2018年1月24日，瑞秋·丹霍蘭德走進密西根州的法庭，講述小時候被拉里·納薩爾性侵的經歷。拉里·納薩爾曾經長期擔任美國體操隊的隊醫，也是密歇根州立大學的醫生，宣判聽證會上共有近150位女性宣讀了影響聲明，瑞秋最后一位出庭。

34歲的丹霍蘭德曾經是體操運動員，目前已經是四個孩子的母親，從事律師行業，倡導保護兒童安全。在結束陳述時，她提出了一個問題：

“一個女孩值多少錢？”

幾十年來，納薩爾作為醫生在密歇根州立大學（MSU）為運動員提供治療，也曾經在美國體操隊擔任隊醫，因此有機會對眾多女孩實施性侵。2016年9月，丹霍蘭德第一個站出來指控納薩爾性侵，已經有近500位女性表示曾經受到過納薩爾的侵犯。一些專家認為受害者可能超過1000人。2017年7月，納薩爾承認持有兒童色情圖片，幾個月后承認了性侵未成年人等多項指控。他很可能要在監獄里度過余生。2018年5月，密歇根州立大學同意向起訴的受害人支付5億美元和解金，這是與性侵相關索賠金額最高的案例之一。

雖然在賠償金額方面堪稱勝利，但丹霍蘭德提出的問題真正揭示了受害人的痛苦。

和解代表著漫長而艱難的指控終于結束，也意味著另一個故事的開始。丹霍蘭德等受害人一直在跟律師和調解人深入談判和解資金支付問題。過程中，數百位女性要經歷致歉、冷酷的數學計算，也經常要痛苦地敘述性侵過程，尷尬之余，也在了解自己經受的痛苦按照美元算“值多少錢”。

在調解約一年后，很多受害人通過賠償金額得出了答案。一位女性可能獲賠幾萬美元，夠還點信用卡債務，然后搬個家；另一位女性可能獲賠好幾十萬美元，足夠支付看心理醫生的賬單，也能跟其他受害人一起工作。第三位女性獲賠金額可能夠向她關注的非營利組織捐贈。扣除稅費和律師費后，每位受害人拿到支票上的實際金額都遠遠低于名義獲賠數額。而且對很多人來說，這筆錢就是在不斷提醒曾經被性侵的傷痛。

為侵犯行為估價對任何人來說都很難接受，不管在金錢、法律還是創傷層面都會造成糾結。積極人士和受害人首先提出，和解不是為了錢，主要是為了伸張正義。再多的錢也無法彌補受到的傷害。最糟糕的是，談判過程中感覺將成嚴重受傷的經歷變成了固定的美元金額。“相當于將你受到的傷害跟其他女孩相比。”格蕾絲·弗倫奇說，她也曾經是受害者，現在從事市場營銷工作，是非營利組織 “受害人之軍”的聯合發起人，該組織主要幫助遭到性侵的受害人。“我認為很多女孩收到賠償金之后內心仍然在苦苦掙扎。”

然而不可否認的是，為傷害做系統性量化還是有必要的。相關的資金可以幫受害人支付各種治療的費用，或補償停工的損失，對痛苦和忍受也是一種承認。對于被指窩藏或包庇性侵者的機構來說，和解提供了補償的機會。由此一來機構承認造成的傷害，爭取改進，尋找更好的做法，同時也了結了責任，因為收到賠償的原告一般同意不再起訴。

本次支付談判有個重要的不同之處，也變成了性侵案件談判最明顯的例子。很多納薩爾受害者跟之前和解案中的原告不同，并沒有簽署“沉默條款”或保密協議，以往賠償機構經常堅持要求簽署。（事實上，由于納薩爾承認的罪行太過惡劣，密歇根州立大學也沒有什么立場要求簽署類似協議。）

丹霍蘭德、弗倫奇和其他很多受害人保留了各項權利，不僅可以講述曾經遭受侵犯的經歷，也可以討論獲得賠償多困難，而且都是自己發聲。正因如此，這群女性在#MeToo運動激發的聲討洪流中成了先鋒。不管是非營利機構還是私營公司，公開承認并解決內部存在的性侵和騷擾問題壓力都越來越大。

