Last week, lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee went after Neomi Rao, Trump’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit Court, for a number of her college writings. While many were harmlessly provocative, most questionable was an article lamenting “hysteria over date rape.” The article included commonsense advice for responsible drinking, but also a brief passage that noted, “And if she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice,” implying that an intoxicated woman would share “moral responsibility” if she became a victim of assault.
To be clear, Rao wrote that as an undergraduate in college and has since spent over two decades studying, practicing, and teaching the law. She surely understands the very basic and widely accepted standard that incapacitation impedes ability to consent and the moral and legal culpability of a rape rests on the shoulders of the perpetrator not the victim.
But still, given that the appointment is for a lifetime, senators were correct to question her on the writings and ensure that she no longer stands by those less palatable passages. Rao gave an unequivocal apology and retraction during her questioning, and that was sufficient.
But Rao has now sent a letter to the committee expounding on her apology, and to put it frankly, it’s perfect. Politicians across the country should pay attention and take note of the anatomy of her flawless letter.
Rao begins by definitively apologizing, not trying to explain away or employ whataboutism to justify her former argument. She instead explains specifically why victim-blaming is always wrong, conceding that her words may not have only hurt the feelings of her classmates, but that they may have “discourage[d] a victim from coming forward or from seeking help.” She then goes on to explain that this came from ignorance, not malice, and that if she were to revisit these issues now, she would “have more empathy and perspective.”
We cannot expect any politician or judicial nominee to have an unimpeachable past, nor should we. Humans are ignorant by nature, but also worthy of the opportunity to learn, apologize, and earn total forgiveness. While there’s certainly a difference between saying awful things and doing violent ones, people who have done the former due to ignorance or even due to hate should be allowed to redeem themselves as long as it comes from the heart.
Rao’s apology was about as close to a textbook model for how to exemplify evolution, self-betterment, and grace. She admitted she was wrong, explained why she was wrong, and has spent the subsequent decades of her life doing better.
Her initial explanation during her hearing was good enough, but that she didn’t even have to elaborate made her secondary apology all the more meaningful. Her letter demonstrated a moral courage and humility few in politics share. Given the number of careers scalped by past errors these days, it’s a hopeful instruction for how to own up to the very sin all of us commit: being human.
