this campaign, however, can only be unlocked if its digital life is expanded beyond the virtual and carried forward into inspiring real-time changes. One way of doing so would be to seek a working explanation of what constitutes sexual predation, and especially so in a fiduciary relationship.
In the course of a 1990 verdict in Tapan Ranjan Das vs Smt Jolly Das, the Calcutta High Court read the student-teacher relationship as a fiduciary one, stating that the "proof of good faith is essentially necessary in every transaction where one party is enjoying active confidence because of the fiduciary relationship." It is inadmissible in the eyes of law to take "advantage of the fiduciary relationship" that might result in "yielding considerable influence over the free thinking" of the beneficiary involved, who would be the student in this case of a student-teacher relationship.
The Black's Law Dictionary goes ahead to discuss fiduciary relationship arising "in one of four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognised as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer."
However, so far, the need for a nuanced preventive mechanism, in the form of institutional norms of ethical conduct, to address abusive or predaceous behaviour in a fiduciary relationship has not been recognised by the academic community in India.
It is only imperative to seek a course of action in concrete legal-juridical measures if the instances of predation and abuse are to be prevented. This cannot happen solely in the virtual domain. Nonetheless, it has to be acknowledged that the technology, technique and tools of the new age, have created an aspiration among these young women, of speaking truth to power by experimenting with innovative means for generating awareness and sensitization. This has given them the ability to overcome fears and finally say, #MeToo.