Anita Hill Shares Her Opinion On How Dr. Ford/ Judge Kavanaugh Hearing Should Be Conducted

The September 2018 case of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford where she is asserting a claim of a past sexual assault against the current SCOTUS nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, hearkens back to a time (1991), when Anita Hill made similar assertions against the current sitting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. After, she was discounted based in part by testimony from Mr. Thomas’s other female working colleagues, his confirmation was rushed through, but then later, three other women came forward with similar allegations.

It’s the same republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch who are rushing the confirmation process through for Judge Brett Kavanaugh that did likewise for Justice Clarence Thomas.

See: A Refresher On Anita Hill And Clarence Thomas : NPR

Check out below video as to how believable Judge Clarence Thomas was in his denials, when we know that were other woman with sexual harassment claims against him.

As per Wikipedia, “Christine Margaret Blasey Ford (known professionally as Christine Blasey) (born c. 1967) is an American psychologist and professor in clinical psychology at Palo Alto University. Widely published in her field, she specializes in designing statistical models for research projects. During her academic career, Ford has worked as a research psychologist for Stanford University’s Department of Psychiatry and a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine Collaborative Clinical Psychology Program.

“On September 16, 2018, she publicly alleged that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, in what she described as an attempted rape.”

Here’s the rest of the story…

On September 18, 2018, Anita Hill for the New York Times penned the following opinion piece, ‘Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right’

“The Senate Judiciary Committee has a chance to do better by the country than it did nearly three decades ago.”

“There is no way to redo 1991, but there are ways to do better.”

“The facts underlying Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of being sexually assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh will continue to be revealed as confirmation proceedings unfold. Yet it’s impossible to miss the parallels between the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing of 2018 and the 1991 confirmation hearing for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate its appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims and the need for public confidence in the character of a nominee to the Supreme Court. It failed on both counts.

Ms. Hill testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in 1991.CreditGreg Gibson/Associated Press
“As that same committee, on which sit some of the same members as nearly three decades ago, now moves forward with the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, the integrity of the court, the country’s commitment to addressing sexual violence as a matter of public interest, and the lives of the two principal witnesses who will be testifying hang in the balance. Today, the public expects better from our government than we got in 1991, when our representatives performed in ways that gave employers permission to mishandle workplace harassment complaints throughout the following decades. That the Senate Judiciary Committee still lacks a protocol for vetting sexual harassment and assault claims that surface during a confirmation hearing suggests that the committee has learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement.”

“With the current heightened awareness of sexual violence comes heightened accountability for our representatives. To do better, the 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee must demonstrate a clear understanding that sexual violence is a social reality to which elected representatives must respond. A fair, neutral and well-thought-out course is the only way to approach Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh’s forthcoming testimony. The details of what that process would look like should be guided by experts who have devoted their careers to understanding sexual violence. The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to serve as fact-finders, to better serve the American public, and the weight of the government should not be used to destroy the lives of witnesses who are called to testify.”

“Here are some basic ground rules the committee should follow:

“Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing. Our interest in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in eliminating sexual misconduct, especially in our public institutions, are entirely compatible. Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy.”

“Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault.”

Image result for photos of Christine Margaret Blasey Ford

“Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations  are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.

“Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply “Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.” Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person.

Link to the entire article: Opinion | Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right


  1. Reblogged this on It Is What It Is and commented:
    ‘On September 18, 2018, Anita Hill for the New York Times penned the following opinion piece, ‘Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right’ … “The Senate Judiciary Committee has a chance to do better by the country than it did nearly three decades ago.” … “There is no way to redo 1991, but there are ways to do better.”
    Seems to me the Republicans didn’t learn anything!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Horty,

      The republican senators have no wish to do better. This is crass politics. They want to get their guy confirmed before the mid-term elections, and damn the torpedoes or whoever or whatever information gets in their way, no matter how relevant it is, as to why Judge kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

      Thanks a million times over for all of your support and for this reblog.

      Hugs, Gronda

      Liked by 1 person

  2. As a candidate for the last bastion of freedom for the American, as it was said of Caesar’s wife ‘Should be above suspicion’

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dear Roger,

      He was supposed to be a gift that would thrill the Evangelical base but this gift is full of defects. He is far from being above suspicion. Of course he was the perfect choice as per President Trump who could figure out a way, without even trying, to screw this one up, too.

      Hugs, Gronda

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.