Upon further considerations of both the Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford allegations, one can come to realize that there are more similarities than differences between them. Anita Hill is a lawyer and professor of social policy, law, and women’s studies. In 1991, she accused Clarence Thomas, a then-Supreme Court Justice Nominee, of sexual misconduct while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education. In 2018, Christine Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University, claimed that Supreme Court Justice Nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party while the two were in high school. There are striking parallels given by both the accusers and the now-Supreme Court Justices in both cases, even though they occurred three decades apart. Both Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas were forced to defend themselves at length during these hearings, but still the public may question their legitimacy in response to the allegations during the time of their confirmation. As the Women’s Movement surges again in the US, it is vital to look at how far the country has come – and how far it has yet to go- in regards to holding all people, especially those who have substantial power over the law, and those we elect to public office, accountable for upholding the laws they are entitled to protect. 

Anita Hill came forward to accuse Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual misconduct in 1991 when he was nominated by George W. Bush for Supreme Court Justice. Professor Hill described images of her being repeatedly asked out and spoken to in a romantic manner by Clarence Thomas while the two worked together years prior at the Department of Education. She testified that he would repeatedly comment on women’s bodies to Hill, describe pornography he watched including group sex and sex with animals, and once asked Ms. Hill, “Who put a pubic hair on my Coke can?” The 1991 trial became a spectacle for Americans to marvel at because it was the first time pornography had been spoken about in a public, televised Senate hearing. C-SPAN views soared as this day-long trial was broadcasted over the entire world as both Hill and Justice Thomas testified. Thomas began his testimony by denying every claim made against him, arguing that the allegations were projecting stereotypes on black men. He went on to say that the hearings were “…a circus and a national disgrace, high tech lynching for uppity blacks.” Justice Thomas made it a point to highlight his African American heritage and repeatedly suggested that this hearing had more to do with his race than with his character, though there was no evidence of that.

In the 2018 hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford came forward and accused him of sexually assaulting her in high school. In her nearly twenty-minute long opening statement she described the assault  and how it subsequently impacted the rest of her life. Kavanaugh defended himself by calling the hearings a “circus,” as Thomas had, throwing questions back at members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and emphasizing his educational background as a Yale Law School graduate. He explained how he worked tirelessly to get into Yale Law with no connections, and underscored his work ethic, using these as reasons for his innocence. Upon being asked about his drinking habits by Senator Amy Klobuchar, he asked her if she liked beer instead of directly answering her question. Senator Kamala Harris pleaded with the Chairman of the Committee to postpone the hearings until after they had all the documents required to make a succinct and informed decision. The  hearings were delayed one hour, but still moved forward before all the documents could be reviewed by council members. Kavanaugh failed to acknowledge pictures of his fraternity (with him not included) holding up a flag of women’s undergarments in college. Also not mentioned by him were the numerous other women who came forward accusing him of similar misconduct and former classmates claiming he was a “heavy drinker” and “belligerent drunk” during his time in college and in law school. Though these classmates came forward in the wake of his nomination, their voices were not heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a result, only Ford testified.

One stark contrast in both cases is how both women were treated during the trials.  Only roughly 24% of Americans believed Anita Hill after she gave  her testimony, and was generally treated as an impediment, rather than a legitimate figure, by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Joe Biden sat on the committee and expressed his sorrow for Thomas stating, ​“Judge, I know this is a hard night for you, and I respect your request to keep it to an hour…” During his campaign for President, Vice President Biden has since apologized for the way Hill was treated throughout the hearing process.  In comparison, Ford was treated as what she was: a victim in this circumstance. Before she gave her opening remarks it was made known that she could request a break whenever she wanted and was told “if there’s something that you need [that] you don’t have…just ask us” by Senator Chuck Grassley. This improvement did not go unnoticed by the media, who often compared the two cases. 

Both women stated that they did not choose to come forward because it was easy, but rather because they believed the American people should know the past actions of men who would sit in such powerful positions. Ford later stated that Anita Hill was her inspiration for speaking out, but she had not realized the inspiration she had brought to others to do the same. Alyssa Milano, a victim of sexual assault and activist, posted on Facebook using the hashtag “#MeToo”. During the first 24 hours, the hashtag was used by more than 4.7 million people. Since then, similar hashtags such as #TimesUp have spread quickly, in part due to Ford’s testimony. Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Thomas both denied all allegations against them, but Justice Kavanaugh did not answer questions in a direct manner like Justice Thomas had. Clarence Thomas kept a cool composure throughout the entire hearing, while Kavanaugh questioned Senators on the committee, raised his voice, and got emotional through the whole hearing. This contrast could explain why more people believed Ford than Hill, since Kavanaugh was clearly deflecting certain questions and showing signs of extreme nervousness. 

Though treatment of these victims has improved, the demographics of the Senate Judiciary Committee have hardly altered since 1991. During the hearings, Hill testified in front of an all-white, male committee. It was not an unsimilar congregation that Ford testified in front of, with only a few women such as Amy Klobuchar and people of color such as Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. A more diverse group brings more diverse points of view, which can heavily benefit the decision making process in such public and intense events, and is something Anita Hill simply did not have. Another pattern in the Senate Judiciary Committee is that they have not stopped the Supreme Court nominee from being nominated despite allegations against them. 45% of Americans claim to believe Ford, a considerable improvement to the mere 24% who believed Professor Hill. Senators on the committee stated after the 2018 hearings that they believed both parties, ending in a 50-48 vote to appoint him as justice. Thomas also had a close call getting approved, with a 52-48 vote to forward the nomination to the full Senate in 1991.

At first glance, it is easy to believe that the public is shifting its perception towards sexual assault allegations due to the #MeToo era.  The votes between both hearings suggest the Senate Judiciary Committee is slowly progressing toward siding with victims in these situations, but we, as a society, are not quite there yet. Though Dr.  Ford garnered a lot of support throughout the experience, she had also attracted unwanted attention from those who thought she was a political puppet to slow Kavanaugh’s nomination. Ford has received so many death threats that she had to move out of her California home during and after the hearing (and three times after that), and as of November 2018, two months after the hearing, she was still not able to return to work. More respect towards sexual assault victims is promising to change the way in which the public and government perceives allegations of sexual assault, but it is clear that ultimately votes still favor the men who are being accused. In Ford’s case, thousands of documents were not read by members of the committee because the Chair did not want to further postpone nominations, which is a clear sign that the head of the committee saw the allegations as a road block rather than something to be taken seriously and thought about carefully. As the question of sexual harassment becomes only more prevalent in the US, we must ask ourselves the question: what are we doing to ensure those serving on the highest court in our land are upholding the laws they took an oath to protect? And how are we subsequently holding those who supported their claim to power accountable?