Before the “Me Too” movement, Dr. Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual assault clouded the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court, inciting national outrage after Thomas’ eventual confirmation. Hill, who testified in front of the Judiciary Committee, responded to the onslaught of questions that blamed her for Thomas’ actions or doubted that said actions even took place: “The question I have for you is how reliable is your testimony,” asked by Senator Arlen Specter. He continued: “how sure can you expect this committee to be on the accuracy of your statements?” In response to being asked why she did not come forward earlier, she responded: “I was afraid of retaliation, I was afraid of damage to my professional life, and I believe that you have to understand that this response... is not atypical, and I can't explain.”
In October 2018, the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh sparked national indignation after he was accused of sexual assault. Despite his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony at the confirmation hearing, the Senate confirmedKavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court by a vote of 50 to 48 on October 6, 2018, solidifying a conservative stronghold on the country’s highest court. During his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh responded to lines of inquiry with a consistently aggressive and dismissive tone, saying in his opening statement that the confirmation processhad been a “national disgrace.” Kavanaugh reiterated this sentiment for eight hours, denying the numerous accusations and affirming his credentials to serve on the court. Nonetheless, Kavanaugh ended the hearing with a display of substantial emotion, sobbing quickly after he began speaking.
While Kavanaugh appeared emotional, it is plausible that his histrionic display was merely an attempt to manipulate the Judiciary Committee. Furthermore, by Kavanaugh’s appeals to faith, family values, high status, as well as self-infantilization, he successfully vindicated himself of any wrongdoing: “But I swear today under oath before the Senate and the nation before my family and God, I am innocent of this charge.” He introduced his family and their relationship to their faith to undermine the validity of Ford’s accusations by making them seem out of his character, saying:
“The other night, Ashley and my daughter, Liza, said their prayers. And little Liza — all of 10 years old — said to Ashley, ‘We should pray for the woman.’ It’s a lot of wisdom from a 10-year old. We mean — we mean no ill will.”
Not only did Kavanaugh publicize his commitment to family values, he also referenced his history of academic prowess:
“Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.”
Similarly, he also touted his accomplishments in his law career:
“For the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job, I’ve served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second-most important court in the country. I’ve handled some of the most significant sensitive cases affecting the lives and liberties of the American people.”
Partisanship also influenced Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia abandoned party lines and voted for Kavanaugh. Susan Collins, Republican Senator from Maine, also voted for Kavanaugh in a controversial decision. These votes can be attributed to trying to secure reelection in a solidly Republican state or trying to secure a conservative majority on the court.
Kavanaugh's turbulent proceedings reflect the progress made by the Me Too Movement as well as its major shortcomings. Dr. Ford went to great lengths to substantiate her claims as well as inform the American people of Kavanaugh’s alleged treachery. Yet, Kavanaugh’s ascent to the Supreme Court is a sobering reminder of the deeply-ingrained sexism in the United States and the ease of circumventing any and all consequences of sexist behavior by relying on party politics and cunning rhetorical strategies.
Like Kavanaugh, Thomas also reacted tempestuously, accusing the all-white group of senators of conductinga “high-tech lynching.” Thomas minimized the seriousness of allegations by making it seem as though the Senators were escalating Hill’s statements to vilify him as a black man, saying that today “you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.” Partisanship also governed Thomas’ confirmation. Thomas procured the support of 42 Republicans and 11 Democrats, mostly from solidly Republican states. The Democratic senators that supported Thomas did so in an attempt to remain electable in their states.
Just as partisanship was a major determinant in the success of Kavanaugh and Thomas, their appeals to emotion proved to be effective in gaining sympathy from their respective Judiciary Committees. While it is possible that Kavanaugh’s and Thomas’s reactions were authentic, they could also be a facade to maintain their humanity in the face of such damning indictments. Despite their career’s emphasis on stoicism, Kavanaugh and Thomas portrayed themselves as sensitive and temperamental.
Women in similar positions do not have the same luxury to express their emotions due to gender stereotypes. By crying or weeping, women are often labeled as overemotional or weak, whereas men are sometimes seen as personable and humane. Many critics of Dr. Ford’s testimony cited a lack of confidencein her recollection of the events, ignoring the emotional trauma associated with victims of sexual assault. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham accusedhis Democratic colleagues of “destroying this guy’s [Kavanaugh] life” and said that Kavanaugh had “nothing to apologize for.” Despite hours of testimony that Dr. Ford gave to the Judicial Committee, Graham offered his condolences to Kavanaugh’s family, but said nothing to Dr. Ford, “I cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through,” he said.
By analyzing the cases of Kavanaugh and Thomas, we can reveal the commonality of using appeals to emotion and partisanship to exculpate oneself. It is essential to see through people’s overcharged displays that attempt to garner sympathy. While people are acting on sympathy, it is enabling abusers to continue to game the system. In recognizing potential acting and manipulation, we can better evaluate the validity and veracity of a candidate’s platform. The double standards that society applies in dealing with men and women who show emotional vulnerability are seen in many areas of life, yet for women attempting to obtain positions of power, any emotional outburst can be detrimental to their character and reputation.