“接受還是拒絕不是律師的決定，而是當事人的決定。”常駐密歇根州蘭辛市的律師大衛·米特爾曼說，密歇根州立大學和解過程中，他代表了100多名女性。“很多受害女性都更想提醒大眾。”

過去18個月里，丹霍蘭德和其他數十位納薩爾受害人向我介紹了經歷，詳細描述了法律中常不為人知的陰暗角落。每個和解案中都有一部分內容，包括受害者和調解人之間談話的具體細節要遵守法律上的保密規則。但將受害人的敘述拼湊起來，就能進一步看清系統協議如何發揮巨大影響，身處系統內的性侵受害人發現既受鼓舞，同時也感到不安。

“可以說密歇根州立大學的解決方案和相關訴訟都采取了法律優先的方式。” 學校的發言人艾米麗·古蘭特在一份聲明中說。“我認為，學校在處理性侵和受害人問題上學到了很多，也意識到過去幾年里對待受害人方面犯了錯誤。”

丹霍蘭德說，她很清楚系統的缺陷，也意識到絕大多數性侵受害人不管在司法系統之內還是之外都很少能夠獲得補償。“我們全社會要解決的正是這種缺陷，想獲得賠償，就得付出犧牲。”她說。“這也正是性侵受害人指控施暴者時面臨的問題。”

On Jan. 24, 2018, Rachael Denhollander walked into a Michigan courtroom to speak about the sexual abuse she suffered as a child from Larry Nassar. She was the last in an extraordinary procession of nearly 150 women to offer an impact statement at the sentencing hearing of the longtime USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor.

Standing at a podium facing Nassar as her words were beamed out worldwide, Denhollander, a former gymnast—and now herself an attorney, an advocate for child safety, and a 34-year-old mother of four—concluded her statement with a question:

“How much is a little girl worth?”

For decades, Nassar’s work as a doctor treating athletes at Michigan State University (MSU) and for USA Gymnastics helped give him unfettered access to girls and young women that he serially sexually abused. Since Denhollander became the first survivor to publicly accuse the doctor of abuse, in September 2016, an estimated 500 women have come forward saying that they, too, were abused by Nassar. Some experts on the case think that number could eventually pass 1,000. In July 2017, Nassar pleaded guilty to child pornography charges, and months later, he pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault of minors. He will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars. In May 2018, MSU agreed to pay a $500 million settlement to victims who had sued the university, among the largest sums ever paid in relation to sex-abuse claims.

As a consequence of that financial victory, Denhollander’s question has taken on a painfully literal meaning.

While the settlement represented the end of one long, difficult story, it signaled the beginning of another. Survivors like Denhollander have been deep in negotiations with lawyers and mediators over the disbursement of the settlement funds. In a process that involves an awkward combination of apologetic recognition, dispassionate mathematics, and, often, a torturous recounting of abuse, hundreds of women are learning what their suffering was “worth” in dollar terms.

Roughly a year into the mediation process, many of the survivors have now received their answers—in decisions about their payouts, known as allocations. For one woman, it was a low five-figure sum that will help her retire credit card debt and relocate; for another, it was an amount in the high six figures, enough to cover bills related to her mental health treatment and to enable her to work with other survivors. For a third, it’s a donation to a nonprofit she cares about. For each, the check will be worth considerably less than its face value, after taxes and attorneys’ fees. And for many, the money itself is a hurtful reminder of the abuse that took place.

The idea of a process that attaches financial value to acts of abuse is appealing to no one, presenting a challenging tangle of money, law, and trauma. Advocates and survivors are the first to say that settlements are more about a sense of justice than about money; no sum could ever compensate for the damage done. At its worst, the process can feel like an invasive haggle that reduces the experience of profound harm to a flat dollar figure. “It’s the trauma you went through, basically, being ranked against [that of] other girls,” says Grace French, a ?Nassar survivor who works in marketing and is a cofounder of the Army of Survivors, a nonprofit that helps those who have experienced abuse. “I do think a lot of girls are still struggling with that after getting that number.”

