Dem
53
Ties
2
GOP
45
This is a soul-crushing sort of item to write, and one we've been putting off. But we can do so no longer.
Most readers will know, by now, that Cornell University is enmeshed in a rape scandal. The short version (read the Wikipedia article if you want full details) is that a female student, who is being referred to by the pseudonym Jane Doe, was out with a group of friends on a weekend night and became significantly impaired by alcohol and ketamine. She then went to a gathering at one of Cornell's fraternities, where she was plied with further substances, and at least seven members of the fraternity raped her. Inasmuch as she was completely intoxicated, and could not give consent, there is no question this was rape. Further, there were contemporaneous text and Internet messages sent among members of the fraternity in which they made remarks like "free pu**y upstairs" and "Like you can walk in and whip it out.... Boys come whip it out."
Nonetheless, the next day, the victim exchanged friendly text messages with some of her attackers, and even told one of them that "non [sic] of the sexual stuff was illegal." It took a few weeks until things fully crystallized in her mind, and she filed a report with the university police. That delay (meaning no DNA evidence could be collected), plus the friendly text messages, persuaded prosecutors that they could not secure a conviction, and so they declined to pursue the matter. Meanwhile, the university conducted an investigation under the auspices of its Title IX office. It was reasonably thorough, and it did result in two of the rapists being expelled from the school. On the other hand, others got off with a slap on the wrist, like being ordered to attend a sexual harassment course and write a reflective essay on what they had learned. Doe, for her part, was not entirely clear that the criminal prosecution had been dropped. But once she understood that there would be no day in (criminal) court, and once the Title IX process had concluded with less-than-satisfactory results, she decided to file a lawsuit. The suit was filed on September 16, and the incident quickly became a national story.
We imagine that the many of our readers who are academics are not surprised by any of this. The drinking/drug culture at universities, coupled with people who are old enough to have adult hormones, but not old enough to have adult restraint, produces way too many incidents like this. And universities, particularly the private ones—who have considerably less legal duty to report crime statistics to government authorities—tend to be very eager to keep things on the down-low as much as is possible, since there is nothing worse for PR than sexual assault. And Title IX offices are often ineffective, at least in part because they don't have the range of tools (e.g., subpoenas) that government prosecutors have. Another part of it is that, in the end, the paychecks of the people who work for the Title IX office are signed by the university. So, they aren't always 100% neutral parties, and their justice isn't always blind.
But we are a politics site, not a public policy site, and so it's the politics that we really need to talk about here. Almost from the moment that this became national news, the story was—predictably—politicized. On the Democratic side, from Gov. Kathy Hochul (NY) on down, there was outrage, and steps were taken to re-open the criminal investigation. It is possible this response was genuine, it is possible it was calculated, it is possible that it was both, we don't know.
On the Republican side, quite a few folks took the side of the rapists. That includes the rapist-in-all-but-name-in-chief Donald Trump, who has personalized this. He is furious that Hochul asked Trump nemesis Letitia James to take up the matter, and has said and tweeted (well, truthed) that he is worried the rapists won't get a "fair shake." And compared to other voices on the right, Trump's response was restrained. The always-obnoxious podcaster Matt Walsh declared that everything that happened was consensual, and that Doe's response is only because she feels guilt. His conclusion: "Since her real problem is guilt, not trauma, the real solution is to repent of her sins." This kind of stuff is all over social media, with the various edge lords, proud boys, incels, and others repeating the claim that it was consensual, or otherwise asserting that Doe "deserved it" because she got drunk/dressed provocatively. There is also a massive effort underway to doxx Jane Doe, so she can be harassed, intimidated, or worse.
And that brings us to our next story. Bernadette Greene-Placentia (D) is currently running for the House, challenging Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ) in the R+8 AZ-08. One of her regular tasks is to repair campaign signs that line the roadways of her district, and on one late Friday night, while she was doing so, she was assaulted, knocked unconscious, and raped by two men. One of them, according to the candidate, called her a "Democratic bit**." She initially preferred to forget the whole thing, but was eventually persuaded by her campaign staff and her husband to make a report. An investigation is ongoing.
