Guest column: She said, he said: The Kavanaugh case

By Medicine Hat News Opinon on October 6, 2018.

Sept. 27 was a full day of “she said, he said,” and the millions of us who watched the uncomfortable spectacle chose sides. Those sick and tired of political correctness, angry at all the challenges to “the way things used to be, and should still be,” who saw nothing wrong with a culture of male entitlement and the reign of “the good old boys,” lined up behind the “he said” side. Many gravitated towards the “she said” side. And others, me included, were troubled, confused, felt sorry for both sides, needed more information.

Days before, the Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court had the job nailed down — great credentials, many accomplishments, decidedly conservative and very appealing to the Christian Right with his openness to repealing women’s “right to choose.” His potential 30-year appointment would cement the conservative stranglehold on the court of last appeal. This was a watershed moment, a huge return to yesterday, an open door to Trumplandia for a generation.

But then, just before the Judicial Committee could cast their votes, a ghost from Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s past appeared. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a Stanford University psychology professor, had written a letter to her Congresswoman claiming that Judge Kavanaugh was not who he claimed to be. She had to let someone on the Judicial Committee know. She asked for confidentiality, just wanted someone to look under the rug.

The letter made its way to the co-chair of the committee, but then, somehow, was leaked to the press. The vote was postponed to make room for a special hearing of Dr. Ford’s concerns, and for Judge Kavanaugh’s response.

What motivated Dr. Ford to risk taking this step, upsetting her apparently happy life as an accomplished and respected academic? Did she know she would face death threats and endanger her family? There was no money to be made by coming forward, nor fame, nor political motive. She was not just trying “to get even” with someone who she claims had attempted to rape her when she was 15.

She took this step forward with trepidation and a justifiable fear of publicity. She did it for two reasons, she said. First, as a concerned citizen. Watching Kavanaugh’s interviews with the Judicial Committee, she saw that he presented a version of himself that did not fit with who she knew he was.

So she found herself in her own historic Rosa Parks moment, her life defining moment, terrified but committed. Those who have felt the humiliation, exclusion, and oppression of male entitlement appreciate the magnitude of her decision.

Second, she was motivated, she said, by the unforgettable mocking laughter of two drunken frat boys, laughter that had episodically haunted her consciousness for 36 years. In her mind Brett Kavanaugh had been one of those laughing, mocking boys.

In her testimony and others’, it became clear that Kavanaugh, far from being the studious athlete, was a heavy drinker, a partier, and above all, a fraternity brother. Nicholas Syrett in “The Company He Keeps,” writes that upscale fraternities see relations with women as something done “for one’s brothers, for communal consumption with them.” The women are no more than trophies “in the lifelong game that men play with other men.” This is the ethos of male entitlement. Blasey Ford had dared to question Kavanaugh’s ongoing fraternal ethos.

The important point here, of course, is not that Kavanaugh had allegedly behaved badly 36 years ago. He was not unlike millions of other young people, most of whom abandoned their less admirable qualities. Kavanaugh’s problem is his inability to own the follies of his youth. That could have been the end of this story.

But there is more. His apparent growing awareness of the sinking of his ship revealed itself in his somewhat erratic and violent reaction to senators’ questions. Kavanaugh seemed to lose control. His evasiveness and aggressiveness, his sputtering rage alternating with scowls and sniffles, showed an intemperate temperament. This is undesirable in a Supreme Court judge.

And lastly there was his blatant unsubstantiated partisanship, claiming to see an orchestrated Democratic conspiracy against him. He hinted that he was going to get even with the Democrats once he wins the nomination. This is undesirable in a Supreme Court judge.

On Oct. 3, two days after I wrote most of this column, 500 law professors, including eight from Yale, Kavanaugh’s school, signed a letter which stated: “But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.” — Huffington Post.

She said, he said, they said. Couldn’t have said it better. Is the Republican Senate listening or is it just another swamp?

Peter Mueller is a long-time resident of Medicine Hat who, in spite of all the evidence, continues to believe we can build a better world.

16
-15