Still, there’s an undeniable need for a systematic way to quantify the harm of abuse. The funds can enable survivors to afford therapy, help with medical bills, or provide reimbursement for lost work time, as well as acknowledge pain and suffering. And for institutions accused of harboring or covering up for an abuser, settlements offer an opportunity for restitution. It’s a chance to acknowledge the harm they’ve enabled and commit to a new, better path—but also to close the book on their liability, since plaintiffs who receive disbursements generally agree not to sue again.

The disbursement talks also bear an important distinction: They’ve become arguably the most visible example to date of how the process works in sex-abuse cases. Unlike plaintiffs in past settlements, many Nassar survivors haven’t signed the “silence clauses,” or nondisclosure agreements, that are often insisted upon by the institutions making the payments. (Indeed, the magnitude of Nassar’s admitted crimes may have taken away any leverage MSU might have had to press for such clauses.)

Denhollander and French and many other survivors have retained the right to talk not only about the abuse they underwent but also about the difficulty of getting financial redress—and they’re using their voices. That, in turn, has put them in the vanguard of a broader trend catalyzed by the #MeToo movement: a growing pressure on both not-for-profit institutions and private companies to publicly acknowledge and address problems of abuse and harassment within their ranks.

“It’s not a lawyer’s decision; it’s a client’s decision whether to accept or reject an offer,” says David Mittleman, a Lansing-based lawyer who represents more than 100 of the women in the MSU settlements. “And many want to be on the side of alerting the public.”

Over the past 18 months, Denhollander and dozens of other Nassar survivors spoke with me about their experiences, offering a detailed description of a corner of the law that is often shrouded in secrecy. Some elements of any settlement process, including details of specific conversations between survivors and mediators, are shielded by legal confidentiality rules. But together, the survivors’ accounts offer a close look at the protocols of a system that can wield tremendous influence, in ways that victims of abuse can find both empowering and upsetting.

“It’s fair to say that MSU’s approach to the settlement and related lawsuits is a legal-first approach,” Emily Guerrant, a spokeswoman for the school, said in a statement. “I think we, as a university, have learned a lot about dealing with sexual assault and survivors, and realize that we’ve made mistakes during the past few years in how survivors were treated.”

Denhollander says that she’s keenly aware of the system’s flaws and equally aware that the vast majority of sexual-assault survivors seldom receive any remedy, in or out of the justice system. “That’s something that societally we need to wrestle with—that that kind of sacrifice is what it takes” to win redress, she says. “That’s what sexual-assault survivors are up against when they go to report their abuser.”

和解案中賠償金的分配十分混亂。“我從來沒有接過如此廣受批評的賠償案。”哈佛大學、哥倫比亞大學和紐約大學法學院的前副教授肯尼斯·范伯格說。“跟領域有關。”

范伯格是全世界最了解該領域的院長。20世紀80年代他曾經是橙色劑訴訟領域的“專家”，協助制定了現代和解模板，最終陶氏化學、孟山都和其他公司為受脫葉劑毒害的越戰退伍軍人設立基金。此后范伯格負責監管一個基金，曾經向2001年9月11日恐怖襲擊中失去親人的家庭支付71.4億美元（2002年的《財富》雜志刊發過專題報道）。目前他正與聯合管理者卡米爾·S·比羅斯合作，補償天主教會性侵案的受害人。“用金錢補償損失沒有什么意義，但美國制度就是這樣。”他說，“一對夫妻的兒子在世貿中心襲擊中喪生，獲得500萬美元賠償，其實毫無價值。”

范伯格指出，即便涉及無法量化的數字，調解人也希望讓受害人明確了解賠償系統如何運行。和解金額的范圍通常由原告和辯護律師決定，由調解人最終確定個人賠償金額范圍。比如管理“9·11”基金時，范伯格為每位受害人設定了25萬美元的統一賠償金額，為每位幸存的配偶和被撫養人設定了額外的10萬美元，避免了鑒定哪家受損失更嚴重的尷尬。然后他根據勞工統計局的數據，為每位受害人增加了一些因素，比如估算的工資損失。他表示，最后5300起索賠沒有兩筆金額相同。“必須要有方法論。”他說。

