Power Imbalances and the Issue of Consent
On August ninth, the College Democrats of Massachusetts Twitter account released a statement about an email they had sent to Alex Morse informing him that he would no longer be welcome at their events. In the statement, they say that Morse, the Mayor of Holyoke and candidate for the MA-01 Congressional seat, engaged in behaviors that made students uncomfortable, and that these behaviors included engaging in sexual relations with multiple students. These allegations have caused a stir among those following his campaign online, as well as a discussion of the morality of age gaps in relationships. The question of age gaps is only one part of the important dialogue that these allegations should open.
What happened, and when?
As is so often the case with events like these, the details are vague and likely impossible to prove. Proving the allegations is not the point. We must make it a point to believe survivors whenever they come forward, and this is no exception, in spite of — or indeed because of — the high-profile nature of the accused perpetrator.
Because the details are sparse, dates and other specifics are hard to nail down. The College Democrats allege that Morse would attend their events, meet students, and then seek them out on their personal social media platforms. Students further allege that he matched with them on Tinder. Finally, students allege — and Alex Morse himself confirmed — that he had engaged in sexual relations with multiple students. Mayor Morse is currently thirty-one years old. In 2014, he was employed as a lecturer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst; he has been mayor of Holyoke since 2011. If we assume that he did not begin to involve himself with UMass Amherst students until he was employed there, he would have been at least twenty-five when he began these sexual pursuits.
A twenty-five year old seeking out sexual relations with young adults, potentially as young as eighteen, is problematic even without external considerations. However, the external considerations are what I want to focus on here. Yes, the age gap is tricky; a twenty-five year old is in a very different place in life than the average college student, and that should be taken into account in this dialogue, although it does not immediately invalidate consent in and of itself. But Alex Morse was and remains the Mayor of Holyoke; he was, for several years, a lecturer at a large state university; his name has been in the news for almost a decade. The age gap is an important point to discuss, but it’s hardly the only important point.
Let’s talk about power imbalances.
No relationship is perfectly equal. That would be an unreasonable expectation. Most heterosexual relationships are markedly unequal by virtue of patriarchal gender dynamics alone, without even accounting for the particular external considerations which apply to every individual relationship. It is worth noting here that Alex Morse is not heterosexual — he’s gay. Other than noting that his relationships lack the common heterosexual power imbalance, his sexuality is of little note to this discussion.
Why are power imbalances important to examine? They impact consent, both sexual and otherwise. Consider the following. You’re a progressive young man attending UMass Amherst. You grew up in Holyoke, and you’ve kind of idolized Mayor Morse since you became involved in politics in high school. You might even have a little bit of a crush on him — he’s openly gay, he’s fit, and his persona is very charismatic. To top it all off, you got a spot in a political science class he’s teaching. One night, you’re swiping absentmindedly through Tinder, and you match with… Mayor Morse. You probably laugh it off, probably start to move on. And then he messages you.
What do you do? You want a career in progressive politics, probably starting off local, and Mayor Morse is an immensely important figure in local Massachusetts progressive politics. And now he wants to have sex with you. Sure, you were into it in theory, but now it’s time to convert theory to practice. You consider saying no, and then realize that maybe that’s not actually an option. Maybe, if you say no, he’ll remember you. Maybe when you’re running for office in five years he’ll ruin your chances. Maybe he’ll grade your papers worse. Maybe he’ll just talk shit about you to his political colleagues. Either way, even if you probably didn’t want to say no, you’re suddenly aware that you couldn’t say no.
Now let’s drop the hypothetical and acknowledge that most people don’t consciously think like that. Most people would just be a bundle of emotions, unable to accurately interrogate their thoughts and opinions until after the fact. The nagging feeling in the back of their minds doesn’t fully express itself until it’s too late to take the action back, at which point they realize that they were put in a position they couldn’t have worked their way out of. This does not mean that the power imbalance did not impact their consent — it means that they didn’t realize that the power imbalance was influencing their decision while they were making it.
