What progressives don't want to talk about in the Rolling Stone scandal

The insistence that every rape accusation must be presumed to be true inevitably means that the credibility of those opposing rape will always be bound up with the least credible accusation. This, perversely, makes it harder for those people to speak out against rape, not easier. The notion that rape victims should be believed by default seems humane and understandable. But in practice it leads to a condition where all rape accusations must be true for any individual standard to be taken seriously. That’s an impossible standard, one no crime should ever have to meet.

You can see these risks in those who have responded to the skepticism about the story by doubling down on their insistence that it is true. Gawker’s Sam Biddle, for example, published a piece arguing that the rebuttal by the fraternity does little to dispute the accuser’s story. Meanwhile, the hashtag #IBelieveJackie has gained traction on Twitter, with many arguing that even after the recent revelations, failure to believe the accusations reflexively amounts to anti-feminism or rape denialism in and of itself.

But consider the potential consequences of this kind of engagement: What happens if more information emerges that casts doubt on the story? What if there is a high-profile recantation, the way there was with the Oberst accusation? Those who are now doubling down will simply have their credibility further undermined. The denialists will enjoy another talking point.

The refusal to adjust opinions in light of new information will play right into the denialist narrative, in which the media is determined to see rape everywhere regardless of facts. If the UVA gang rape allegations are found to be false, many people will have risked their credibility on this issue, and for little gain.