As we have witnessed in the news for several months now, at least four women have accused Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill of inappropriate conduct following the end of the state’s legislative session in March. The conduct is alleged to have occurred at a bar, where Hill is said to have groped and/or made sexually suggestive comments to the women. (The accusations became public following the leaking of an eight-page memo to a local newspaper.)
The controversy that has engulfed Hill has a familiar tone. For example, it is not uncommon to hear comparisons between these allegations and those that were made regarding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991 Thomas was a nominee to the nation’s highest court when a former colleague, Anita Hill, accused him of sexually harassing her when both were employees at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Thomas was Hill’s supervisor.)
Thomas famously referred to his Senate confirmation hearings as a “high-tech lynching.” (Obviously, Thomas ultimately was confirmed to the Supreme Court.) Hill has fiercely denied the allegations against him, though his language is decidedly less provocative. Both men argue that the accusations against them are politically motivated. (While there are several differences between the two instances, both men are socially conservative African-Americans who rose high in Republican ranks.)
These controversies highlight how issues of race and gender often collide in ways that challenge how members of various social groups interact with each other — and react to the same information. Progressive white Americans are firmly behind Hill’s accusers; conservative white Americans are standing by Hill, and have even created a legal defense fund called “Fairness for Curtis Hill.” Interestingly, this drama does not seem to have captured much attention among African-Americans; one can merely speculate as to why that is the case.
There is a long history of African-American men being falsely accused of rape and sexual assault, and the race of the accuser(s) has very frequently played a prominent role in how justice was meted out. Indeed, countless “low-tech” (and very real) lynchings of African-American men resulted from such accusations. Of note is the fact that Thomas’ accuser was African-American, though other accusers (who might not have been African-American) were not allowed to testify against him; Hill’s accusers are Caucasian and Latina.
Of course, the accusations against Hill are set against the backdrop of the “Me Too” movement, which has seen the meteoric fall of several powerful men in the last 18 months or so. For his part, Hill has claimed that he has been denied due process and has had his name permanently sullied. He has also called for a thorough investigation that he insists will exonerate him. (While I have an opinion as to how likely it is that Hill is guilty of the allegations against him, I will resist offering it until the process has played itself out.)
No matter the eventual outcome, there is no happy ending to be had. Hill is either guilty of conduct that is woefully beneath the dignity of his office, or he is the victim of a vicious smear campaign. There is no “in-between.” Ultimately, either the extremely important campaign to hold powerful men accountable for their behavior will be damaged, or Hill will be remembered primarily for leaving office in disgrace after being elected the first African-American man to be Indiana’s Attorney General. Sad indeed.