Mayor Morse released a statement addressing these allegations, in which he admits to having sexual relations with students, although he stresses that the sexual relations were consensual. The reason this dialogue is so complex is that no one is accusing Mayor Morse of violent rape; rather, the allegations state that he abused his power to attain their consent. A further complication arises if we take Mayor Morse at his word, and acknowledge that he may have sincerely believed in the consensual nature of the sex. Power is often invisible. Morse may have thought of himself as just another person — he’s not that much older than them, and sure, he’s a mayor, and sure, he’s a professor, but this is after hours! Surely that means that he’s lost his power over these students.
Except it doesn’t, as anyone on the outside can readily attest. Again, even if we assume that he acted with the best intentions, whether or not he would have actually carried out a conscious retribution against a student who had rejected him is mostly immaterial. The threat is there; the possibility is there. It is that fear, whether acknowledged or not, whether justified or not, that problematizes the notion of consent.
So is consent impossible where power imbalances are present?
Not at all. Most, if not all, relationships are marred by some combination of power imbalances. Whether the imbalances spring from wealth, social status, or any other external consideration, they are almost ubiquitous. This is not to say that consent is impossible to grant. Rather, the validity of consent and the magnitude of the power imbalance can be thought of as in an inverse relationship. At some point, the threat of retribution becomes too great not to consider it, and whether consciously or not, the more vulnerable party makes their decision to consent on the basis of that threat. To be perfectly frank, I can’t quantify where the power imbalance becomes too overwhelming to consider the consent genuine; all I can do is acknowledge that Morse’s victims feel that he crossed that line, and that if they, the granters of consent, believe that, then it is true.
As this dialogue has developed over the past few days, several young adults have argued that only the vulnerable party knows whether their consent is valid or not, and that to suggest otherwise is to infantilize the vulnerable party. This is not so. To claim that any human possesses perfect self-knowledge is hubristic, and our self-knowledge gets considerably weaker when emotions and sex are involved. We are all under the constant influence of incalculable social forces. This is why, for example, we criticize masculinity rather than men — when men do shitty things to women, it is often (though not always) a result of centuries of patriarchal rule and the accumulation of the expectations of toxic masculinity. These factors come together to shape the actions of men, and men typically don’t realize this unless prompted by some external source. The same can be said for granting consent. The vulnerable party may think it is a simple decision, or even a very grave one, one that they made with much conscious consideration, but they will be unable to accurately note the many social forces acting on them that led them to make the decision they made. This is not a statement against the intelligence or maturity of the vulnerable party; it is a statement on human nature.
Age gaps are not inherently bad. Dating a Mayor is not inherently bad. Dating a professor (when you’re not a student) is not inherently bad. However, a mid- to late-twenty-something Mayor and professor having sex with several of his students and admirers and then hiding behind the expressed consent of his partners without acknowledging the influence his position had on that consent is predatory and inexcusable.
So what’s the deal with everyone defending Alex Morse?
Several respected public figures have vehemently defended Morse. Glenn Greenwald, an accomplished journalist with The Intercept, began a lengthy Twitter thread in which he mocks the concerns of power imbalances influencing consent: “Pete Buttigieg met Chasten on a dating app when Pete was a big powerful Mayor in his 30s. Chasten was just a childish powerless grad student almost a decade younger. The power differential & age gap made this like assault, consent impossible. Solidarity with Chasten, a survivor.” He then carried on to sarcastically remark that “Woke ideologues know better about other adults’ lives (whom they don’t know) than the adults themselves. Chasten suffers from false consciousness, from trauma” and to lash out against “ busybody sexual-moralizing liberal/leftists who want to control and judge the consensual private lives of other adults,” calling the concern “rot.”
