This week, Business Insider reported that SpaceX paid $250,000 to a flight attendant after Elon Musk exposed himself. According to Business Insider:
“The attendant worked as a member of the cabin crew on a contract basis for SpaceX’s corporate jet fleet. She accused Musk of exposing his erect penis to her, rubbing her leg without consent, and offering to buy her a horse in exchange for an erotic massage….” (Source)
After the flight attendant declined the offer in 2016, she claimed that she experienced retaliation. SpaceX settled with her in 2018 via a mediator with a severance agreement of $250,000.
Musk’s response to Business Insider was the vague declaration that there is “a lot more to the story”. On Twitter, however, he went on to claim that “those wild accusations are utterly untrue.” Note, however, that he does not explicitly say that the claim that a mediator oversaw a settlement between the employee and SpaceX to the tune of $250,000 is untrue. Instead, what he denies is the allegation that he exposed himself and requested sexual favors in exchange for the gift of a horse.
Thinking About Allegations
I am a professional investigator and among the claims I investigate are allegations of workplace sexual harassment of which this would be a very brazen case (along with abuse of power, bullying, retaliation, and discrimination). So how would one go about making a judgment as to the truth of the matter? In an investigation, one would interview witnesses, make credibility assessments, and review other relevant evidence (e.g. surveillance footage; documents like emails, texts, formal severance agreements, etc). Based upon that one would make a conclusion relative to a particular evidential standard (e.g. by a preponderance of the evidence (civil law); beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal law)).
Obviously, we don’t have access to that information and thus cannot undertake that kind of robust, formal review. But we can make a preliminary judgment of credibility based on the evidence that is publicly available. This will allow us to make a judgment on the preponderance of the evidence (that is, more likely truth than false).
The Initial Severance Agreement
Note first that Musk has not rebutted Business Insider’s claim that there was a severance agreement between SpaceX and this former-employee for $250,000. Nor has he denied that the agreement was based upon the former-employee’s claims. It is safe to say that a major corporation like SpaceX does not dole out quarter-million dollar payouts for claims that lack credibility. And thus, we can safely assume that there is strong evidence not available to the public but available to SpaceX which led them to acknowledge the legitimacy of the former employee’s claim.
Musk’s Red Herrings
Next, we can consider Musk’s own behavior on Twitter. As the news was breaking he has claimed that this is a political attack. This is a perfect example of the old political adage: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” Over the last few days, Musk has done nothing to deny the severance process or directly challenge the story. All he has done is pound the table. And that is behaviour indicative of guilt.
Finally, let’s consider one of Musk’s specific tweeted “rebuttals” to the allegations:
But I have a challenge to this liar who claims their friend saw me “exposed” – describe just one thing, anything at all (scars, tattoos, …) that isn’t known by the public. She won’t be able to do so, because it never happened.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2022
You might think that this isn’t table pounding but rather a good argument along the following lines:
- If the flight attendant witnessed Musk expose his genitals, she should be able to describe unique features of Musk’s genitals.
- If the flight attendant had witnessed Musk’s exposed genitals, she would have publicly released information about the unique features of Musk’s genitals by now.
- The flight attendant has not publicly released information about the unique features of Musk’s genitals.
- Therefore, the flight attendant is unable to describe unique features of Musk’s genitals.
- Therefore, the flight attendant did not witness Musk expose his genitals.
This kind of reasoning is utterly spurious, however.
Note first that the relevant concern for this specific individual is not to win over the court of public opinion. Rather, it was to persuade a mediator and SpaceX in 2018 that she had been subject to sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. And the payout of $250,000 clearly demonstrates that this evidential burden was met whether or not that involved describing some feature of Musk’s genitals.
Second, note that we have no independent evidence that there are particularly unique features of Musk’s genitals such that one would be able to cite said features as good evidence that one had seen Musk’s genitals. Thus, this is a spurious demand.
But what if Musk can establish that his genitals do have unique features by way of a mediator. Would that create a demand that the woman would then be obliged to meet? Clearly not. When women are sexually harassed by men who whip out their junk unprompted, they don’t typically study the exposed genitals for unique features. Rather, they quickly avert their eyes in shock and disgust. Consequently, even if Musk’s penis has a big mole, for example, the inability of the complainant to describe the mole would not be evidence that Musk didn’t expose his penis because we would not expect her to carefully study his member in the moment of exposure so as to be able to identify the mole at a later time.
In short, Musk’s argument is a complete red herring, one meant to divert attention from the relevant facts. Again, if you don’t have the facts or law, you pound the table (and post tweets).
Musk’s Attitude
While the argument might be a red herring, that in itself is also significant in our mini-investigation. Innocent men do not repeatedly pound the table with red herrings and ad hominems when they are falsely accused of sexual harassment. Rather, they provide evidence to rebut the claims. Musk’s behaviour is thus not consistent with that of an innocent man wrongly accused.
Indeed, the brazen crudeness, flippancy, and spuriousness of his “describe my genitals!” demand is consistent with a man who lacks a recognition of the seriousness of the situation and the established norms of decorum. And that is the kind of man who might think it is no big deal to pull out his genitals and request sexual favors in exchange for a horse.
Conclusion
To conclude, a little bit of careful reflection on the available facts strongly supports the conclusion that Musk is indeed guilty of a particularly egregious form of sexual harassment. This is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient for a person to believe that it is Musk, rather than the original complainant or Business Insider source, who is the liar.
