Dr. Ford and Anita Hill: 27 Years Later

CONTENT WARNING: mentions of sexual assault

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the Dr. Christine Blasey Ford vs. Judge Brett Kavanaugh dispute has uncovered the cultural paradox in America today. While the Trump Era affirms America’s poor treatment and views of women, it has also empowered a collective consciousness of resistance amongst American women. Misogyny, racism, and institutional power imbalances are contested in the public spotlight rather than accepted as the norm. Making history, however, is a difficult process. Especially when it tends to repeat itself; this time in parallels between Dr. Ford-Kavanaugh and Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas. The hearings of 1992 represented the anontrious racial and sexual politics of the decade; the committee scrutinized Hill for coming forward against Thomas. But sexual assault, as many sensitive issues, were controversial still in that decade. Approximately 69% of people did not believe Hill and were in favor of Thomas’ confirmation, and 12% others were unsure (Bowman). Now, in 2018, in the midst of rapid liberal progressivism in a divisive political climate, a different issue is emerging.

Kavanaugh’s indignant behavior during the hearing raised eyebrows, and yet few from the right acknowledged his partisan rhetoric. Even if Ford’s testimony is unbelievable to some, Kavanaugh revealed an alternative reason not to vote for him.  We heard over and over that Ford was a maleficent con-artist, Kavanaugh was innocent, and the Republicans would triumph. He was to be confirmed to the highest court of the land, a court that requires objective interpretation to protect our constitutional rights and cannot serve this function with politically biased judges. It’s common sense, right? No. It has become terrifyingly clear that sexual assault is now a partisan issue. It is a precedent that Clarence Thomas set. And it’s why Brett Kavanaugh won.

On September 17th 2018, Dr. Ford publicly accused an inebriated Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape at a highschool party in 1982.  Despite this, within a month, Kavanagh was confirmed with a 50-48 vote. Kavanaugh successfully spun Dr. Ford’s testimony as political deterrence—to delay a conservative’s entry into the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas, in his testimony, contested Anita Hill with a similar idea, his exact words being “This is a high tech lynching.” A fundamental difference between Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh was the racial implications that existed in the Anita Hill hearing. Anita Hill is a black woman who indicted a black man in a committee dominated by older, wealthier, and more powerful white men. It inspired a climate of insensitivity towards her allegation. Insufferable questions, that seemed purposefully concocted to favor Thomas dominated the committee’s “investigation.” Committee members like Senator Arlen Specter represented the ignorance of powerful, white men who are complicit with a woman of color’s degradation. Hill recounted how Thomas’s hearing had placed her in uncomfortable conversations relating to his inappropriate thoughts about women’s breasts. Specter followed this with  “You have testified this morning that most embarrassing questions involve...women’s large breasts...that’s a word we use all the time.” Essentially, Specter mocked Anita’s pain and dismissed Thomas’ harassment as trivial, “locker room talk.” Anita Hill was not granted the dignity of being taken seriously, as any weighted accusation should be. Additionally, a shocking amount of racially charged leading questions were spewed throughout the hearing. Senator Howell Heflin, for example, asked Anita Hill “do you have a militant attitude relative to the area of civil rights?” to imply an internalized hatred towards men as basis for her accusation. In spite of inflamed public reaction towards Ford’s allegation, the committee largely handled her with respect. First and foremost, Ford, as a white woman had the upper hand compared to Anita Hill. Historically, white women have had greater access to institutions that (properly) handle sexual assault than black women. The committee is also comprised of a much more diverse peoples; both women and men alike of different ethnic backgrounds. But most significantly, conversations about sexual harassment/assault have flooded social media and fostered an environment where more women than ever before can come forward. Nonetheless, Dr. Ford was under microscopic criticism in every little detail of her testimony, especially about things she could remember or not remember. Kavanaugh’s belligerent behavior produced little to no effect on conservatives, whose heads were stuck deep in the “presumption of innocence” sand. Kavanaugh’s retort to Senator Amy Klobuchar’s questions relating to his drunken behavior is one of these infamous examples. In clear avoidance of the question, he aggressively asked if she had gotten blackout drunk. There were many examples of Kavanaugh’s dodgy and disrespectful assertions throughout the hearing that made him appear suspicious. Dr. Ford, in contrast, was incredibly polite, well-composed, and cooperative with the senators, as was Anita Hill. With this diametrically opposed showdown, how could Kavanaugh’s narrative of Dr. Ford’s “attack” possibly gain traction? Well, Kavanagh has a record of pushing anti-abortion policy. He represents a shakedown of national reproductive rights. Kavanaugh could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, or rule in favor of cases that limit reproductive accessibility for women.  In the same way, Thomas represented reactionary conservatism; he took anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-women’s rights, and other extreme right wing positions.

It’s clear that while America is continuously progressing to a greater future for women and people of color, we are at the infant stages of revolutionary change. There is hope with the expansion of women’s vocal opposition that political structures will challenge partisanship. Politicizing sexual assault is a slippery slope that activists must tackle, but it is possible to deconstruct the state’s poor mishandling of these cases. Anita Hill may not have had the privilege of the national support system that Dr. Ford did, but these moments of history remind us of our obligation to fight injustice. Women now hold over 100 congressional seats, #MeToo garnered widespread recognition of rampant sexual harassment/assault, and people across the nation are fighting for government transparency. It is certainly possible that, in the next two decades, a representative may finally be held fully accountable.

by ANDREA REIER