Sex and Justice

Kawveh Alagheband

AP United States Government and Politics

Mrs. Gordon

March 2, 2016

Sex & Justice

1. Justice Clarence Thomas exclaims that this trial is a "high-tech lynching" and that the charges against him played into racist and bigoted stereotypes. What Thomas is trying to convey when he says "high-tech lynching" is that his reputation has been killed through these sexual allegations. Lynchings were actual murders against African American people, but the lynching he is referring to is of his reputation, saying that it is forever dead. He continuously referred to the trial to have a major aspect of racism and bigotry, even though both Hill and Thomas are African-American.  During Hill's questioning, she continuously brought specific events and facts of when she considered to be harassed. Some Senators, such as Specter, didn't take what she said into consideration but badgered her on facts and repeatedly questioned her morality as a woman and a legal professional. During Clarence Thomas' questioning, Specter made it very obvious whose side he was on  by literally believing every word that came out of Thomas' mouth. Specter even brought out a book that also a reference to "long-dong silver" that defeated the truthfulness of Hill's testimony. Thomas could only agree with his comments and when actually questioned about actual facts of the case, he continued to be on the defensive and "protect" his name against these allegations. He also brought up racial aspects of the trial, using buzz words and phrases like "high-tech lynching" in order to get attention as a victim and also to get a reaction that forces the Senators assessing this trial to refuse any aspect of bigotry because they were all white-males. Using this word got the Senators on his side using guilt which would definitely cause an inevitable win. The comments towards hill were overall biased against, almost as if Thomas had already won. I believe the fact that the committee came into the trial with a bias against Hill, she never had a very big chance to beat Thomas. 
2. The Red Scare hearings were held by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's. Hollywood actors and personal were forced to testify that they were anti-communism and really just "true Americans". Until they did these testimonies, McCarthy and his administration jailed, fined and blacklisted from Hollywood. These actors that refused to go along with these lost all of their credibility that they had  gained while in "show-biz". The Thomas v. Hill case were very similar to the Red Scare cases because they were both highly publicized, but besides publication, there aren't many similarities. 

Sex & Justice Kenneth Martin

Kenneth Martin

AP US Government & Politics Period 3

Mrs. Gordon

March 7, 2016

1. A “high-tech lynching” is the idea that rather than actually killing Clarence Thomas like historical lynchings, the purpose of the hearings are to kill his reputation. According to Thomas, the allegations and hearings are racially motivated and use stereotypes of black men to harm his reputation, much in the same way that people used those stereotypes and accusations of sexual misconduct to justify killing black men. Prof. Hill, however, claimed she was simply trying to bring the truth to light and that she had nothing to gain by going through this highly publicized process. Contrary to Thomas’ claim about a “high-tech lynching”, the congressional committee was much kinder to him than to Prof. Hill, who sat through hours of intense and often ridiculous questioning, while during Clarence Thomas’ hearing there seemed to be very little opposition to his claims. A large majority of the comments during the hearings were heavily biased in favor of Thomas. The committee’s handling of the hearings certainly affected the outcome of their findings, which unfairly dismissed Anita Hill’s claims.
2. In the 1950’s the Red Scare was in full swing and Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a leading figure in it. During this time, a number of hearings and investigations into a perceived Communist threat were held. The many people accused of being Communists were deprived of their First and Fifth Amendment rights and their careers and reputations were ruined. The McCarthy hearings and the treatment of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee were similar in that they were highly publicized, but the similarities end there. Unlike the victims of accusations by McCarthy and other anti-Communists, Thomas was treated fairly well by the committee and by the public. In addition, most of the claims against people accused of being Communists were false or highly exaggerated, while in my opinion the allegations against Clarence Thomas are likely to be true.

Sex and Justice -- Jordi Amaral

Jordi Amaral

AP Gov. and Politics

Gordon

3/3/16

Clarence Thomas used the term "high-tech lynching" in order to portray himself as a victim of society as opposed to the perpetrator of a heinous crime.  By saying the trial was a “high-tech lynching,” Thomas is comparing the racist, public murders of black men that were often due to accusations of sexual misconduct, to the very public and televised tarnishing of his reputation through the trial. Anita Hill gave the senators a very descriptive and clear explanation of the actions of Thomas, however these were received by Thomas, and many in the committee to be false and used in order to prevent Thomas from being on the Supreme Court. Thus, they questioned her in an extremely inappropriate manner that in most normal trials would lead to a contempt of court violation. When Thomas was questioned, some of the Senators would refer back to Hill’s testimony in a derogatory way, attempting to lead Thomas to certain answers that would make Hill look bad. I wholeheartedly believe that if the lines of questioning like that were to have been quelled, then we would not have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court today.

During the 1950s, the Red Scare was sweeping the nation as the Soviet Union and communism started to gain a power that rivaled that of the USA and democracy. The fear of communism led to actions reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trial, much like the Communist hearings held by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1950. In my personal opinion the cases do not appear connected or are all that similar. However, two facets to either case need to be addressed when comparing them. For one, the key difference is in the evidence used in the respective allegations. In 1950, people were put on the stand simply to point other people out and apply blame to others. In 1991, however, Anita Hill had a clear and precise list of evidence against Clarence Thomas. The real similarity lying between the two cases comes when one looks at the end product of the cases, Both cases led to the ruining of reputations and led the nation to have bad feelings about what went down.

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.