Harassment and Confirmation Hearings

While I applaud William Broyles Jr.’s central argument (“The Judge’s Trial by Fury,” Commentary, Oct. 17), that the legal right of innocent until proven guilty must remain inviolate, I take exception to the two main points that he bases his argument on:

First, this was not a trial, but rather a hearing to determine the worthiness of a nominee to sit on the nation’s highest court. If Thomas had not been confirmed, it would not have been a punishment, but his having been confirmed was an award that will affect the law and the entire citizenry, for a long time to come. The determination of his character was, therefore, of no small importance.

Second, when Broyles chastises feminists for presuming the guilt of Thomas because of their own experiences of being harassed, does he fully understand that his own opinion was prejudiced by his own experience of accusation, and that by bringing his own opinion to the public he becomes guilty of the very wrong he accuses the feminists of committing? He, too, accuses without proof, in the court of public opinion. Hill’s accusations were corroborated; it was her character that was attacked.

The great shame of this fiasco is not that a just conclusion was not reached, but that one was not even sought. The two sides were not equally presented: Thomas’ private life was held strictly off limits, while wholly unfounded allegations were made about Hill. She went home definitely harassed, while Thomas got his award.

STEVEN L. ANGLE, Ventura