Greenwald refuses to acknowledge the validity of the issue of imperfect self-knowledge I raised above, and also seems to dismiss the notion of false consciousness, which is strange for a supposedly socialist journalist. He also repeatedly claims that there was no power imbalance in the relationship, and implies that the concerns have only been raised because Morse is a queer leftist. As a queer leftist, I can rebut that implication. He argues that because Morse did not sleep with any of his own students — a fact which has not been verified by anyone but Greenwald himself — there was no power imbalance. This is as absurd as claiming that there is no power imbalance between a Mayor and a graduate student. However, I will grant Greenwald this: Pete and Chasten don’t represent the same kind of power imbalance that Morse and the students of UMass Amherst do. Chasten didn’t work for City Hall when he married Pete; Pete hadn’t (to my knowledge) served as a role model for Chasten for years prior to their marriage. No one other than Greenwald is making the comparison between the two cases, because Greenwald would rather make false comparisons than address the issue in good faith. It’s worth noting here that Greenwald himself is a gay man in a relationship with a large age gap, and may feel that he has a personal stake in this debate.
Matt Taibbi, another leftist journalist and author, took his response a step further than Greenwald by publishing a piece on his substack called “The New Puritans.” Taibbi writes off concerns of power imbalances as “[reading like] a parody of post-millennial paranoia” and argues that Morse is not someone who “actually has power over [these students].” He again insists that the College Democrats of MA are relying on homophobic tropes, and ultimately concludes that young leftists are turning into right-wing puritanical grifters.
Then he concludes his article with a quote from Woody Allen, which calls into question his understanding of sexual assault.
To address his arguments directly: claiming that a Massachusetts Mayor and political science professor does not have power over young adults in Massachusetts, even without considering that these are politically-interested leftist students who may want to enter politics one day, is absurd. I would like to emphasize again that these sexual encounters are not concerning because of the guarantee of retribution on Morse’s part, but rather the threat of it. As to Taibbi’s claim, which Greenwald echoes, that young leftists are becoming indistinguishable from puritanical right-wingers because of these concerns, I would argue that anyone who thinks raising issues of power imbalances and consent is puritanical or conservative should re-examine their own deeply-held beliefs regarding consent. Self-criticism, after all, is one of the most foundational aspects of leftist thought.
The problem with Morse’s behavior is not that he is an old man preying on the youths, nor is it that he is a Mayor, nor is it that he is a professor. No one is claiming that he committed statutory rape — his victims were all adults, yes, and legally, he did nothing wrong, but since when have leftists used American law as a moral compass? The problem arises from the confluence of the age gap, his Mayorship, and his position at the university, all factors which combine to create an unbridgeable power gap between him and his victims.
Ultimately, I don’t believe that the defenses of Morse necessarily come from personal moral failings. I’m certainly not accusing Greenwald of being in a non-consensual relationship. I think that these responses come from a deep-seated urge to protect leftists from censure. The fact that the journalists defending Morse are accomplished leftist public figures implies to me that, had this story dropped about a conservative, they would have had much more nuanced social analyses of the situation. Their instinct to rally to the defense of “one of their own,” so to speak, has overpowered their ability to practice critical support. They can brook no criticisms of Morse. He must be above it all, because he will be a powerful voice for progressive politics in Congress, regardless of whether or not he will go on to prey on more young staffers upon his election win — but then, he would be sure to avoid sleeping with his own staffers, so there would be no power imbalance to speak of, I’m sure.
Being a leftist does not make you a good person. Being a leftist does not mean that you can’t abuse your power. In fact, influential organizers abusing their power among leftist groups for personal (often sexual) gain is a problem endemic to the left. Calling out these individuals who abuse their power will only make our movements stronger and more inclusive, but rabidly denying their abuses will tear us apart. In case it wasn’t clear: I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, Alex Morse’s predatory and indefensible behaviors. We don’t need sexual predators in our movement, nor do we need people who leap to their defense.
Never forget to practice critical support, comrades, and most importantly, believe survivors.
Sources:
https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/08/10/morse-denies-violation-umass-congressional-race
https://dailycollegian.com/2020/08/college-democrats-allege-inappropriate-misconduct-between-holyoke-mayor-alex-morse-and-college-students/
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1292436711742545920
https://twitter.com/CollegeDemsofMA/status/1292521048861220864
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-new-puritans