然而在性侵案件中，方法論似乎過于簡單化，甚至有些殘忍。據報道，幾十年來，羅馬天主教會的奧爾托納-約翰斯頓教區向受到神職人員和其他人員侵犯的受害人賠償了1500多萬美元。2016年，賓夕法尼亞州總檢察長辦公室強烈批評教區處理案件方式，在報告中公布了一張圖表，一位主教曾經用該圖表確定賠償金額。報告抨擊的圖表正是“冷酷官僚作風”的例子，其中有兩個欄目：“虐待程度”和“賠償金額范圍”。一行是“隔著衣服，撫摸生殖器，10000-25000美元”；另一行是“雞奸；性交，50000-175000美元”。

Distributing funds from a settlement is at best messy. “I don’t think I’ve ever done a compensation program where there hasn’t been some criticism,” says Kenneth Feinberg, a former adjunct professor at Harvard, Columbia, and NYU law schools. “It comes with the territory.”

Feinberg is the closest thing the world has to a dean of the subject. He was the “special master” on the case that set the template for modern settlements—the Agent Orange litigation in the 1980s, which ended with Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and other companies creating a fund for Vietnam War veterans who had been harmed by the defoliant. Since then, Feinberg has overseen a fund that distributed $7.14 billion to families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (a process Fortune documented in a 2002 feature); he’s currently working with survivors of sexual assault in cases involving the Catholic Church with co-administrator Camille S. Biros. “Money is a very poor substitute for damage, for loss, but that’s the American system,” he says. “Offering a family $5 million for the death of their son at the World Trade Center, it’s rather hollow.”

A mediator’s goals, Feinberg notes, include being transparent with survivors about the workings of that system—even when that involves assigning numbers to the immeasurable. The range of settlement sums is usually determined by plaintiff and defense lawyers, but it’s the mediator’s discretion to determine where an individual’s compensation falls. In administering the 9/11 fund, for example, Feinberg set a flat rate of $250,000 for pain and suffering for each victim and an additional $100,000 for each surviving spouse and dependent, avoiding the dilemma of determining whether one suffered more than another. For each victim, he then added factors such as likely lost wages based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The result, he says, was 5,300 eligible claims with no two identical amounts. “You have to have a methodology,” he says.

In sex-abuse cases, however, methodology can seem simplistic to the point of cruelty. The Altoona-Johnstown diocese of the Roman Catholic Church has reportedly paid out more than $15 million to survivors of abuse by its clergy and other employees over the decades. In 2016, in a blistering report criticizing the diocese’s handling of the cases, the Pennsylvania state attorney general’s office published a chart that one bishop had used to determine payouts. The chart, which the report blasted as an example of “cold bureaucracy,” featured two columns: “Level of Abuse” and “Range of Payment.” One line reads, “above clothing, genital fondling, $10,000–$25,000.” Another reads, “Sodomy; Intercourse, $50,000–$175,000.”

現實中，性侵的危害遠遠超出了行為本身，包括一系列情感創傷、身心障礙和生理疼痛。區分不同類型的痛苦確實很重要，但也對受害人造成了嚴重的后果。專家說，在某種程度上，和解談判代表必須就如何將經歷轉化為具體數字達成一致。保險公司的精算師設計打分系統確定金額。系統通常根據“類似”案例確定，量化性侵對受害人受到的傷害，同時預測性侵的持續性影響。

在納薩爾案中，密歇根州5億美元的和解資金里有4.25億美元分給了2017年12月6日之前提出訴訟的330多位申請人。剩余的7500萬美元分給該日期之后提出訴訟的受害人。（第二波起訴中已有160人，有些人因此擔心資金是否足夠。）據知情人士透露，大約三分之一的人要支付律師費，包括和解過程中等候的時間。

安排4.25億美元資金的任務落在了加州前任法官威廉·貝蒂內利身上，去年7月他獲得監督此案的聯邦地方法院任命。（他的報酬也包括在和解總金額里。）根據貝蒂內利公司的網站，他從事職業調解人約30年，曾經調停災難性人身傷害、非法死亡索賠和環境災難等案件。幾個月來我們一直爭取采訪，但他的辦公室并未答復。

了解密歇根州立大學案件的人士稱，貝蒂內利有權批準每人不超過7位數（扣除稅費前）的賠償金。知情人士說，貝蒂內利遵循了 “劃撥協議”，包括電話采訪受害人以評估和解金額。貝蒂內利可能會問：性侵是否發生在未成年人身上、性侵持續的時間和頻率，以及性侵行為本身的性質。調解人還要考慮到受害人因勇敢指控而面臨的風險，或者因為指控而面臨的報復。

