Campaign Action
The 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings were a stain on the nation, and that stain looks no better with 27 years of distance. The prospective Supreme Court justice was credibly accused of a history of sexual harassment; the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee, in the end, did not care. Thomas' principal accuser, attorney Anita Hill, was dragged through the public mud for daring to speak up. Thomas was confirmed anyway, and the public harassment of Hill continues to this day.
In a New York Times essay printed today Hill, now a university professor, urges the current Senate to do better.
To do better, the 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee must demonstrate a clear understanding that sexual violence is a social reality to which elected representatives must respond. A fair, neutral and well-thought-out course is the only way to approach Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh’s upcoming testimony. The details of what that process would look like should be guided by experts who have devoted their careers to understanding sexual violence. The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to serve as fact-finders, to better serve the American public, and the weight of the government should not be used to destroy the lives of witnesses who are called to testify. [...]
Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.
The woman who came forward to describe the violent sexual assault by Kavanaugh when she was 15 years old, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, is now both placed in a difficult public position and will be "outresourced" by those that wish to see Kavanaugh confirmed regardless of the incident, says Hill. But since Kavanaugh "stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair."
Several of the members of the 1991 Judiciary Committee remain on the committee today. Now-Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley has been attempting to hurry Kavanaugh through the process with all possible speed, a decision made for no credible stated reason but which may be intended to outpace further revelations about Kavanaugh's past and career. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch has picked up where he left off in the Clarance Thomas hearings, publicly stating that he believes Kavanaugh's denials and that his victim may be "mixed up" in her accusations. Among Democrats, only Sen. Patrick Leahy remains—and while he seems uninterested in repeating committee mistakes of two decades ago, he is outnumbered by those seemingly anxious to do so.
But it is not 1991 any longer. Even in the fossilized Senate, it is not 1991 any longer. Hill's letter urging the Senate to treat Ford's claims seriously and with respect makes no threats or speculation on what will happen if they do not. But with a public already widely repulsed by the actions of a morally rudderless national leadership, it is difficult to believe those who seek to attack Ford or ignore her will escape from those actions unscathed.