The Defiant Humanity of E. Jean Carroll

For a moment, it read like a loss. The first question asked on the verdict form in the matter of E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump concerned the writer’s battery allegation against the former president. Had she proved that Trump had raped her? “NO,” came the answer. But the form continued: Had Carroll proved that Trump had sexually abused her? YES. Had she proved that she had been injured as a result of his conduct? YES. The affirmatives accumulated: yes to defamation, to wanton disregard, to false statements, to actual malice.

The outcome was historic, my colleague yesterday. And it was, despite that initial “NO,” a resounding victory for Carroll—and, symbolically, for the who have accused Trump of sexual abuse. (Trump has denied all of their allegations—and has to appeal yesterday’s ruling.) was remarkable not only because it managed to hold the former president accountable, but also because of the way it achieved that victory. Carroll and her team rejected a one-size-fits-all approach to victimhood. They refused to apologize for Carroll’s idiosyncrasy or to allow her story to be reduced to callous tropes. In the process, they made a claim that is both obvious and revolutionary: There is no right way to be assaulted.