The press is once again abuzz with the alleged sexual misconduct of a celebrity. But this time it isn’t Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson or any of the other usual suspects. No, it’s Kobe Bryant, someone who has worked long and hard to maintain an untarnished name that glitters with dignity.

Bryant has already admitted to adultery: he did indeed have sexual intercourse with a 19-year-old Colorado woman. But he maintains his innocence when it comes to the allegation of rape; his defense is that the rendezvous was consensual.

The case promises to be a classic instance of he-said/she-said. And it is cases like this that make the 6th amendment crucial to the American justice system: Kobe Bryant has the right to confront his accuser in a court of law.

But Colorado, like many other states, has a “victim shield” law that prohibits Bryant from confronting his accuser’s credibility on grounds of her sexual history.

The intention of this law is definitely noble: to prevent rape victims from the embarrassment of having to discuss their sexual history. But with the statute comes a fundamental problem: in the United States, defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, in cases where the question is not whether the right rapist is being charged but, rather, whether the act was consensual, any presumption that the accuser is a “victim” is a presumption that the sexual act was indeed rape.

If Bryant really is to be considered innocent until proven guilty, his right of confrontation must extend to sexual matters when the allegation is one of sexual wrongdoing.

Some might argue that the issue is moot because anyone can be raped, whether they live a life of promiscuity or one of innocence. But the truth is that a reckless lifestyle comes at a high price when matters of credibility are raised. For example, many are rushing to the defense of Bryant, an athlete who has earned his squeaky clean reputation. But would his following be as strong if he were Tyson, Clinton or Jackson? Plato, in the voice of Socrates, once wrote, “The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.” And the truth is that when it comes to a he-said/she-said matter, each party is only as credible as their reputation is strong.

Another key counter-argument is that one’s sexual history really has no bearing on an isolated sexual incident. But don’t underestimate what can be learned from someone’s sexual history. Consider Bryant’s accuser. She supposedly delivered food to his room long after room service was closed. Now suppose she has used such late-night room visits as a means of seduction in the past. Suppose that she has attempted to seduce athletes in the past. Suppose that she has a history of sleeping with men who all have a similar physical profile and that it happens to match Bryant’s appearance.

Juries consist of thinking citizens of the republic. If one’s sexual history does not suggest the possibility of consensual activity under the circumstances, a jury will have no choice but to dismiss it as irrelevant. In fact, if someone’s sexual history is totally inconsistent with the facts of the rendezvous, that history will only serve to bolster their credibility.

Rape is a crime punishable by life imprisonment. When it comes down to he-said/she-said circumstances, one should not have to run the risk of serving out their remaining days on earth behind bars because a court wanted to protect an accuser from blushing on the stand about questions deriving from a past which he or she has chosen.

Mac VerStandig ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in rhetoric and economics.