ETHS AP Government & Politics 2015 Blog

Quinn Tucker

AP Gov.

Ms. Gordon

Sex and Justice Assignment

Prompt 1:   “High tech lynching” is the idea that old lynching was usually started from small allegations that black males were sexually harassing white females. In this case the “high tech lynching” is that Clarence Thomas is being “lynched” of his career and reputation by the allegations put forth by Prof. Hill. Hill brings forward a long list of specific incidents in which she was sexually harassed they accounts were detailed and horrifyingly disturbing. Thomas’s defense was simply that all the allegations are false and that he didn’t harass Hill. The committee’s responses varied depending on the member’s personal opinion on the case.  Those who supported Hill backed her argument and attacked Thomas by using Hill’s testimony against him. Whereas those who supported Thomas tried to falsify Hill’s testimony in abstract ways and they viciously attacked and scrutinized Hill while she was on the stand. In the movie the board seem to be siding in favor of Hill but Thomas still ended up with the judge nomination. I feel like the all-white male board seem to be siding with Thomas the whole time and those who didn’t voice very strong opinions about the case were planning on supporting Thomas. Also, those who attacked Hill were more aggressive than when they attacked Thomas. Because the case was based on “he said she said” the board chose the male because it was an all-white male board against a black women.

Prompt 2:    

The proceedings towards Clarence Thomas were allegations of sexual harassment whereas Senator Joseph McCarthy’s hearings where for allegations of communism in the army. Thomas was attacked in during his nomination to be a Supreme Court Justice and Hill brought forward an entire set of specific allegations and moments where Thomas harassed her. In comparison McCarthy brings forward allegations of supposed moments that people within the army were promoting communist acts and a portion of the hearings assessed the security risk of homosexuals in government. The cases both were based on very insubstantial evidence and all based on word of mouth by certain people. None of the evidence was physical but in the case of Clarence Thomas the allegations were specific and brought forward by one person. In comparison to McCarthy’s case where the people were brought onto the stand and asked to simply call other people out without any specific evidence. McCarthy’s case wasn’t real due to the nature of how it was conducted and inevitably ruined his reputation. Thomas still ended up as a Supreme Court Justice even with the case. Gender and diversity only applied to the Thomas case and didn’t play as serious a role in the McCarthy case. The outcome of both cases resulted in the ruining of people’s reputations. Thomas still got the job but his life was changed forever. McCarthy’s career went downhill after the trials and many people ended up in jail or ruined because of what happened. Both cases were satisfying outside agendas and really didn’t benefit anyone in specific and caused more harm to multiple parties.