Anita Hill on Harvey Weinstein Reversal: “Our Movement Will Persist”
This week’s reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s conviction sent shockwaves through survivor communities. It’s grossly ironic, if not outright cynical, that the release comes during Sexual Assault Awareness Month; it says volumes about the contemporary reality of sexual assault and the limits of legal protections against it.
The case forces us to acknowledge that societal misconceptions about sexual violence continue to abound, providing support for the myth that women can’t be trusted to be truthful about being sexually assaulted. These same fallacies find their way into our justice system, corrupting jurors’ understandings of the legal concepts of consent, relevance and credibility, and what it means to have reasonable doubt.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
Harvey Weinstein Hospitalized After His Rape Conviction Was Overturned in New York
Harvey Weinstein Set to Make New York Court Appearance May 1
At the heart of the Court’s decision is the ruling that testimony of women who alleged that Weinstein had committed similar prior sexual acts against them was inadmissible. The Court concluded that, rather than offering context for the behavior that three named complainants testified to, the experiences of other women were irrelevant and prejudicial to Weinstein — no matter how similar those experiences were.
But there is another way of looking at this additional testimony — one that is astutely cited by the dissents. In her dissent, Judge Madeline Singas made a compelling argument that the contextual evidence provided in the trial was necessary to rebut antiquated notions about sexual violence that persist in society and among jurors; she noted that the majority opinion “whitewash[es] the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative” — one person’s testimony against another’s, each carrying equal weight. Judge Anthony Cannataro concluded in a separate dissent that “the majority decision represented an unfortunate step backwards from … our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated … endangering decades of progress in this incredibly complex and nuanced area of law.”
Further, the majority seemingly failed to understand the power that the Oscar winner wielded in his own company and exhibited throughout the industry. In the Hollywood Commission’s surveys of over 13,000 entertainment workers, participants recognized the primary offenders are in powerful positions to influence who gets hired, who gets to keep a job, and can, and often do damage the reputations of those who complain. This power inequity often “makes it impossible for victims to come forward” and perpetuates the lack of accountability. Which is why complainants in criminal cases need the context that others who have had similar experiences can provide.
The majority opinion reflects one view of justice; the dissents another. While we can thank movements like #MeToo for creating an awareness of the pervasive reality of sexual violence, the Court’s interpretation of the law marks a disturbing setback. Unless and until the New York decides to retry Weinstein, for now this case defines survivor justice for the state of New York.
But that does not mean that this decision will be the final word for victims and survivors. As they have participated in the movement against sexual violence, trauma survivors have, over time, developed their own vision of justice; in her recent book Truth and Repair, renowned trauma expert and psychiatry professor Judith L. Herman writes that if “secrecy and denial are first line of abusers’ defense,” then public truth telling and “recognizing the survivor’s claim to justice must be the moral community’s first act of solidarity.” Indeed, the Weinstein case may be a rallying cry, to survivors and their communities!
Now, communities must decide how they will ensure justice for sexual abuse survivors.
In my work with the entertainment industry to end sexual harassment and abuse, I have come to understand the power of this community to change and its commitment to workplaces that do not tolerate sexual aggression and violence, eschew the code of silence around sexual abuse, and value the voices of survivors. Entertainment workplaces are raising the awareness of workers about unacceptable behavior in the workplace, informing workers about how to share concerns, explaining the process that takes place if workers come forward and what retaliation is and what can be done about it. This demonstrates an effort across the industry to raise the bar. In our surveys, over 90 percent of entertainment workers wanted bystander intervention training. What this tells us is that workers want an end to sexual abuses and are willing to invest their time to learn how they can help make that a reality. It tells us that workers want to be allies in solving the problems of harassment and assault. The days of the casting couch can never be tolerated, and victims should not be left alone to solve what is a community problem.
While many survivors and victims of sexual assault and rape may feel abandoned by the Court, we all can play a role in assuring them that they are not alone. Everyone who wants to see the end of sexual violence must know that no single legal ruling can ever upend the tremendous progress we have made together. By the truth of our testimonies, our movement will persist. And changes to our systems and culture will follow.
Dr. Anita Hill is chair and president of the Hollywood Commission, founded in 2017 to tackle abuse in the entertainment industry, a university professor at Brandeis University, and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Women’s Law Center. Her congressional testimony alleging she was sexually harassed by Justice Clarence Thomas prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court changed the national conversation around workplace abuse and power disparity.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
