As members of the 2013 Appeals Committee (AC) we are writing to apologize for

our participation in those events. We are profoundly sorry for our part, and
deeply shaken by our own failures. We are committed to accountability for our
actions, and as part of that, we believe that we have a responsibility to discuss
the part of the case involving the AC. We therefore want to lay out what see as
some critical facts, and also take responsibility for not rejecting the distorted and
limited way the complaint was framed.
When we received the case in July of 2013, the email from Sharon S, who
would act as a reference point through the proceedings, was a garble of legal
jargon, personal details about BOTH the complainant and respondent, and
instructions on how to select the committee. We were told that the National
Disciplinary Committee’s (NDC) handling of the case had ended in “mistrial” “due
to number of flaws in the investigation and hearing process,” but it was never
explained to us. We were told nothing about the NDC’s process, the fact that the
NDC had concluded that a rape had taken place, or the fact that the NDC had
voted to expel Joe R. We therefore started with no prior information about how
that investigation proceeded, and no knowledge of the fact that that there were
serious questions about the culture of the branch.
Shortly thereafter we received an email entitled “Specific Instructions for
case” (see attached) that made some truly incredible claims, like: “It is ultimately
the Steering Committee’s responsibility to ensure that all the structures of the
organization operate in a democratic manner—and this means formality and
impartiality are fundamental aspects of trying a disciplinary case.” As AC
members we took this incredibly seriously—we abided by the restrictions laid out
because we felt the weight of the organization was on our shoulders.
We were coached to not speak to each other outside of conference calls
about the case, to not speak to members of the National Disciplinary Committee,
and that “time is of the essence.” We were told that we should not deliberate on
the case too much before the hearing, so as to not prejudice the case. We were
instructed to investigate a “single incident of rape”. Considering other information,
such as the drunken party before midnight, was out of bounds.
We were explicitly instructed not to consider the context surrounding the
incident. This included the line that “the statistical likelihood of whether a crime
occurred is inadmissible evidence.” We were told that, in our interviews with
witnesses, “Questions such as ‘Is he/she quick to anger?’ Or ‘Do you think your
branch has a culture of sexism?’ violate the rules and procedures.” With
hindsight, we can say that it is simply un-Marxist to look at an allegation of sexual
violence in isolation of its context. Looking back, it was obvious that we should
have rejected these instructions altogether, and it is embarrassing that we did
not.
The contradiction between our politics of solidarity with the survivors, and
the instructions guiding the process that we were following--which was
profoundly confusing at the time--is clear now. Having read the Former
Comrade’s document, and learning about conversations that took place on the
2013 Steering Committee about the case, we believe that the instructions were
written--and the process designed--to make it impossible prove that the
respondent had committed rape. That explains why there was another
instruction that reads: “The rules clearly state that prior sexual history of either
complainant or respondent is inadmissible as evidence.” If a person has a
history of committing sexual assault, that actually is relevant to a case
investigating an allegation of the same offense. But we read that instruction as
something to protect survivors and women who face slut shaming. We now,
however, believe that it--and other arguments about “due process”--served to
protect those who commit rape.
Both the “Special Instructions” and notes from our calls with Sharon
underlined that we could only use evidence we gathered (statements, interviews)
about the incident--at which there were no witnesses. The “Special Instructions”
read: “You have received two written statements, one from the complainant and
one from the respondent, depicting two entirely different accounts of what took
place...The statements constitute evidence in and of themselves, but cannot BY
THEMSELVES constitute sufficient evidence for a finding” (caps in the
original). It was therefore impossible to conclude that a rape had happened
unless some witness suddenly remembered Joe confessing his guilt to them.
Despite these parameters, we attempted in good faith to proceed. We
had no training and no background in assessing sexual assault. We were never
elected to do so, as the purpose of the Appeals Committee was not to hear
cases, but to evaluate the processes of disciplinary cases and consider whether
they were handled properly. But again, we were given zero information about the
NDC’s process with this case. Instead, we were assigned the case, the evidence
for it was dropped in our laps, and we inexpertly moved forward. Again and again
we expressed discomfort at the process and raised questions about the
guidelines. It is horrible to read the details of a rape, and utterly dismaying to do
so in the context of your socialist organization. It was a depressing and
confusing obligation that we were committed to see through for the benefit of the
organization.
