Roy Moore, the ick factor and the evidence (1 of 2)

I'm generally reluctant to post on stories in which the "ick" factor is so high as it is on the Roy Moore alleged molestation story reported out first by Stephanie McCrummen, Beth Reinhard and Alice Crites in , Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14, he was 32 11/09/2017.

The accusation is described in some detail there, and repeated many times since, so I won't repeat it here.

But what I'm trying to do in this post is step back and think of how news consumers can think about these stories when they emerge to come up with a critical judgment based on the facts as they are known. A lot of other material has emerged which is consistent with the accuser's claim since that original story appeared. But I'm focusing here on what was known immediately after that initial story.

As always occurs in political campaigns, an allegation like this tends to be embraced by opponents and rejected or called into doubt by supporters of the candidate being accused. I was surprised to see prominent Alabama Republicans rushing right away to saying "it's no big deal" if it happened, rather than sticking with the much safer, "This is a partisan charge from Democrats and there's no proof of it," maybe adding "it doesn't sound at all like the candidate we know." The latter defense may not be particularly admirable but it seems like it would be the more obvious one.

I'm posting on this only after the election has been completed. Because I've been a detractor of Roy Moore ever since I first heard about him. In fact, he was the subject of one of my very first blog posts, Ten Commandments Monument 08/22/2003. Re-reading it now, I much say it was pretty good.

So based on the low opinion I've had of Moore for a long time, I wouldn't have wanted to sound like I was defending him. Also, the WaPo story was consistent with what I've known about Roy Moore by the news of him over the years. It's not hard for me to imagine him having been like that in his 30s.

But on the larger matter of reading the news critically, I was initially reserved about taking the story on its face value. Moore's critics focused on the three women who were between 16 and 18 at the time Moore dated them in his thirties as support for the story about the 14-year-old. I'll have to leave it to the psychologists as to whether that is particularly consistent with the more sensational one.

But on the face of it, a man in his thirties dating 16-18 year olds may be creepy. And I would assume that at the minimum it was a sign of serious immaturity on the part of the man. Especially for someone who had served as an officer in the Vietnam War. But it's not a crime. And it's not child molestation. The three in the initial report said they never went to his house. The story included him buying them alcohol, which was a crime at the time.

But, honestly, who would think that just giving a drink to a 16-, 17- or 18-year-old forty years ago says anything significant about who a person is today?

The allegation from the woman who said Moore had molested her was from when she was 14. The Post reporters did find two friends that she had told at the time about dating an older man, one of them recalling he was named Roy Moore. And they found that the woman's story of how she had met Moore was possible, i.e., that her mother had been in court at that time and that Moore's office was just down the hall from the courtroom at the time.

So I found the story credible. And still do. But it was also forty years ago. And at least in the initial story, there was no contemporary report or record of the specifics of what she alleges happened in Moore's house. From the first WaPo story, it sounds like the victim told her friends at the time only that she was dating an older man. And that's a big reason for statutes of limitation. Memories change and become less reliable.

On the other hand, it's not easy to see how the accuser would think she had anything particular to gain from coming forward with the story, and reason to worry that coming forward could hurt her due to retaliation of some kind by Moore and/or the Republican Party.

And as important as it is to recognize the courage of women who come forth with their stories of sexual harassment against prominent and powerful figures like Harvey Weinstein, sometimes people can and do lie about these things. That's why contemporary evidence or evidence from similar cases is so important in proving allegations like this. In Weinstein's case, there were various witnesses with stories describing a similar modus operandi on Weinstein's part. And in at least some of the cases, the victims had reported it at the time to others. If a company has paid large sums to victims over harassment claims against a particular person, as with more than one famous individual at FOX News, that's also pretty strong evidence for the validity of the claims.

Whether we as the public should believe allegations like this about public figures shouldn't depend on standards as strict as civil or criminal law. Mitt Romney tweeted the day after the story broke:

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) November 10, 2017

But facts do matter. And like for all other kinds of news, critical scrutiny of stories like this is necessary.

Also, in the real world of politics, Roy Moore even before the WaPo report was seen as a potential political burden on other Republicans. Even Donald Trump opposed him in the Republican primary, and Trump is anything but a man of deep integrity and decency. Now, I think Romney's tweet is a perfectly sensible and fair take on the story as it was known on November 10. But that doesn't mean there isn't some conventional political calculation behind it, as well.

Terminology matters

One other point worth noting in reality-checking stories like this. It has become common in the general American vocabulary to refer to any adult of maybe 25 or older having sexual activity with someone below the age of consent as "pedophilia." Medically, however, pedophilia is defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), generally regarded in the US as medically authoritative, "defines pedophilic disorder as when an individual over 16 experiences 'recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)'." (Rachel Hope Cleves and Nicholas Syrett, Roy Moore is not a pedophile Washington Post 11/19/2017)

Cleves and Syrett argue:

The outrage against the Republican Senate candidate from Alabama is entirely fitting, but the terminology is not. Moore is not a pedophile. If you believe his accusers, as we do, he is a powerful man who has serially harassed and even assaulted teenage girls.

The difference matters. Moore’s alleged crime was not a sexual orientation toward children. It was his willingness to exploit the unequal power structures of gender and age to victimize young girls who couldn’t stand up to him. To understand Moore as a monster outside medical or societal norms is to ignore the ways that his position enabled him to take advantage of his alleged victims. Much like the claims of sex addiction offered by other powerful men in recent weeks, accounting for sexual abuse with a diagnosis of pedophilia obscures the way that abusive behavior fits into our everyday sexual system that privileges powerful men to take advantage of the younger, the female and the less powerful.

Understanding mental disorders as well as crimes is important. The common colloquial use of "pedophile" for cases like Roy Moore and the 14-year-old blurs a distinction that mental health professionals regard as important.