On Saturday, October 7th, the Senate appointed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court with a 50-48 vote. This appointment occurred after weeks of bitter disputes from people across the country, including three women who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

​

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her while they were in high school. In response, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimonies from both Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh. During these hearings many characteristics of Kavanaugh, and of the process undertaken when sexual assault victims speak out, became apparent.

​

When watching the demeanor of Blasey Ford during her line of questioning compared to Kavanaugh’s, they could not appear more different. Blasey Ford remained composed and overly polite towards the committee, while Kavanaugh repeatedly lashed out and became defensive. He would refuse to answer questions, instead turning them on his questioner in a disrespectful and defensive way. He became easily flustered and interrupted members of the committee during almost every questioning turn.

​

The thing that strikes me the most about his behaviour, though, is that I believed he lied under oath. As a current college student myself, I’ve seen drinking like the kind described by Blasey Ford and accounted for in Kavanaugh’s yearbook. I don’t believe for one second that when his yearbook says “Beach Week Ralph Club- Biggest Contributor” it refers to him having a “weak stomach.” This is obviously a reference to throwing up from heavy drinking and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. In fact, almost every reference in his yearbook points to heavy alcohol consumption. The statements of “Georgetown vs Louisville- Who Won That Game Anyway?” and “Orioles vs Red Sox- Who Won, Anyway?” do not refer to him attending a party in which they simply weren’t focusing on the game, as Kavanaugh said, but it refers to blacking out and not remembering what happened due to excess drinking. This directly goes against the statements he made when asked if he’d ever blacked out from drinking too much. This could be a very real explanation of why he doesn’t seem to remember the accusations brought against him.

​

Furthermore, I don’t believe the term “Renate Alumnius” was meant to be a term of endearment, given that the woman it was written about was deeply offended when it was brought to light. This just shows a disrespectful attitude towards women that Kavanaugh held while he was in high school.

​

While I understand that everyone does dumb things in high school, if you want to be appointed as the supreme law of the land, you should be as innocent and as truthful as a preschooler. Lying under oath should have immediately disqualified Kavanaugh from his seat on the Supreme Court.

​

Not only did this hearing bring to light unwanted characteristics of Kavanaugh, but it also highlighted the unknown territory of how to deal with sexual assault claims.

​

This hearing brings back memories of Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme Court, during which Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment while he was her supervisor. During her hearing, Hill was met with an all male Senate Judiciary Committee who largely attacked her claims and questioned her motives. Multiple corroborating witnesses were not called, and no FBI investigation was launched into these claims. The Senate appointed Thomas with a 52-48 vote.

​

It became apparent in 1991, and again in 2018, that the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as most other U.S. institutions, don’t know how to deal with sexual assault claims. In most instances, cases of sexual assault largely consist of he-said, she-said rhetoric with no real way of confirming or denying which party is telling the truth.

​

For high profile cases such as Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein, the amount of women who come forward to tell their truths is typically what tips the scale. If it wasn’t true, why would so many women be coming forward to testify against an innocent man? However, when it comes to less prevalent, possibly singular cases, as well as cases where there could be a political motive, how do you decipher the truth? I don’t have the answer to this question, and apparently the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn’t either. In the era of the #MeToo movement, research must be focused on setting a protocol for understanding and investigating sexual assault claims. In an instance where only two people know the truth, there has to be an established way to unravel the real story.