What We Ought to Ask Brett Kavanaugh
I want to live in a world where consent is the expected standard for all sexual, romantic, or otherwise intimate human interaction.
That world feels very far away right now. Our current president is at the very least likely* to be a sexual abuser, his Supreme Court nominee shares that ugly likelihood*, and millions of voters seem to think that unrepentant sexual abuse doesn’t disqualify a person from the highest leadership roles in our country. (*I’m saying likely because, if I don’t, people will come at me with “innocent until proven guilty.” Rape culture has twisted the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty into a tool to reinforce the idea that survivors of violence aren’t the experts on their own experiences.)
To get from where we are now to where sexual abuse is rare, easy to report and stop, and not a source of shame for those who are harmed by it, we need to raise our expectations. We need to imagine a better world.
In my work with Practice Makes Progress I teach Anti-Awkward Anti-Harassment, a curriculum that helps employers set affirmative consent as the standard in their workplaces. I’ve seen the hope in people’s eyes when they realize it’s possible. It’s especially moving to watch men realize that they have a way out of causing harm by accident — they can just ask for consent, show they’re safe to say no to, and take no for an answer.
Today, as Christine Blasey Ford undergoes detailed public examination of her trauma, I’m keeping my hope for a better world alive by imagining how I would interview Brett Kavanaugh. This is informed by the process I recommend to HR professionals in my Anti-Awkward Anti-Harassment curriculum in order to explore whether an employee is committed to practicing consent.
That might sound absurdly idealistic, especially today — but is it really? I invite you to think about what of this imagined interview is realistic in the world we live in right now, and what we have the ability to change in the environments we spend our time in so that we can all hold each other accountable to practice consent.
Jill Raney: Hi, Brett. My name is Jill Raney, and today we’ll be discussing your character and whether you’re a cultural fit for this workplace.
Brett Kavanaugh: Hello.
JR: In this workplace, affirmative consent is the expected standard for interaction of a romantic, sexual, or otherwise intimate nature. The job you’re a candidate for holds influence over millions of people, so as a result we expect the highest ethical standards from those who hold the position. Do you understand this expectation for your behavior?
BK: Yes.
JR: Several women have recently said that they experienced you sexually assaulting them or witnessed you sexually assaulting others.
BK: I never did any of that.
JR: Why do you think these women would say so, if none of this ever happened?
BK: I think they have a political vendetta against me.
JR: Are you familiar with the harassment that people often face when they report having experienced sexual abuse?
BK: Not particularly.
JR: False reports of sexual harm are very rare, but conversely it’s very common for people who experience sexual harm not to report that harm. One major reason for this is reasonable fear of retaliation. Anyone who searches Twitter for the names of the people who’ve reported you as a perpetrator of sexual harm will see a great deal of harassment directed at them.
BK: Is there a question?
JR: Let’s start by exploring the testimony of Julie Swetnick. She has reported witnessing you engage in “abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls, including pressing girls against [you] without their consent, ‘grinding’ against girls and attempting to remove or shift girls’ clothing to expose private body parts.”
From your perspective, what happened at these parties?
BK: I never did any of that.
JR: Did you attend parties as a high school student where you witnessed other people doing these things?
BK: Yes.
JR: What did you do when you saw other people doing these things?
BK: I didn’t participate.
JR: What were the power dynamics in the situation?
BK: How do you mean?
JR: It’s a free country, so to speak, and people are legally free to do what they like. But some people have more social capital than others and some might bear higher social costs, like harassment or exclusion, for not participating in activities that those with more social capital want the group to engage in. Who held more social capital and who held less at these parties?
BK: I suppose whoever’s house it was had a certain amount of power, and also bore the risks of people trashing his house.
JR: Was it part of the social contract that if you got too drunk and “trashed his house” you would be expected to make amends for that?
BK: I didn’t do that, but generally, yes, a person who acted badly was expected to fix it.
JR: Would you say that it was acting badly to spike the punch with alcohol?
BK: I never did that.
JR: I didn’t ask whether you did that. Was it generally acceptable at these parties for people to add alcohol to the punch?
BK: It was a high school party, we were kids, yes we drank alcohol.
JR: Was it generally acceptable to for a person to add alcohol to someone else’s drink without their knowledge?
BK: Again, it was a high school party, we were kids.
JR: So adding alcohol to someone else’s drink without their knowledge was something that sometimes happened at these parties?
BK: Yes.
JR: What did you do about that?
BK: What do you mean?
JR: Did you make any effort to stop someone from adding alcohol to someone else’s drink without their knowledge, or to inform someone that another person had spiked their drink?
BK: Not that I recall.
JR: Why not?
BK: Other people’s behavior is not my responsibility.
JR: Interesting. Let’s move on.
Christine Blasey Ford reports vivid recollection of your “uproarious laughter” during the sexual assault she describes you committing against her.
BK: I never did that.
JR: Do you remember spending time with her at a party and laughing?
BK: Not particularly.
JR: In the interactions you did have with Ford, what did you do to show her you would stop engaging in intimate behavior with her if it made her uncomfortable?
BK: I didn’t assault her.