We considered getting an expert witness since none of us felt confident in
our ability to assess the complainant’s statement—did it ring true to someone
more familiar with dynamics of date rape? While one of the authors of this
document proposed it, we were discouraged from that path. What basis it was
argued away is unclear, but we are sorry to say that we accepted the decision
without a significant fight. We literally did not know what we were doing, and the
weight of the previous mistrial weighed on us. There were subtle cues from
Sharon that we wouldn’t make the same mistakes as the NDC by going outside
the bounds of what was permissible.
We were led to believe that the NDC and Sharon were the only people,
outside the parties directly involved that knew the details of the case. To find out
six years later that the case was the subject of discussions, in which SC
members were screaming at each other, in one case about personal details of
the complainant’s family member, is beyond comprehension. To be used so
obviously as tool and to have the same people who were subverting and
maligning the process look you in the eye, rub your back inappropriately, and
play at being comrades FOR YEARS is infuriating.
But it is also humiliating.
What weighs on us now was our obedience. We were set up to not think
for ourselves, and we accepted that. Couldn’t we have done something
different? We pushed back, but only within acceptable limits, and that is a
betrayal of our comrades and survivors. And our principles. With hindsight, we
now see clearly that the notion that the survivor’s statement alone was not a
“preponderance of evidence” that rape occurred constitutes a failure to truly
believe survivors. It is profoundly uncomfortable to see that we accepted that,
and we failed you.
We sent letters to Sharon following the hearing expressing our problems
with the case: the pretense that the process is weighted toward the victim but the
reality that we couldn’t find a preponderance of evidence; the role of alcohol; the
reality that a leading member intentionally used a comrade-contact relationship
for sex; that by finding there was “not enough evidence” that we were sending a
message that he was innocent to the organization; that the organization would
take no action against this member who had acted in multiple troubling ways that
we were not allowed to investigate further. We also spoke of the affective stress
of this process, specifically the toll it took on those of us who were survivors
ourselves and had been subject to similarly inadequate procedural processes.
We had misgivings, but we trusted Sharon, the author of Women And
Socialism, when she thanked us and said our insights would inform the process
moving forward. And to some extent they were used, but basic reforms that fore
fronted the needs of victims were not adopted, leaving the future Committees
hamstrung. Moreover, we were not invited to play a role in using the experience
of this case to update our rules. Instead, we were instructed to never discuss the
case again, and we have not--until now. Our gag order was explained to us as
necessary to protect the people involved. Again, we accepted the notion that the
NDC and AC should not discuss cases as a matter of solidarity with survivors,
but we now see that it was used to benefit attackers.
As the “Special Instructions” conclude, “the Committee will have two
choices: 1) Sufficient evidence that the incident is likely to have occurred or 2)
Insufficient evidence that the incident is likely to have occurred.” It was
impossible to provide the evidence to prove that rape had occurred given the
parameters that we had. But we never said that Joe was innocent, nor did we
say that he should remain a member. We, however, were also never asked. We
see now that we were assigned the most minimal possible process to justify the
SC deciding that Joe should remain a member.
 Among our failures was to not question the supposed “independence” of
our committee--which included an SC member in it and occasional clarifications
of rules by Sharon. Real independence comes from confidence in the process
and the ability to function free from any SC participation
The distrust of the membership and the need of the SC to mediate all
discussions has been endemic. The three of us “grew up” in that culture of
distrust, and we accepted it--to a point where we did not even see it. The fact
that we could not come to a decision in the 2013 case is just one grotesque
expression of the larger dynamic we accepted in the organization. The strange
limbo of not-guilty/not-innocent paralyzed us.
What we didn’t know at the time was this was not a neutral situation where
our misgivings would be given great weight. Rather, a consistent and active
lobby on and off SC was pushing for Joe’s innocence. Joe’s friends and much of
his branch closed ranks around him, and he was returned to full membership He
was never asked to make the accusation known when he moved branches, and
to our knowledge never told his closest collaborators, including the women he
worked with most closely.
Normalizing the presence of abusers in a social group is a cornerstone of
rape culture, as is the obsession with “due process” for the accused. The “right
of confidentiality” outweighs the right of women to know that Joe was even
accused of raping a contact, who trusted him because he was a
socialist. Meanwhile we were told to speak about the case would “compromise
the integrity of the process”, something we clearly took much more seriously than
the SC.
We write this with great shame and disbelief. We hope that by sharing our
honest assessments, that we can contribute to understanding what went wrong
in 2013 and to efforts to prevent this kind of thing from happening on the left.
Our failure to even alert comrades of the charge itself is perhaps
something that can never be forgiven. But we are committed to making sure it
isn’t repeated.
With our deepest regrets,
Amy, Dana, Khury