A critical analysis of Judge Clarence Thomas' statement before the senate judiciary committee

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Judge Clarence Thomas' nomination to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall on the U.S. Supreme Court was a controversial political event, in large measure because of Professor Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment. Thomas employed three image restoration strategies in his defensive discourse: denial, bolstering, and attacking his accusers. His defense was judged to be well‐designed. The first two strategies respond to charges of sexual harassment, making it possible for senators to vote to confirm Thomas; the last strategy accuses Senators opposing Thomas of racism, providing motivation for Senators to cast that vote. Despite the fact that they stood in judgment of Thomas, it was wise to attack the Senate in this fashion: Thomas made his goal (confirmation) into the means for achieving the Senate's goal (dispelling charges of racism toward Thomas). It was also wise to avoid attacking Professor Hill, because that act would have placed Thomas in the role of attacker and Hill in the role of victim, as her accusations of sexual harassment alleged.