For all their well-learned politesse, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have scarcely been able to conceal their determination to get Christine Blasey Ford out of their hair.
Ford is the last obstacle to confirming conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. And she’s a formidable one. She has alleged that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, when they both were in high school.
The senators know they are treading in dangerous territory. First there is the Anita Hill precedent. Hill accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his 1991 confirmation process. Thomas was confirmed, but the Republicans suffered badly in the next election for Hill’s shabby treatment by the Judicial Committee.
So the senators have made a great show of inviting Ford to testify before the committee.
Ford only put her name to the accusation last Sept. 16, which caused uproar and demands to delay the confirmation vote, which had been scheduled for Thursday, so that the allegations could be investigated further. Republicans made it clear they would only delay until Monday, giving Ford a take-it-or-leave-it offer of a hearing that day.
Ford found that offer lacking. She wisely protected herself by asking for an FBI investigation first, as did Democratic members of the committee.
No FBI investigation will happen without the say-so of the White House. And at press time, the committee Republicans had offered to hold the hearing Thursday.
The invitation to testify raises a concern: the ability of the senators to understand how sexual trauma can affect people, both in terms of how they react in the moment and in how they recall events in the aftermath.
Ford clearly recognizes she has to step cautiously before a panel of people steeped in myths about sexual assault. That’s one reason why an FBI investigation would help.
Left to their own devices, the committee’s GOP senators would likely conduct a hearing with Ford like a TV police drama. And, given that they are all men, this would not produce good optics. So they have indicated they will use an outside lawyer — a woman — to examine the witness.
But Ford should expect aggressive questioning.
A common assumption about victims is that they should be capable of remembering these horrific events in detail. After all, any event capable of triggering PTSD (which Ford says she has suffered from) must be memorable.
In fact, the opposite is often true. Science has learned what happens to the body under such stress. Victims find that details are not readily accessible because the brain has reacted chemically, altering how memories are stored.
That’s one reason why questions should be open-ended, not insisting on a linear narrative with pertinent details lined up to be fact-checked, one by one.
If you are thinking the psychology of victim response should play into how police investigate, and might even explain why so many victims aren’t believed, congratulations. Forward-thinking law enforcement is increasingly training in these methods.
The #MeToo movement has taught us a lot. We’re less apt to flippantly disregard people who speak up. The power of victim blaming to silence has been exposed as a tool to undercut truth. And more of us recognize that even men who draw accolades as feminist allies can have a hidden side that degrades and abuses women.
So bless the senators as they go about this monumental task. They don’t know what they don’t know.
About the Author
