I found “The Confirmation of Justice Thomas” to, as a whole, reaffirm my confidence in the way our political system works. I’m certainly not denying that the controversy was free from ethical violations. If Thomas did behave as Hill and others claimed this was obviously immoral and illegal behavior and it alone should disqualify him from ever becoming a justice on the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if Hill, Wright, and their witnesses truly did fabricate the allegations as a political ploy as Thomas claimed, their behavior would be equally immoral. In addition, Hill’s request for confidentiality should have been respected; the leak was absolutely unjustifiable.
However, if we look at the governmental response to these unfortunately events, I think the case revealed a lot of redemptive qualities about the structure of our system and the officials’—especially Biden’s—navigation of it in a way that balanced the individual’s right to privacy with the public’s right to information. From the onset, Biden respected the Anita Hill’s right to pursue her allegations against Thomas to whatever degree she felt comfortable doing so. During every step of the process, he treated both sides fairly, refusing to both “circulate anonymous charge[s]” (122) and allow “the victim to be victimized by the system (129). One of his most important decisions in the case and perhaps the most relevant to our discussion was his refusal to allow “questioning about the personal lives of either Thomas or Hill during the hearings, including questions relating to whether Thomas had viewed pornography at home and questions about Hill’s sex life” (130). The open way in which Biden and the other leaders went about conducting the hearings allowed difficult issues like racial and sexual stereotypes to be brought into the open and the difficult topic of sexual harassment in the workplace to be confronted. Additionally, it raised the question for open political debate about whether the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ applied only to the defendant in a trial court or whether that right should be extended to a person’s nomination to the Supreme Court. In general, I feel that, although it is a tragedy that any of this had to happen, it was done in a way that celebrated American democracy and transparency in government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see your point, but I actually thought the complete opposite almost. I felt that this case just brought to light how faulty our system still is, even after centuries of modification. I do appreciate the fact that Biden worked hard to keep things confidential, and I understand the press can be...well...very pressing at times(lol), so the leak really was unintended.
ReplyDeleteAs you stated, the main concern in terms of this class would be considering whether it was right for Biden to put limits on the amount of information obtainable. I think the information that might have(and most certainly could have) been obtained regarding Thomas' history of video rentals, and that this information might have pointed to concrete, confirmed truth in Anita Hill's statement.
I disagree with the notion that Hill and many other witnesses might have been wrong(and I'm not exactly sure this is the position you take on this). As Hill pointed out, he was the chief of the department that dealt with this sort of thing, and whether or not her story was fabricated, it is hard to believe that so many other witnesses would have fabricated unique stories with so much detail. I guess it's not so much that this, being a sexual harassment case, would have disqualified Thomas most definately from the appointment, but the fact that this is an appointment to the Supreme Court that makes the matter serious. Surely if the Judiciary Committee accepted every accusation as the truth in every case, we would have no justices at all. However, this case was unique in the fact that there was so much detail and an investigation confirming this by the FBI which puts the burden of proof of innocence onto Thomas.
But what does having the burden of proof really mean in this case? Does Thomas need to prove he did not do it, or merely prove he is not the man he was back in 1980? Does it matter whether he committed a crime 10 years ago? Many would say yes, but I tend to disagree and believe people can drastically change. Which ultimately leads us back to the original problem(basically) of privacy of public officials versus the seriousness of the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and the public's right to information.
I tend to agree with you, Axl, that the stories of Hill and the witnesses on her side were telling the truth rather than Thomas. However, I'm not at all confident that I am correct in this judgement and, the truth is, I had a bias against Clarence Thomas strictly because of his Constitutional interpretations before I even knew about this controversy. It is isn't the efforts of either Thomas' or Hill's defenders that I felt were admirable in this case, but rather the way the hearing, I felt, treated both sides fairly and provided an open, public environment for policy-makers to consider both sides and make their decisions accordingly. As was clear from the senators' disagreements even about to whom the burden of proof fell that there were to be no easy answers in the process for any of the people involved. However, as a general rule, I feel the balance between responsibilities to private and public needs was met and the hearing provided introspection for all the parties involved regarding political and social ethics and responsibilities.
ReplyDelete