很多情況下，受害人可能提出一些審判中并未出現的證據，例如心理評估和賬單等。一些受害人提交了記錄性侵次數的日記。新證據可以作為書面文件提交給調解人，也可以在會談時提，或者每次都說。

In practice, the harmful effects of sexual abuse spread far beyond the acts themselves, encompassing a spectrum of emotional trauma, disability, and physical pain. Distinctions among kinds of suffering do matter, with huge consequences for survivors. But at some point, experts say, settlement negotiators have to agree on how to translate those distinctions into raw numbers. Actuaries for insurers sometimes devise point systems to determine how to allocate payouts. Those systems are often determined based on “peer” cases, with criteria intended to quantify how a survivor has been affected since the assault, and to project how the assault could continue to affect that person.

The $500 million Michigan State settlement in the Nassar case allocates $425 million to more than 330 claimants who came forward to sue before Dec. 6, 2017; the remaining $75 million is set aside for survivors who came forward after that date. (There are already 160 people in that second wave, sparking concerns about whether the fund is sufficient.) Roughly one-third will pay for fees for attorneys, including for time spent in the settlement process, according to someone familiar with the matter.

The task of distributing the $425 million pool falls to William Bettinelli, a former California judge who was appointed last July by the federal district court overseeing the case. (He is being paid from the overall settlement sum, as well.) In roughly 30 years as a professional mediator, Bettinelli has mediated cases involving catastrophic personal injuries, wrongful death claims, and environmental disasters, according to his firm’s website; his office did not respond to multiple requests for interviews over several months.

According to people familiar with the MSU case, Bettinelli has authorization to approve payouts of up to the low seven figures per person (before taxes and fees). People with knowledge of the process say Bettinelli is following an “allocation protocol” that includes conducting phone interviews with survivors to assess their settlement amount. Among the questions Bettinelli may ask: whether the abuse happened to them as minors, the duration and frequency of the abuse, and the nature of the abusive acts themselves. The mediator can also take into account such factors as the risk a survivor incurred by coming forward or any retaliation she faced for blowing the whistle.

In many cases, a survivor may bring forward evidence that wasn’t used in Nassar’s trials—psychologist evaluations and bills, for example. Several survivors submitted journal entries documenting the toll of abuse. New evidence can be submitted to the mediator as paperwork, be brought up in a meeting, or both.

和解過程的目標之一是，受害人不必為了獲得賠償重新訴訟。盡管如此，索賠人還是要經常敘述的可怕細節，特別是審判記錄里沒有的信息。即便受害人證據非常充分，復述也可能很可怕。

多位原告的律師米特爾曼表示，當事人報告的負面影響包括自殺未遂、高昂的精神病院住院費、脫發、胃腸道問題和睡眠障礙等。性侵受害人經常要接受心理咨詢，每個療程花費150到300美元，一周或一個月多個療程，通常持續數年。不少人失業，也有人因此婚姻破裂。

和解金額估算時理應考慮所有相關因素。但米特爾曼和其他積極人士表示，有時談判過分強調性侵的次數或持續時間。在談到大量傷害時，米特爾曼問道：“60次或100次性侵真有必要比性侵一次多獲賠償嗎？在我看來，一次已經算很多了。”

One goal of a settlement process is that survivors won’t have to relitigate their case in order to receive their claims. Still, claimants often find themselves recounting horrific details of their experience—especially if that information doesn’t already exist in a trial record. And those conversations, even when a survivor stands on a mountain of evidence, can be awful.

Among the harmful impacts that Mittleman, the lawyer for many of the plaintiffs, says his clients have reported are attempted suicide, bills for stays at psychiatric hospitals, hair loss, gastrointestinal issues, and sleep disturbance. It’s not uncommon for therapy for those coping with the consequences of abuse to cost $150 to $300 per session, with multiple sessions a week or month, often for years. Jobs have been lost, marriages frayed.

The math of a settlement process ideally takes all of this into account. But Mittleman and other advocates say that talks sometimes place excessive emphasis on the number or duration of the assaults. In the context of wide-ranging harm, Mittleman asks, “Is 60 or 100 penetrations really worth more than one time? Because in my opinion, one time is too many.”

