Graham Platner and the Myth of the “Epstein class”

Statement on the Allegations Against Graham Platner and the Myth of the “Epstein class”

In a recent interview, Jenny Racicot accused U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner of sexually assaulting her nearly five years ago, alleging that he forced her to have sex despite her repeated objections. Platner has denied the allegation.Graham Platner has built much of his public identity around opposing what he calls the “Epstein class,” arguing that a small group of wealthy, politically connected, and influential people operate above the law, receive preferential treatment, and evade accountability because of their power and status. Embraced by figures on both the left and right, the phrase “Epstein class” centers on the idea of impunity: a system in which powerful people escape accountability while ordinary people bear the consequences. 

Yet that framing is deeply flawed. 

Jeffrey Epstein did not become a symbol of impunity simply because he was wealthy or well connected. He became a symbol because he sexually exploited girls and young women over decades who repeatedly sought justice and were ignored, disbelieved, retaliated against, or failed by the very institutions charged with protecting them. Their experiences were not incidental to the story. They were the reason the story existed. 

When the “Epstein class” is framed as a story about elite corruption rather than the survivors whose experiences exposed it, accountability itself is redefined. Instead of asking whether institutions respond appropriately when survivors come forward, it asks only whether powerful people are being exposed. By separating the symbol from the survivors who gave it meaning, the “Epstein class” became a story about who holds power rather than how power enabled sexual violence and institutional failures.

This distinction matters: A framework that defines accountability by who it opposes has no principled way to respond when allegations emerge from within its own ranks.

That is precisely what is unfolding here. Rather than centering the survivors and the allegations themselves, much of the public conversation quickly shifted to the political consequences of accountability – whether Platner should remain the Democratic nominee and whether winning a U.S. Senate seat is too important to risk. Once again, accountability is being framed as a threat to something larger. The result is a familiar and dangerous calculus: protecting political power is more urgent than confronting the ever growing pattern of allegations concerning violence against women.

Survivor justice demands consistency. It demands that we reject the impulse to excuse, minimize, or rationalize harm because someone shares our politics, our values, or our vision for the future.

The question is bigger than whether we oppose the “Epstein class.” The question is who gets to define it and whether we are willing to confront the ways power operates in every institution, every workplace, every community, and every sphere of influence.

Survivor justice cannot begin and end with condemning the powerful people we already dislike. It requires the courage to hold accountable anyone who uses power to cause harm.

That is the standard survivors deserve and demand. And it is the standard we should all be willing to uphold.