Sexual assault is a grave offense. Allegations of sexual assault demand serious attention, thorough investigation, and accountability when wrongdoing is established. They should never be dismissed because the accused is politically connected, popular, or sympathetic to a particular cause.
But the seriousness of the allegations surrounding Manny Yekutiel does not mean the circumstances surrounding their disclosure should be beyond scrutiny.
There’s an important difference between giving victims the time they need to come forward and allowing damaging allegations to be “banked” as political receipts, waiting for the moment when they can inflict maximum damage.
Yekutiel has faced allegations involving incidents in 2020 and 2023. He has denied the first allegation and said he does not recall the second, but acknowledged that he may have crossed someone’s boundaries. The Standard’s reporting on the latter allegations appears extensive, including interviews with the accusers and people they say they told about the incident.
That deserves to be taken seriously. So does a basic question: Why now?
The alleged 2023 incident occurred more than three years before the Standard published its account — just as ballots are about to reach San Francisco voters. Yekutiel subsequently withdrew from the District 8 supervisor’s race, while political supporters withdrew their endorsements.
The accusers say they came forward because of the earlier allegations and Mayor Daniel Lurie’s endorsement of Yekutiel. Their reasons deserve to be heard. Victims may take years to report sexual assault for entirely legitimate reasons, including fear, trauma, embarrassment, or concern that they won’t be believed. There is no expiration date on coming forward.
But no rule says the timing of an allegation cannot be questioned.
The first allegation presents similar questions. It surfaced only after Yekutiel entered the race, and the accuser has political connections. Neither fact proves the allegation false. But both are relevant circumstances when evaluating how and why a serious accusation entered an election campaign.
There’s an important difference between giving victims the time they need to come forward and allowing damaging allegations to be “banked” as political receipts, waiting for the moment when they can inflict maximum damage.
The latter does a disservice to everyone.
It does a disservice to victims, because sexual assault allegations should be about justice and healing, not political points. It does a disservice to voters, who deserve important information early enough to evaluate it rather than receive it when ballots are already arriving. And it does a disservice to community leaders who endorsed Yekutiel in good faith and may now be judged for decisions made without information that apparently existed before those endorsements.
None of this means the allegations should be ignored. Quite the opposite. They should be investigated and judged on the evidence.
But accountability should not be confused with political timing. If allegations are serious enough to determine whether someone is fit to hold public office, voters need and deserve to know about them in time to make that decision themselves.
Sexual assault should never be a partisan issue. Nor should accusations of it become campaign weapons kept in reserve until Election Day is just around the corner.
Victims deserve to be heard. The accused deserves due process. Voters are entitled to timely information.
All three can be true at once.
