On February 7, in an attempt to argue against the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-­Ma.) read a letter penned by Coretta Scott King from 1986 to the Senate floor that spoke out against Sessions’ work in black voter suppression while he was attorney general of Alabama. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (R­-Ky.) objected to her doing so, saying that she was in violation of Rule XIX, which forbids attributing unbecoming or unfavorable characteristics to fellow senators in debate in order to keep senatorial debate civil. Because of her supposed violation of Rule XIX, she was formally silenced and not permitted to take part in the rest of the debate. In his reasoning for his objection, Senator McConnell stated:

“She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”

As outrage and opposition broke out over Senator Warren’s silencing, this quote became a feminist rallying cry amongst Warren’s supporters, and was used to represent women who had broken glass ceilings in their respective fields by senators like Kamala Harris. The hashtag #LetLizSpeak started trending soon after. Warren herself took to Facebook to continue reading King’s letter. Essentially, McConnell’s efforts backfired.

And in following this, I was extremely frustrated. They’re silencing Warren over a letter penned by Coretta Scott King, addressing legitimate concerns regarding the racist policies encouraged by Sessions? Really? This is continuously bothering me, because I think Warren’s silencing extends far beyond a simple regulation of senatorial rules. I think it arguably symbolizes dramatic political shifts that we’ve seen in our nation over the past few years.

In 1986, Jeff Sessions, at the time working as attorney general of Alabama, was being reviewed by a senate committee for a position as judge on a federal court. Coretta Scott King wrote to the committee in opposition of Sessions’ confirmation over concerns that he would damage her husband’s legacy, and because he exercised power to suppress the black vote in Alabama, particularly of elderly and illiterate black voters. The committee, a majority Republican committee, voted not to confirm Sessions to the position, deeming that he was ill fit and too racist for the position.

In King’s letter, she does not attack Sessions’ personal capabilities or qualifications, but simply criticizes work he has done that puts civil liberties, such as voting, in dangerous uncertainty in his hands. These were legitimate concerns at the time, and they continued to be during his confirmation hearing for the leader of the Justice Department, a position in which Sessions would have the responsibility of upholding civil liberties for all. Many Democrats, in fact, strongly opposed Sessions over concerns that he would not protect the civil liberties of racial minorities, women, the LGBTQ+ community and immigrants. So why is it seen as an attack on a fellow senator, and thus not permitted, when Warren raises these concerns by reading the letter? Well, for one, we see a very selective use of Rule XIX, one that Republican senators are not innocent of violating. And in this case, Warren was not directly attacking a fellow senator, rather, bringing the Senate’s attention to the concerns of a prominent activist.

However, I would further argue that the issue is symbolic of something that is farther ingrained into the problems with our current political situation: polarization. Because of stark polarization, we, of course, see each major party work to benefit and further their parties’ own interests, rather than seek compromise. In this case, by Republicans asserting their dominance in the senate, polarization diminishes the importance of protecting civil liberties and ensuring that those who take on political power have all people’s best interests at hand, including marginalized persons. In this case, senate Republicans would rather ensure that their Republican president’s cabinet pick is confirmed, securing their political dominance, than guarantee the protections of civil liberties and needs of constituents. So on the right, as political action is influenced more by polarization, we see a systematic silencing of marginalized voices. In the end, this really is symbolic of how marginalized people are shown that they do not matter in the political process by some politicians, and this is only a modern version of the systematic silencing and dehumanization that we’ve seen in the history of American politics. Despite Sessions’ history of racism and disregard for civil rights protections, he still holds the top most ranking position in the Justice Department.

And of course, many of us can resonate with Warren’s silencing, as a woman. Bernie Sanders (I­-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D­-Ore.) later read the same letter, and noted that the fact that they were not interrupted or silenced was indicative of a double standard working against women in government. Warren has often been the target of insults and sexist criticisms from the right, making her silencing feel like a sexist attack, especially being a woman raising legitimate concerns over an appointee’s previously noted racism. It was as if she was just nagging and needed to be shut up. However, although Warren was silenced, nevertheless, she persisted, as so many of us continue to do.