A viral Huffington Post article published Monday lamented that Casey Affleck was able to win an Oscar despite allegations he sexually harassed two women in 2010. These sentiments were echoed by progressives on social media.
“Casey Affleck’s Oscar Win Confirms Harassment Allegations Aren’t Disqualifying,” was the title of the article.
But they’re not supposed to be. That’s why they’re called “allegations.”
“Affleck’s win was not surprising,” the author argued, “but it affirmed what most women in America already know: For white men, allegations of harassment, assault or abuse will not necessarily derail a career or even temporarily set it off course.”
Have we forgotten the meaning of the word “allegations”?
Establishing guilt is the entire point of the justice system.
Affleck’s lawyer dismissed the claims as “total fiction,” and the case was settled out of court nearly seven years ago.
“The sexual harassment issue was never the main issue and was gotten out of the way fairly early in the talks,” a source told TheWrap at the time.
Whether or not you believe Affleck committed harassment, “allegations” alone should not derail a person’s career. Verdicts of guilt should.
It’s unjust for people to suffer career derailment based on allegations that they committed serious crimes. That is exactly what happens when we empower allegations to function as verdicts of guilt, which is a well-documented problem on college campuses.
Rather than using the word “allegations,” critics can make arguments that Affleck won despite credible evidence of his wrongdoing.
It is totally understandable if people believe Affleck’s allegers, and it’s certainly true that the justice system errs, but this sloppy language primes readers to automatically accept mere allegations as guilt. That is not healthy for a fair and just society.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
