Prompt 1:
A high-tech lynching, used in the context of Clarence Thomas’s testimony, can be defined as an attempt (either successful or otherwise) to destroy the reputation of a person. Justice Thomas clearly felt, as indicated by his characterization of the process, that he was being targeted on account of his race. He points to historical background, stating that when African American men were lynched, they were almost always additionally accused of sexual misconduct. However, there are a couple of flaws with his usage of this term.
First, for Thomas to claim that these accusations were based in racism in order to defame him would ignore the role that Anita Hill plays in society as a minority in two respects in that she is both black and a woman. Professor Hill is a highly educated woman, who, during the hearing, had little reason to lie. Thomas, at the time of the hearings, had everything to lose - a shot at the Supreme Court. The hearings were not a “high-tech lynching”; rather, they were fair accusations brought against him. Professor Hill described the multiple incidents of sexual harassment so vividly and in such detail that it is hard to believe that she would falsify evidence just to make sure Thomas didn’t get on the Supreme Court. On the other hand, throughout the entire process, Justice Thomas was incredibly defensive of his actions, denied her claims, and tried to make himself the victim of the situation.
Second, it is easy to presume that he used such a statement in order to have a greater impact upon the people deciding the outcome of the trial. To have used such heavy words that carry a great deal of history and weight in a situation of this circumstance is not an accident, and such an impassioned defense eventually led to his confirmation as a justice.
However, Thomas was heavily supported by some of the senators on that committee. The handling of Professor Hill’s version of events as opposed to that of Clarence Thomas was drastically different. Professor Hill had enemies on that committee, and even if some senators weren’t her enemies, they were not necessarily her friends either. There was heavy bias towards Thomas on the part of the members of the committee, which definitely affected the outcome of the findings. The questioning for Professor Hill was considerably more intense and harsh than that of Thomas, whose actions were sometimes passed off because of the level of familiarity he held with members of that committee.
Personally, I believe Professor Hill’s side of the story. When it comes to sexual harassment, it is often overlooked and passed off as normal, and this case brought both the issue and the professor to the spotlight. She was uncomfortable with the attention, but she felt that she had to speak the truth, despite the opposition she knew she would face. However, the findings of the committee, for a number of reasons, eventually resulted in a vote in favor of Thomas.
Prompt 2:
The confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas had some similarities and differences with the McCarthy hearings during the 1950s. After World War II, the Red Scare reappeared as the threat of Soviet Russia became more prominent, and the beginnings of the Cold War started to develop. During this period, a wave of fear and paranoia surrounding Communism became prevalent; this was dubbed the “Red Scare,” and the movement in Congress was largely led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, a Republican senator from Wisconsin.
As a part of the Red Scare, McCarthy conducted a series of hearings, in which multiple people were accused and defamed under accusations of being a communist. Oftentimes, McCarthy would have little to no evidence of this actually being the case; instead, it was up to the defendant to adequately prove that they were not guilty, and have sufficient evidence to support them.
In the case of Clarence Thomas, he was also targeted, although by claims of sexual harassment as opposed to association with communism, similar to those persecuted by McCarthy. However, there are a couple of key differences that explain why there is a weak connection between the two trials.
First, the manner in which each hearing was conducted differed greatly. In the case of the McCarthy hearings, the trials were based upon a principle of “guilty before proven innocent,” which essentially meant that the defendants were assumed to be guilty (i.e. communist) until they were able to sufficiently prove otherwise. The accusations were also based upon scant evidence, if any existed at all. However, in the case of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, it was the burden of Anita Hill, the person pressing the charges, to prove that Thomas committed acts of sexual harassment, and she was able to cite multiple instances of this occurrence. In this case, “innocent before proven guilty” was the leading principle at play. Therefore, the burden of proof was different in both cases; and of equal difficulty in both sets of trials for both those accused of being communist and Anita Hill, because they were faced from the outset with disagreement and bias against them.
Second, the outcomes of the two hearings were very different. In the case of the McCarthy trials, many of the defendants left with their reputations destroyed and complete defamation occurring in most cases. As a result of the trials, McCarthy was eventually censored by the Senate; however, this was not nearly enough to correct the damage that was done. On the other hand, in the case of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, Thomas eventually became Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, despite the accusations of Professor Hill, and the latter remains a very well-respected professor and person in society.
Therefore, even though both Thomas and the defendants in the McCarthy hearings were similarly targeted, the causes behind the accusations, the way the hearings were conducted, and the outcomes of the hearings demonstrate that only a weak link can be made between these two instances.
