Malachi Clark

Malachi Clark

AP U.S. Government

Ms. Gordon

1. When Clarence Thomas speaks on the idea of a "high-tech lynching" which is a very ill-defined term. He says this for a few reason one being the fact that playing the race card to a all white committee will make them feel uncomfortable and more likely to favor him because they don't want to look like they are racist. The idea of a "high-tech lynching" suggests that the comments made by Anita Hill are equivalent to a group of people hanging him for absolutely no reason. "High-tech lynching" is when a person makes a statement or statements that's intention is to kill someones worth and professional standing. This clearly affected the committee's findings because they no longer wanted to find anything out about him because of the fear that they would be called "racist".

I believe that the committee listened to what Dr. Hill had to say almost solely with the purpose of knocking her down and using her words against her in the hearing of Clarence Thomas. In this situation the victim was questioned more than the actual possible perpetrated of a crime. This being the case when they got to Clarence Thomas' hearing the committee tried to destroy Dr. Hill.

2. Both cases were seen as an opportunity to defame political superpowers, in the case of Anita Hill the allegations against Clarence Thomas weren't based purely on speculation and more so on what she stated to be her own personal experience. In the communism case there were more than two hundred people's careers being put at risk due to rediculus claims while in Anita Hill's case the claims she made could have and probably were true.

Jay

Jay Moore

Gordon 3

AP Gov

Sex & Justice

Prompt 1:In the documentary Sex and Justice, Clarence Thomas was accused of very serious sexual harassment charges.  Thomas was deeply offended by these accusations and referenced the charges to "high-tech lynching."  He took these accusations personally, claiming they were racially charged.  The idea of "high tech lynching" sparks a plethora of controversy.  Thomas also often referenced that he was trying to get his name back.  My interpretation is that when he referred to the term of high-tech lynching he was implying that someone is trying to lower his name because of his race. This case was not only painful forThomas.  Anita Hill's claims were repetitively denied and not taken seriously.  All in all, I don't believe that the case was fairly looked at.  I believe this was because Thomas was a male and he was more politically accomplished.

Prompt 2:

Nadav Schoenberg Sex & Justice

Nadav Schoenberg

Gordon 3

AP Gov

Sex & Justice

Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas was extremely offended by the allegations of sexual harassment brought upon him by Anita Hill. Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassing her while they worked together for a government agency. Thomas described the accusations and the trial that followed as a "high-tech lynching". Thomas, a black man, felt that the accusations brought upon him were racially charged. Thomas explained that many of the accusations were based around stereotypes that were and continue to be associated with black men. Thomas felt that by accusing him of such actions, Hill was attempting to end his career and his life as a professional sense the lynching analogy. Thomas's attempt to drag race into the trial was unsuccessful. One Senator on the committee even requested that no comments about race be used in the trial as both Thomas and Hill. Also, lynchings were usually done in public in order to draw attention. Thomas's trial was all over both print and television, publicizing the accusations around the country.

During the Cold War, Americans were terrified of Communism. The Red Scare struck the United States. The Soviet Union grew to one of the most powerful countries in the world, intensifying Americans fear of a Communist society. Joseph McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin, accused and brought to trial many people who were accused of being communist. There is little connection between the Clarence Thomas trial and McCarthy's hearings. Actually there is one large difference between the trials. Thomas left his trials unscaved and continues to rule on the Supreme Court. However, after McCarthy's trials, those who were accused saw their reputations destroyed.

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.

Sex and Justice Response

Colin Baker

3/3/16

Clarence Thomas believed his hearing was a high tech lynching. Despite Anita Hill also being black he thought her allegations were rooted in racism and she was basing her claims of the stereotype of a black male as a sexual being. However I personally don’t believe there’s any connection between an employee claiming her boss was sexually harassing her to a modern or “high-tech” version of public executions. Clarence Thomas believed his character and reputation was being publicly executed by false allegations however there was absolutely no proof that Hill’s claims were fabricated. I think Thomas played the racism card to invalidate Hill’s accusations to the committee, which really hindered her as the committee already treated her with extreme skepticism. Most of the committee previously knew Thomas and believed that they knew him well enough to know that he would never sexually harass Anita Hill. Some of the Democrats on the panel questioned Thomas more intensely but not nearly to the same degree as Anita Hill.

