Professor Anita Hill & Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: Intersectionality Under Oath

I really enjoyed Amanda's insights on Anita Hill in her presentation today, particularly how she grounded her analysis of Hill in the present by tying Hill to Christine Blasey Ford––a doctor and professor of psychology who testified in opposition to the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. I wanted to delve deeper into this comparison, and found several pieces exploring how the role of intersectionality may have shaped the perceptions of/outcomes for Hill and Ford. In an article titled "The unspoken reason Christine Blasey Ford may be viewed differently than Anita Hill" (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/us/kavanaugh-ford-anita-hill-race/index.html), CNN author John Blake addresses how "why color, not just gender" matters in the context of Hill and Ford's testimonies; Blake cites social psychology research indicating that Americans at large "perceive a white, middle-class woman with blonde hair" as "inherently more reliable" than women of darker complexions, thereby implying that Hill may have faced a steeper incline in her uphill battle for justice. However, New Yorker writer Margaret Talbot takes a different position in her piece "On the Attack" (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/comment/on-the-attack), arguing that Ford may have been handed the worse hand in this context due to Kavanaugh's conduct. Specifically, Talbot states that Kavanaugh monopolized on extreme partisan division and distrust (e.g. he made multiple conspiracy statements about how Ford was seeking revenge on behalf of the Clintons), and while Thomas did denounce the Judiciary Committee in 1991, he "did not specifically call out Democrats or invoke a revenge plot by politicians."