Undoubtedly, readers can see where this is headed. The story did not get reported until October 7, well after the incident took place. The timing, relative to the Cornell case, is probably not coincidental; the Greene-Placentia story certainly served to localize the issue of sexual assault. Hamadeh, to his credit, offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the identity of the assailants. Whether he did that out of genuine feeling, or because it was politic, we don't know, but either way it was the right thing to do. By contrast, many of Hamadeh's fellow MAGA adherents have been vicious in their attacks upon Greene-Placentia. There are the usual declarations that she consented, or that she brought it on herself. There is also a widespread conspiracy theory, based on the part about her being called a "Democratic bit**," that it's a hoax she cooked up in order to engender sympathy among voters and to make Republicans look bad.
And finally, that brings us to the news that forced us to write up this item, and to stop delaying. Amy Acton (D), currently running for governor in Ohio, is also a victim of sexual assault. In her case, it happened when she was 12, and was perpetrated by her then-stepfather. Although he was charged, he was released on bond and was not prosecuted because mom and stepdad skipped town. Meanwhile, Acton and her younger brother were removed from their mother's custody due to the general climate of abuse and filth. The candidate has been estranged from her mother ever since; since she is now 60 that means it's been nearly half a century.
Well, guess who just re-entered the chat? Acton has led her opponent, Vivek Ramaswamy (R), in nearly every poll released this month, sometimes by close to double digits. The aggregators have her up by an average of 4 points. And so, in a move that can only be described as both despicable and desperate, the Ramaswamy campaign just dropped a new ad featuring the World's Greatest Mom:
Sorry, because it's new, we couldn't find a better version to embed. Here's a transcript:
My name is Donna Arthur and I'm Amy Acton's mother. I worked at Children and Family Service Association, building one of the first two sexual abuse programs in America. I love my daughter, but when I saw her lying about her opponent... it's not easy for a mother to say this, but Amy has a serious problem. She is a liar. She lies about her past. She says she grew up living in a tent. None of that is true. She's lied her entire life. My daughter needs help. And she can't help you if she needs help herself. People can change, but first they have to tell the truth. And my daughter still isn't doing that. Don't vote for people who lie. Don't let her become your governor. If you think she'll make your life better, you're fooling yourself. It will only get worse.
Acton's brother has already spoken up and confirmed his sister's version of events, by the way, including the tent.
It is hard to believe anyone could take this ad seriously. First, a mother who allowed her daughter to be in the presence of, and to be victimized by, a child molester is not exactly a reliable narrator. Further, even if the young Amy was a serial liar, how can the mother know that continued into adulthood? And finally, does anyone doubt that Ramaswamy wrote a fat check in order to secure mom's participation?
Still, the Ramaswamy campaign is leaning very hard into the ad, attacking Acton as a "serial fabulist" (who is doing the writing for these people?). A Ramaswamy spokesman decreed: "This is a campaign-ending moment for Amy Acton. The people who know her best keep warning Ohioans about her." That is quite a statement, especially since the Acton campaign has already released a response ad recorded by her brother. You can view it here; he says that the abuse was real, and that as bad as it was for him, she got the worst of it. By our count, that is the one person who knows her best and who says she's truthful, and one person who doesn't know her at all, and says she's a liar. Perhaps readers will reach a different conclusion, but we know who we believe.
We heard from quite a few readers yesterday who were rightly horrified by the Ramaswamy ad. For example, P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, who wrote, "Republicans proving yet again that they are the enablers and protectors of child molesters and abusers." We suspect that all of the incidents addressed here are going to remind voters, particularly women voters, right before an election, that the Republicans have a real problem when it comes to believing women, and that the problem starts at the tip-top of the Party. We think that is particularly true in Ohio, where there is outrage on both sides of the aisle about the Ramaswamy ad. Far from saving his campaign, it's very possible that the Republican just destroyed it. We'll be very interested to see the polling next week. (Z)