調解人或專家的另一目標是公平和迅速。決定受害者賠償金額，也是為受害女性痛苦估價的會談通常很短。大多數情況下，調解人的決定不接受上訴。所以賠償金額是最終數字。

與我交談的部分受害者認為收到的賠償金還算公平合適，其他人并不同意。對很多人來說，和解之后進入了新的困難階段，因為她們意識到單靠錢很難糾正錯誤。

在20世紀90年代初，唐娜·馬卡姆的女兒切爾西加入了密歇根州的運動隊，夢想著像臥室墻上海報的英雄們一樣代表國家參加奧運會。根據檢察官的指控，切爾西小時候預約看病時遭到納薩爾性侵。之后她開始吸毒、酗酒、抑郁和憤怒，2009年自殺。當年她才23歲。

馬卡姆收到了賠償金，但對賠償金估算感到困惑，也被繁復的文書和流程弄得不勝其擾。馬卡姆說，性侵“只會侵蝕自我價值和自尊”。她真切感受到這一事實，但感覺和解過程很難體現。“不能為人命定價。” 馬卡姆說。“切爾西原本有大好人生，如何判斷該補償多少呢？”在馬卡姆看來，最重要的賠償并不是金錢。她與案中其他女性密切聯系，為受到傷害的人們積極發聲。“我沒有指望從中得到什么。”馬卡姆說。“只想讓更多人知道切爾西的故事。”

一些受害人選擇不跟貝蒂內利交談。她們已經在法律程序中提交了證詞或影響報告，可以拿文件記錄說話。摩根·麥考爾上高中便加入了起訴納薩爾的組織，如今就讀于密歇根大學：“我只是覺得（談判）是件不必要的事。”她說。今年早些時候麥考爾收到了賠償金。“生活并沒有因為錢而改變。”她說。“但和解和收到賠償之前一年半里有很多焦慮，我不斷問自己，因為無法量化的痛苦收到支票在道德上到底能否站住腳。”麥考爾將焦慮轉化為積極行動，“把可怕的經歷變為能夠幫助他人的經驗。”

雖然與密歇根州立大學和解的受害人可以公開披露收到的賠償金，但這并不是一個好選擇。一方面談論錢數可能導致受害人受欺詐，也可能有人指責她們站出來指控是為了錢。還可能跟朋友、家人以及其他受害人產生沖突。密歇根州立大學案例中的一些受害人介紹了其中的第22條軍規：韌性強又足夠幸運的女性能夠盡早獲得幫助，也容易避免受重創，她們有時覺得拒絕會影響自己的經濟利益，反過來，支票上金額更高可能意味著受的苦比大多數人多。受害人表示，比較的感覺很怪，而且某種意義上說賠償金正是受性侵的證據。正如受害人之軍的聯合發起人弗倫奇所說，“拿支票取錢時感覺很臟。”

One of the aims of a mediator or special master is to be both fair and swift. Meetings to determine a survivor’s payout—the worth of her suffering—can be surprisingly short, and in most cases, the mediator’s decision isn’t open to appeal. The number is final.

Some Nassar survivors I spoke with felt that the amount of money they received was fair and appropriate; others didn’t. And for many, a newly difficult phase began after the settlement—as they realized that money alone couldn’t right what had been made wrong.

Donna Markham’s daughter Chelsey was one of countless girls who bounded into gyms in Michigan in the early 1990s in hopes of making an Olympic team, like the heroes who graced the posters on her bedroom wall. As a child, prosecutors allege, Chelsey was sexually assaulted by Nassar during a doctor appointment. After the abuse, she spiraled into drugs, alcohol, depression, and angry spells that culminated with her taking her own life in 2009. She was 23 years old.

Markham has received her allocation, and she’s one of several survivors who felt perplexed by the math behind the payout and overwhelmed by the paperwork and logistics. Abuse “just eats away at your self-worth, your self-esteem,” Markham says. That fact, so clear to her, was something she felt the process couldn’t account for. “You can’t put a price on a human life,” Markham says. “And how do you make a determination on an award settlement when Chelsey had her entire life ahead of her?” In Markham’s telling, the most important outcome of the process wasn’t monetary: She has forged strong bonds with other women involved in the case and is engaged in advocacy work for those who were harmed. “I didn’t expect to get anything,” Markham says. “I just wanted Chelsey’s story to be told.”

