Campus Rape Episode Critics Missing the Point?
The one thing that I keep seeing missing from every negative review of the rape subplot "Oh Shenandoah" is acknowledgment of the line between personal morality and professional ethics. Perhaps this comes from my background in law -- an attorney's code of ethics makes us unpopular because we're required by the Bar to separate personal morals from professional ethics in most circumstances. To me, this seems to be why people are so quick to demonize Don's character and Sorkin as a writer. I imagine a journalist of the old school would be required to exhibit a degree of ethical objectivity as well.
Sorkin tried to portray Don as personally believing Mary. I think that much is clear. I don't believe he would have told her not to appear on the show otherwise. But the comparison to the court of public opinion and the court of law is applicable here, and critics seem to be missing it entirely. We all know the numbers regarding how many alleged victims of rape are truthful (overwhelmingly, they are telling the truth). If I were criminal defense attorney, I could have a reasonable belief a client is lying to me, but would have an ethical duty to represent him or her, unless I possess actual knowledge of it, in which case I could withdraw. Perhaps a client comes in, and my own beliefs conflict with my ability to zealously advocate for him/her: I would be within my right to decline representation. A judge could have certain prejudices but would (theoretically) have to presume innocence on a criminal defendant nonetheless. Perhaps this is a defendant with a long, infamous, repetitive history. The scales of justice (to be quite realistic) always start out tipping in favor of the defendant. At least that's how it's supposed to be.
Why should a journalist like Don be treated differently?
If anything, the victim and defendant are being broadcast to a court of public opinion -- a wider forum, and frankly: a mob with no jury instructions, rules of evidence, etc. In court, it's the Plaintiff who has the initial burden of proving his/her claim. And if Don's profession mandates that he assign a journalist to ask Mary to provide evidence on the air to prove her claim, that would conflict with Don's personal, moral conviction that Mary is telling the truth.
It seems to me that most people are misunderstanding Don's line "I'm obligated to believe" the accused. You take it at face value without understanding the moral and ethical subtext. Identifying this as "mansplaining" ignores the ethical dilemma. If he personally believed the alleged rapist, I don't think he would have told her not to appear on the show.
People are bothered that Don is basically advocating for Mary to abdicate what one avenue of justice she thinks she has: the website. They're right to be bothered. But it's an imperfect and dangerous form of justice just like our actual legal system. It would be "quixotic" to expect Don to put forward a better, foolproof form of justice for Mary, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think Sorkin intended to propose a solution to a complicated problem, but to highlight the dilemma that a privately, morally sympathetic individual must face when he must wear the hat of an objective, ethical journalist.