In the 1950’s the Red Scare was sweeping the U.S. as the Soviet Union rose to be as one of the biggest world powers post World War 2. As the threat of Soviet Russia grew so did people’s fear of communism. As a part of the Red Scare, Joseph McCarthy, a republican Senator from Wisconsin accused and held hearings for multiple government employees that he believed were communists that supported the overthrow of the government. However I see little to no connection between the McCarthy trials and Clarence Thomas’s trial. During Thomas’s trial many of the senator’s on the committee gave Thomas the benefit of the doubt and were extremely skeptical of Anita Hill’s claims. In the McCarthy trials, those accused had to prove their innocence even with little or no evidence to show that they were communist. Those accused were questioned intensely and treated with hostility. Many of those accused had their reputations ruined forever while Clarence Thomas went on to become a Supreme Court Justice.

Sex and Justice Karin Komiyama

Karin Komiyama
AP US Gov
Period 3
3/2/16

Sex and Justice

Prompt #1- 

High tech lynching is a widely publicized and unjust sabotage of one's reputation. Clarence Thomas believed that he was under attack by Prof. Hill, for she was ruining his career, destroying his name and dignity. His flawed explanation for her motives were that she was playing the race card to end his political career. Prof. Hill recounted her ordeal with precision, giving the Senators exact details of the sexual harassment she received from Thomas. The congressional committee was divided in their attitude towards Prof Hill. Some of the members attacked her, especially Howell Heflin, who had the audacity ask if she had a martyr complex. Their treatment of Thomas was unfortunately fairer than of Hill. However, some Senators, like Ted Kennedy took Hill's side and berated Thomas and the other members of the committee for using the race card and not taking Hill seriously. I think the way some Senators clearly took Thomas' side and made Hill look bad during the hearing affected the outcome.

Prompt #2-
The Hill v Thomas proceeding was similar to the Red Scare hearings held by Joseph McCarthy back in  the 1950's. The Hollywood people (actors, screenwriters, producers, etc) were publicly forced to testify that they were anti-communism. Until they did so, McCarthy and his administration blacklisted fines, and jailed them. The notorious Hollywood Big Ten refused to testify in court, and all were deleted from Hollywood. They were jailed, fined, and struggled to find work as actors again. I see power being abused in both cases. McCarthy and Thomas overstepped their authority (I know that Thomas was found not guilty by the courts, but I believe he is guilty). However, I do see a comparison on how Thomas was being treated just as the actors from 1950. They were all publicly humiliated, and had dirt smeared across their names. 

Sex and Justice Response (Anne)

Anne Hruska
U.S. Gov
Ms. Gordon
Sex & Justice response
March 2, 2016

1. In Clarence Thomas’ case, he used the term “high-tech lynching” in order to make himself seem like the victim of this particular circumstance, both of the trial, and under the jurisdiction of the Congressional Committee. He is a black man, and in society black males have very strong stereotypes surrounding them; furthermore, much of what Anita Hill testified that Thomas said was in line with certain stereotypes associated with black men. He took this chance to relate what Hill said to the lynchings that happened to blacks, and used the term “high-tech lynching” to relay the magnitude of the reputational sabotage he felt Hill’s claims did to him. However, his attempt to drag his race into an issue that was between a black man and black woman was noted on the committee. One member even mentioned that he did not wish to hear any more comments regarding racism as it was between the two of them, so apparently there would be no bias present. On Thomas’ side of the argument, he was furiously trying to defend himself, he had his reputation at stake which is enough to worry anyone, regardless of position. Then, he proceeded to deny all testimonies of Ms. Hill and tried to dodge all the allegations by simply denying them. On Hill’s side, she came out only after a friend urged her and she testified to what she believed happened. This lead to the whole trial essentially being an argument based on who the committee would've chosen to believe, there was very little undisputed evidence that was being entered and the majority of each person’s testimonies being hearsay. The committee is made up of humans, humans who have biases and cannot make every decision equitably. Not only this, but the entire committee was composed of white males so they sided with most of Thomas’ views because they were viewing it through professional male eyes; while I find it much easier to side with Anita Hill, as she is a woman and in this case the victim. Though the final vote was rather close, I still believe the reason that Thomas prevailed was because of the personal bias among committee members.

2. I think that the two cases certainly share some similarities but should be looked upon as issues of very different natures. The largest and most prominent connection between the two is the impact that the allegations had on each person's personal, work, and social lives. In the case of Clarence Thomas, he had so much on the line including all of his years of schooling, as well as his spot on the supreme court which seems to be enough for anyone to want to preserve their spotless reputation. However, in 1950 the Communist hearing, which was held by senator Joseph McCarthy, was responsible for blaming roughly 200 of the U.S. government as spies. This had a very long lasting effect on the reputations of many of these government workers and seemed like more of an attack on the members of government from McCarthy, as opposed to Anita Hill’s cry for help.