In the words of Mark Twain, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
The sexual assault allegations that could derail the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States are oddly reminiscent of Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment against then-Judge Clarence Thomas.
In 1991, President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. After initially completing confirmation hearings, the Senate reopened hearings after an FBI report containing an interview with Hill was leaked to the press. The FBI is responsible for conducting background checks to be used by the Senate during the confirmation process.
With hearings reopened, Hill publically testified before the Senate how Thomas had sexually harassed her ten years earlier while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — asking her out repeatedly, using work settings to talk about sexual subjects, describing his own sexual prowess to her.
Thomas categorically denied her allegations. Hill took a polygraph test, the results of which supported her statements. Thomas did not. His supporters attacked Hill’s credibility, questioning the time delay between the incidents and reporting and speculating that Hill’s allegations were politically motivated or driven by a desire to see his career prospects destroyed. Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a margin of four votes.
Twenty-seven years later, another woman has made allegations against a Supreme Court nominee. His supporters are attacking her credibility, questioning the time delay between the incidents and reporting and speculating that her allegations are politically motivated or driven by a desire to see his career prospects destroyed.
Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University in California, has publicly stated Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while they were both at a high school party in 1982, that he held her down and forcibly tried to remove her clothing. Ford’s lawyer requested the FBI reopen Kavanaugh’s background check and investigate the incident. The FBI declined. Ford has agreed to testify at a Senate hearing on Thursday.
Discrediting these accusations because of the amount of time that has passed since the incident occurred, as President Trump has done, disregards the nature of reporting sexual assault. There are any number of reasons why survivors of sexual assault decline to report it immediately, or why they decline to report at all. They may not know how. Someone they confide in may discourage them from making a report. As part of a neurobiological and psychological response to trauma, they may be unable to recall specific details. They may be ashamed to talk about something so personal with the authorities. They made be fearful that the incident will become public, or fearful of retaliation.
Those who attack the credibility of allegations like Hill and Ford’s have only one legitimate argument against believing them: the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. Trial in “the court of public opinion,” they say, is no trial at all since it all it takes for a man’s reputation to be ruined is one accusation of misconduct from any quarter, in any chapter of their lives. Judgment is swift and appeal futile.
This, however, is exactly why we need the court of public opinion, imperfect though it is. The actual judicial system is glacially slow. The statute of limitations prevents victims from seeking legal recourse and shields perpetrators from the consequences of their actions, consequences that aren’t lessened for the victim just because an arbitrary number of years has passed. But cultural and social condemnation can pass this judgment and ensure there are consequences.
Workplace sexual harassment like Hill experienced has clear legal distinctions from sexual assault in a private setting. Both, however, are violence against women, and a cultural reckoning has come for men who perpetrate it.
Calling statements made by victims “allegations” or “accusations” reflects the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Like other newspapers, the Branding Iron does this to be legally accurate. Using this terminology serves to protect those who are actually innocent but also immediately discredits what victims have to say, putting the onus on them to persuade the public to trust their word over their assailants.’
Victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault who come forward with these allegations have little to gain and everything to lose. They deserve to be listened to. They deserve to be heard. And they deserve to be believed.
When Dr. Ford testifies before the Senate Thursday, I, for one, plan to believe her.
