¡°2016 has been a dumpster fire. Too many cool people have died, too many incompetent people have been elected President of the United States, and there are too many men who¡¯ve been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment that now have films they¡¯ve worked on campaigning for Oscar nominations. Yet those two men, Casey Affleck and Nate Parker, are not being forced to deal with their pasts in the same way. Most recently, a sexual harassment lawsuit against Casey Affleck from 2010 has gotten back into the news. Well, sort of. Back in September, Mashable asked the question, ¡°Amid the uproar over Nate Parker, why is no one talking about Casey Affleck?¡± Meaning that¡­no one was really talking about it before that. Certainly not entertainment industry publications.¡±

¡°The Parker parallel is an important one. Of course, Parker was accused of a different, more serious crime¡ªraping a female college student. Parker was acquitted, while Affleck settled. Then there¡¯s the fact that Nate Parker is a black man. Like Affleck, the actor and director had been fast-tracked for critical acclaim and stardom. Considering the fact that Parker¡¯s career has taken a fatal hit, we have to ask why Affleck¡¯s history continues to be hidden paragraphs deep, or swept under the rug entirely. We can¡¯t re-try either of these cases; given the facts that we have, journalists and filmgoers can reach their own conclusions of guilt or innocence. But readers should be given this opportunity. There¡¯s no reason why the details of White and Gorka¡¯s suits¡ªwhich are available online here and here¡ªshouldn¡¯t be added as a crucial caveat in fawning profiles and glowing reviews.¡±

¡°White men can, to use a technical term, basically do whatever and never be held accountable for it. (You may have noticed that Donald ¡°Grab them by the pussy¡± Trump, who was accused by several women of sexual misconduct, is the President-elect of the United States of America.) This is not to suggest men of color cannot also be accused of violent crimes against women and continue their careers apace, because plenty do: Bill Cosby was doing swimmingly, career-wise, until two years ago, despite the fact that multiple women went public with their allegations against him back in 2005, when Andrea Constand filed a civil suit against Cosby. R. Kelly, Kobe Byrant, Derrick Rose, alleged rapists all, and all have emerged from their respective accusations basically unscathed. But all of these men were more established in their careers than Parker was at the time allegations against them became public; one could argue that all three are more talented in their fields than Parker is in his; and it¡¯s hard to overstate the impact of Parker¡¯s victim¡¯s suicide on the public¡¯s perception of Parker and his film. And Affleck¡¯s race is inextricably linked with the other aspects of his privilege: A famous family name, the connections that come along with it, and the opportunity to star in a movie like Manchester, exactly the kind of movie the Academy likes to honor. (More on that in a bit.)¡±

¡°But Nate Parker wasn¡¯t just his film¡¯s male star: He was its auteur. Hollywood loves auteurs, yet it has a dearth of black ones. Parker was a godsend, as he wanted to tell the story of Nat Turner so much that he¡¯d halted his acting career to make it at all costs. His face was on the poster. He was Birth of a Nation; Birth of a Nation was him. When it became essential to decry Parker, it also became essential to decry ¡ª and even boycott ¡ª his film. Affleck is the star of Manchester by the Sea, and the recipient of much of its praise, but certainly not all of it. Lonergan is the film¡¯s lauded auteur, and co-stars Michelle Williams and Lucas Hedges are also frontrunners for acting nominations. So while it might seem easier to decry Affleck without pulling an entire film asunder, the reverse has been the case. The stakes are lower because he is not the film, and so it¡¯s proven easier to ignore, or at least swiftly gloss over, the allegations.¡±

¡°There are myriad reasons to ascribe to the difference in how Affleck and Parker are being treated. Race is one potential factor. The lack of new news is another. Parker's accuser's suicide also adds an extra layer to his case. Another difference: Parker was acquitted in 1999, but Affleck settled both lawsuits in 2010. (One may have their own opinions of Parker's acquittal, but from the court's perspective, he is not guilty.) There is also a substantial legal difference between assault and harassment. It's worth noting, however, that the groping White described in her suit sounds much like what Donald Trump has been accused multiple times of doing ¡ª and that has indeed been described as assault. "Harassment" is the legal term used in the suit filings. The fact is, we will never know the truth of Parker or Affleck's cases. All we have is testimony, legal filings and the denials from both men. No court of public opinion will ever fully exonerate or convict them of their crimes. The allegations against Affleck are being treated as footnotes in a man's march to an Oscar nomination, while Parker's became a defining, front-page entertainment story. But the difference in treatment almost certainly isn't a coincidence ¡ª and it's absolutely worth talking about.¡±