https://unsplash.com/@srosinger3997
For the last few weeks as the country grapples with the Kavanaugh hearings and the victims of his harassment that have come forward, I keep hearing this word over and over: credibility.
Credibility is used to establish plausibility. If someone is credible, they are trustworthy—they don't lie. When credible people speak their truth, it’s received as Truth. Until now.
What is this brand of credibility based on? And why are victims of sexual harassment assumed uncredible until proven otherwise? Although many of the senators seemed to believe that Dr. Ford was credible by the end of her interview, how did she prove this? And more importantly, does it matter?
This concept of credibility, though presented as an unbiased assessment of a person’ character, is deeply rooted in sexism, racism, classism and ageism. Dr. Ford’s gender identity worked against her in this case—she was assumed to be incredible until proven otherwise. However, once in the hearing, her other privileges are what eventually made the resistant senators believe her. She came carrying her degree before her name and using speech that was reflective of a strong education. She also brought her whiteness. None of these parts of her identity matter when it comes to her awful experience of sexual trauma. But somehow, it was these privileged parts of her that made her believable.
This isn’t credibility, this is conditional credibility. Conditional credibility acknowledges that a person’s assessment of what is credible in the world is subject to and a victim of his own ingrained racism, sexism, ageism and classism.
After her testimony, many resistant senators appeared to believe that Dr. Ford was credible. She was granted credibility despite her gender. But then being credible was no longer the critical issue. If a woman is credible, the senators’ concept of credibility must have expanded, degrading the value of it. So even though she is understood to be credible, there is no value in her credibility. Her Truth may not cause justice. Further, for many senators, Kavanaugh’s credibility has yet to be tested. This is of course because of all the privileges he carries, and because of this absolutist way of seeing people as either good or bad. If Kavanaugh can be a reputable judge, husband and father, how could he commit such crimes? I used to understand this thinking. As a child I struggled with reconciling why good people did bad things and made bad decisions. The lesson I learned as I matured is that people can be generally good and can also do some crappy things. We are human. And for some of us the range of our good and gross behavior can be quite wide.
And yet in the same conversation about whether a victim of sexual assault is credible, we’re scratching our heads wondering why the stats for reporting sexual harassment are so low. Stop asking why women don't come forward, or don’t announce to their friends and families that they've been victims of heinous crimes. Why would we when we’re assumed uncredible until we meet a definition of credibility that by nature excludes us? And for what—even if we are deemed credible, elected officials have now demonstrated that such credibility will not threaten the unquestioned credibility of men.
Instead of focusing on increasing rates of sexual harassment reports in your organization, consider asking how you can create a culture where sexual harassment doesn't exist, where a person’s credibility is not dependent on her gender, and where people are understood to be fully flawed humans.