Fifteen women have now come forward and accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault, yet, we are continually told their allegations are dubious at best.
This narrative has been repeated ever since the allegations were made publicly for the first time, almost ten years ago.
Andrea Constand filed a lawsuit against Cosby in 2005 for an assault that occurred in the 1980s. Constand gathered thirteen other women who had similar allegations to testify against him, but the case was settled and the trial did not go ahead.
While the allegations are now gaining more and more attention through social media and companies, including NBC and Netflix, have cancelled their contracts with Cosby as a result, the public’s understanding that the allegations are most likely untrue has not changed.
TV news presenter Don Lemon told one woman, Joan Tarshis, who went public with her account of the assault: “You know, there are ways not to perform oral sex if you don’t have to.” The implication was that Tarshis saying she was forced to perform sexual acts was far-fetched.
Whoopi Goldberg asked, if the allegations were true, why hadn’t the women visited a hospital to prove it?
Cosby’s lawyer described to the women as “discredited” in a statement to the press.
This sentiment is echoed in most discussions of Cosby’s rape allegations. The age-old line is that these women have made up scenarios in which they were sexually assaulted by a rich, famous and beloved television star in order to get rich and famous themselves.
The logic behind this version of events is that fifteen different women – complete strangers – somehow got in touch with one another and invented stories of sexual assault in order to get their names in the paper and get a court settlement to fund their retirement – all the while making sure no one caught on to their conspiracy.
Let’s not forget that 13 of these women were ready to testify in a court case against Cosby. That means to pull off their plan, these women were prepared to perjure themselves by lying in a court of law.
On the other hand, we know that more than half of Australia’s women have experienced sexual assault or violence in their lifetimes. We know that even these numbers are likely conservative estimates, because the majority of incidents of sexual assault still go unreported.
In 2005, Cosby’s own lawyer said he was guilty.
Cosby himself has even admitted to this behaviour in the past. In an old comedy skit, he told a joke about drugging women in order to coerce them into sexual acts.
So we have 15 victims and what may as well be an admission of guilt from the accused. Evidence, logic and common sense all stack up against Cosby, so why does no one believe the women? Why are we, collectively, so willing to cast victims as perpetrators and the perpetrator as a victim?
Social media has effectively delivered attention to these allegations that is responsible for TV networks taking action and it’s encouraging. But it also reinforces how desperately we need to change the conversation.
Questioning the credibility of the victims and the guilt of the accused creates a culture that allows the public to determine the outcome of these allegations. We question the facts in the public domain until the story fades away again. It’s not good enough. We need to take sexual assault seriously enough that the guilt or innocence of an accused is determined by our legal system rather than the public discourse.
As a starting point we need to accept the evidence that sexual assault is widespread. We need to resist the temptation to ignore this and assume that allegations must be inaccurate because how could that happen on our watch?
Unless we change the conversation in that way we have no chance of holding individuals to account and effecting change. Perpetrators of sexual assualt, no matter how funny, popular or famous, need to be judged by the legal system, not by the court of public opinion. As we have seen, time and time again, the court of public opinion is far too lenient, especially when it comes to individuals with a public profile.