JR: Yes, you’ve said. What I’m asking is, how did you show her you were safe to say no to?
BK: I didn’t put a gun to her head, if that’s what you mean.
JR: What was your reputation, generally, when it came to other young people you spent time with during this part of your life?
BK: People liked me.
JR: What about your reputation specifically with people you were interested in romantically?
BK: I was a virgin in high school, and for many years after.
JR: Ok. When you spent time with people you were interested in romantically during this part of your life, what steps did you take to understand their boundaries and earn their trust that you would respect their boundaries?
BK: I don’t understand the question.
JR: Let’s move on.
You clerked for appeals court judge Alex Kozinski in the early 1990s and are reported to have had a close relationship with him. Several women have reported experiencing sexually harassing behavior from Kozinski. Did you know anything about Kozinski engaging in sexually harassing behavior while you worked for him?
BK: No.
JR: It was an open secret for years and known to men who clerked for other judges in the Ninth Circuit. Kozinski is reported to have done several creepy things in the office where you worked. You didn’t have an inkling that Kozinski was causing your colleagues harm?
BK: No.
JR: Does it strike you as strange that your colleagues wouldn’t mention to you that this harmful and disruptive behavior was going on in your workplace?
BK: No, it doesn’t seem relevant.
JR: Interesting.
BK: Hold on there, young lady.
JR: I’m not a lady, I’m nonbinary. Please don’t refer to me like that.
BK: What?
JR: I’m not a woman, I’m nonbinary.
BK: What do you mean?
JR: You referred to me using a gendered term that is discordant with my gender. I’m asking you not to misgender me. Please only use non-gendered terms when referring to me.
BK: Ok.
JR: The exchange you and I just had is an example of how personal boundaries come up in professional settings. You and I might not have further contact after today, but if we did, or if you were to refer to me in conversation with others, the expectation is that you would not use gendered terms when referring to me. Do you agree?
BK: Yes.
JR: Are you aware that misgendering someone can cause them harm?
BK: No, that term is new to me. So is nonbinary, I don’t know what that means.
JR: The particulars of my gender are outside the scope of this interview, but it’s important to note here that in the position for which you’re a candidate, you would interact with people with a wide variety of life experiences, preferences, and needs. It’s a core skill of the job to be able to show respect for others’ boundaries even when you don’t understand those boundaries. Do you agree?
BK: Ok.
JR: When you gain a new colleague who you will be working with closely, what steps do you take to understand their boundaries and earn their trust that you will respect their boundaries?
BK: When someone asks me not to do something that’s not a necessary part of my job, I stop doing it.
JR: Is there any time in your life where you have violated someone’s boundaries for which you would now like to apologize and show that you’re committed to never doing that again?
BK: I’ve already said I didn’t rape anyone. It seems like you’ve already made up your mind about me. What about due process?
JR: It’s extremely uncommon for people to fabricate reports of sexual harm, especially such severe sexual harm, but it does sometimes happen. That’s why you and I are talking, so that we can explore your attitudes and behavior from your perspective.
BK: Is there anything I can say that won’t have you assuming I’m a rapist?
JR: What I’m looking for here is a consistent track record of concern for the impacts of your behavior on other people, and consistent effort on your part to practice consent and to hold others accountable to do the same.
BK: So I need to have never made a mistake?
JR: Everyone makes mistakes. Have you made mistakes when it comes to practicing consent?
BK: Everyone makes mistakes, apparently.
JR: If a person, not you, had made mistakes when it comes to practicing consent, why do you think they would be reticent to admit to their mistakes and apologize?
BK: Such an apology could constitute admission of guilt in a legal proceeding.
JR: Why do you think someone who has experienced sexual harm would want an apology from the perpetrator of that harm?
BK: I don’t know, I’ve never experienced sexual harm.
JR: Why do you think someone who has experienced a different kind of harm, whether illegal or not, would want an apology from the person responsible?
BK: I suppose it could provide a sense of justice, to know that the person responsible understands that what they did was wrong.
JR: The purpose of this interview is to determine whether you are worthy of trust that you will practice consent while holding this position which wields enormous power and influence over the millions of people affected by your judicial decisions as well as over the people with whom you will interact personally during your term. Several women report having experienced you sexually harming them, which you deny. Beyond that, your track record shows a failure to intervene, or even to notice, when others who respected you practiced non-consent against other people in your vicinity. You seem unconcerned for the traumas that others around you have experienced, and you were unable to answer how you gain others’ trust that you will respect their boundaries. Given all this evidence, why do you think we should trust you to practice consent?
BK:
I’m posting this piece shortly before Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the sexual harm Christine Blasey Ford and others have reported he caused them. I and millions of other survivors of sexual harm are bracing for what is emerging to be an investigation into who is more credible, Ford or Kavanaugh, and, if these Senators decide Ford is more credible, whether her experience is pertinent to Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS appointment. I believe those are the wrong questions to ask.
Trying to rape someone and then lying about it ought to disqualify a person from a position of power. I share this imagined interview in the hope that someday we will agree as a society that practicing consent is a baseline requirement of any job that involves interaction with other humans.