Some survivors opted not to talk with Bettinelli. Having already testified in legal proceedings or given impact statements, they could let those records speak for them. Morgan ?McCaul, who was a high school student when she joined the group suing Nassar, is now enrolled at the University of Michigan: “I just felt like [a meeting] would be another thing on my plate that was unnecessary,” she says. McCaul received a payout earlier this year. “My life has not changed” as a result of the money, she says. “But I do know that I had a lot of anxiety in the year and a half leading up to the settlement disbursement, asking myself if it’s ethically sound to be handed a check for something that can never be quantified.” McCaul has channeled that energy into activism, to “leverage this horrible experience into something that can help other people.”

While nothing bars MSU settlement participants from publicly disclosing the sum they received, doing so is not considered a best practice: Talking about the number can make survivors prey to fraud or to criticism that they were fiscally motivated. It can also create conflict with friends or family—and with fellow survivors. Some survivors in the MSU case describe a catch-22 inherent in the process: Those who were resilient and fortunate enough to find help earlier, or to avoid the most severe trauma, sometimes felt that saying so was against their financial self-interest—or, conversely, that a larger check might mean you suffered more than most. That sense of awkward comparison, survivors say, adds to the pain of knowing that the allocation money is, in a sense, evidence of the abuse. As French, the Army of Survivors cofounder, says, “You cash that check, and it feels dirty.”

奧運會金牌得主麥卡拉·馬羅尼說自己也曾經受到拉里·納賽爾的侵犯。在納薩爾被捕之前，她與管理機構美國體操協會達成125萬美元的和解，其中有保密條款。在納薩爾性侵行為曝光后，協會因為封口馬羅尼并掩飾納薩爾的行為而廣受批評，也聲稱不會強制執行保密條款。

針對納薩爾的指控爆發后，審查性侵和性騷擾案件中濫用保密協議方面也發揮了重要作用。過去保密協議應用普遍，尤其跟天主教會性侵相關的案件中。Vanderbilt Law Review指出，數據顯示美國超過三分之一的員工受保密協議限制。批評人士指出，原本用于保護商業秘密的保密話術反而用來限制員工公開討論辦公室問題，也包括性騷擾。

“保密規定掩蓋了很多事。”布魯克林法學院教授、就業法診所主任米納·J·科特金表示。“我們了解的只是開頭。”

科特金說，密歇根州立大學和解案中不需要保密協議，反映出人們考慮性侵問題發生了比較大的轉變。人們曾經認為性侵是私人的事，代表著個人與更強大的權威人物或機構相抗衡，現在則視為社會的毒瘤或傳染病，是應該提醒其他人關注的威脅。

該效應在企業中的作用能有多廣泛還很難判斷。一些積極人士警告稱，完全取消保密條款可能會對受害人產生不利影響，如此一來會刺激性侵者打官司，而不是和解。盡管如此，包括紐約和加州在內的12個州已經通過法律，在騷擾和舉報性侵方面縮小保密協議應用的范圍。2017年年底微軟曾經表示，經已取消員工公開指控性騷擾的保密協議。其他公司也緊跟其后，有些公司則是內部丑聞傳出之后才開始。

調解人范伯格認為，保密的責任應該對調。“我認為機構保密非常非常重要。”他說。“但如果受害人想（大聲說出實情），是值得鼓勵的。”這代表著力量從機構向受害人轉移。

盡管會很痛苦，很長一段時間內還是可能有不少受害人發聲。需要解決的問題是，如果出現更多受害人，密歇根州立大學會不會擴大和解基金的規模，以及如何支付額外賠償。同樣迫在眉睫的還有針對美國體操協會和美國奧委會（USOC）的訴訟。多年來美國體操隊一直讓納賽爾擔任隊醫，現在面臨約350名原告提出的100起訴訟。去年12月，體操協會根據破產法第11章申請破產，導致訴訟和調解討論都停滯不前。（美國體操協會的發言人萊斯利·金表示，協會“一直注重保護運動員的安全和福利”。）

在與各機構爭論不休之后，瑞秋·丹霍蘭德認為和解流程和一長串跟性侵案相關的問題一樣應該解決。她認為，最糟糕的一點是，賠償之后機構就不用審視自己的文化，將過往丑事一筆勾銷。“（這些機構）完全不想追究哪里出了問題，也不想承認問題，更別提去解決。”她說。

丹霍蘭德和其他受害人打算大聲疾呼，繼續向納薩爾曾經工作的機構施壓。“我們應該從中吸取哪些教訓？“她說。“宣判聽證會上有那么多女性公開露面。這是全世界第一次看到名字和臉，而且跟性侵聯系起來。我們終于不只是紙面上的數字了。”（財富中文網）

本文另一版本登載于《財富》雜志2019年7月刊，標題為《“一個女孩值多少錢？”》。

譯者：馮豐

審校：夏林

Olympic gold ?medalist McKayla Maroney says that she was one of the girls whom Larry Nassar preyed upon. Before his arrest, she received a $1.25 million settlement from the national governing body for the sport, USA Gymnastics—one that included a nondisclosure provision. But after his attacks came to light, the organization faced criticism for effectively covering up Nassar’s behavior by gagging Maroney, and it said that it would not enforce the silence clause.

The cases against Nassar have played a crucial role in intensifying scrutiny of the use of nondisclosure agreements in abuse and harassment cases. Such NDAs have historically been ubiquitous—notably in agreements involving abuse in the Catholic Church. In the private sector, the Vanderbilt Law Review points to data showing over one-third of the American workforce is subject to NDAs. There, critics note, nondisclosure language originally intended to protect trade secrets has been stretched to curb an employee’s right to speak out about workplace issues including sexual harassment.

“So much has been shielded by confidentiality,” says Minna J. Kotkin, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and director of its Employment Law Clinic. “We’re just beginning to know the start.”

The fact that many MSU settlements didn’t require NDAs reflects a broader shift in thinking about abuse, says Kotkin. What were once thought of as private matters that pitted the reputation of vulnerable individuals against those of more powerful authority figures or institutions are coming to be seen as a societal toxin or contagion—the kind of threat about which others should be warned.

It’s difficult to measure how widely this effect is playing out at companies. Some advocates warn that taking silence clauses completely off the table could work against survivors, by encouraging abusers to litigate rather than settle. Still, 12 states, including New York and California, have passed laws to narrow the scope of NDAs in harassment and sexual-assault whistleblowing. Microsoft said in late 2017 that it had removed NDAs involving employees who speak up about sexual harassment; other companies have followed suit, some after scandals within their ranks.

Feinberg, the mediator, argues that the onus for silence should be reversed. “I think it’s very, very important that the institution agree to confidentiality,” he says. “But if the individual victim wants to [speak out], I think that’s to be encouraged.” That represents a shift in the power balance, from the institution to the survivor.

Painful though it will be, many Nassar survivors will likely be speaking out for a long time. Yet to be resolved is whether MSU will expand its settlement fund if more victims come forward, and how it would pay additional costs. Also looming are lawsuits against USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC). USA Gymnastics enlisted Nassar as a team doctor for years and now faces 100 lawsuits from roughly 350 plaintiffs. In December it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a move that put the brakes on both the lawsuits and mediation discussions. (Leslie King, a spokeswoman for USA Gymnastics, says that the organization “has focused on keeping athlete safety and well-being at the forefront of its efforts.”)

Wrangling with these institutions has led Rachael Denhollander to put the settlement process on a long list of issues tied to abuse cases that she believes should change. At worst, she argues, the payments absolve big players of examining their own cultures, giving them in essence a clean slate. “There is a complete refusal to want to discover what went wrong, to admit what went wrong, and to deal with it,” she says.

Denhollander and her fellow survivors plan to speak up to keep pressure on the institutions where Nassar worked. “What lessons do we need to take away from this?” she says. “That sentencing hearing was so many women coming forward publicly. It was the first time the entire world has gotten to see names and faces and [connect them] with the idea of sexual assault. We weren’t just numbers anymore.”

A version of this article appears in the July 2019 issue of Fortune with the headline “‘How Much Is a Little Girl Worth?’”