The real story on Anita Hill
This comes to you via the Internet Archives (link) and the now defunct Upstream web site:
The Truth about Anita Hill
While many laud Anita Hill as a national hero for bringing sexual ha- rassment into the national limelight, others remain skeptical of her and are gathering extensive factual evidence to show that she in fact lied. David Brock's The Real Anita Hill highlights the inconsistencies of her testimony.
By James E. McCloskey
Why do most liberals believe Anita Hill? Why do most conservatives believe Clarence Thomas? Much acrimony has been made about these hear- ings over the past two years. Conservatives believed that Anita Hill was used by liberals and feminists to defeat the Thomas nomination. Liberals believed that Thomas had demeaned this woman and those who pressed Anita Hill with tough and skeptical questions, such as Republican Senator Ar- len Specter, "just didn't get it." A new book by David Brock, The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story carefully researches all of Anita Hill's claims. He also discusses the statements of her corroborating and con- tradicting witnesses.
Anita Hill claimed to have been harassed by Clarence Thomas when she worked for him at the Department of Education in the fall of 1981. She then followed Clarence Thomas into the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) in 1982, despite having a tenured appointment at the Department of Education. Many wondered why Hill would follow her sup- posed harasser to another job with him. Anita Hill told Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) that she was not sure that her job at the Department of Education was secure, and claimed that she was a political (non- tenured) rather than a career (tenured) employee. But Senator Arlen Specter showed proof that Hill was a career employee. After Specter's questions, Hill claimed that no one told her that she could not be fired without cause. However, all new employees were told whether they had tenure or not, as many others told under oath. David Brock shows that this meant that Hill claimed she was a political appointee under oath, when in fact she was a career employee. Even the two reporters friendly to Hill, Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, do not contest Brock's analysis of this.
Harry Singleton, Clarence Thomas's successor at the Department of Education, refuted many of Hill's statements. He said that Hill dec- lined to stay at the Department of Education, and enthusiastically fol- lowed Thomas to the EEOC. Singleton also told Hill that he wanted her to work for him at the Department of Education. Another employee, Diane Holt, claimed that Hill and her went to work for Thomas because both of them wanted to work for him. This shows that Hill not only lied about the fact that she had tenure, but also the fact that she knew she had tenure. Brock also shows that she was enthusiastic, not reluctant, about joining Clarence Thomas at the EEOC.
Evidence shows that Hill left ten telephone messages for Thomas be- tween 1983 and 1991. Only one of those were replies to his calls to her, despite her statement to the contrary to the Judiciary Committee. When approached by Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, Hill called the ten phone logs "garbage." When Specter questioned her, she claimed that she just wanted to speak with his secretary. But Thomas' secretary, Diane Holt, said that if Hill wanted to speak to her and her only, the calls would not have been logged. Brock shows that Hill misled the Committee on the existence of these calls.
Another sticking point is Hill driving Thomas to the Tulsa airport after he gave a speech there. When Senator Specter asked her why, she claimed that the dean of the Oral Roberts law school, Charles Kothe, had asked her to. Is this statement true? Kothe said that Hill was proud of her new car and wanted to show Thomas by driving him to the airport. This shows that yet another person would have to be lying if Anita Hill were telling the truth.
Brock piercingly shows how Hill also contradicted her accounts of meetings with the Senate Staff. Jim Brudney, a staffer for Democratic Senator Howard Metzenbaum, coaxed her into filing a harassment charge against Thomas. Hill wished to do so, but only anonymously. Her friend, Keith Henderson, said that if she made the charge quietly and behind the scenes, Thomas might be induced to withdraw. She only came forward when her statement was leaked to the press, probably by Brudney and Senator Paul Simon (D-Illinois). Senator Specter then asked her about this ac- count in USA Today. Hill claimed not to have been asked about a poten- tial withdrawal of Thomas. After Specter's questions, she volunteered information about Mr. Brudney. She said that "there was some indication the nominee might not wish to continue the process." In other words, Hill blatantly contradicted her previous testimony. Brock shows that first she stated to the Judiciary Committee that Brudney did not tell her about Thomas' possible withdrawal, and then she contradicted her testimony and said that she did. Hill then changed her testimony to avoid possibly being charged with perjury, omitting any information that would have implicated Mr. Brudney as the person who leaked her statement to the media.
Hill claimed that she typed up her accusation to the Judiciary Committee, gave a copy to her counsel, and kept the original. David Brock cites the report of Special Investigator Peter Fleming which showed that she had faxed a copy of her statement on September 25, 1991 to staffer James Brudney. Hill withheld this information under oath.
Hill claimed she met Brudney in order to clear up some missing knowledge that she wanted to know about civil rights and sexual harass- ment law. Yet Specter asked her whether she taught civil rights law af- ter 1980. Hill falsely claimed that she had not taught in the area since 1986. Brock uncovers yet another one of Hill's subterfuges. According to the Office of Admissions and Records at the University of Oklahoma Law School, she taught a civil rights class in 1990. Brock shows she lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee yet again. This showed that Hill left a string of lies in order to cover up the real reason she met Brudney.
Brock shows that Stanley Grayson and Carlton Stewart claimed in a sworn affidavit that Hill said to them at the American Bar Association Convention in August of 1991 "How great Clarence's nomination was, and how much he deserved it." She denied this. Grayson and Stewart would have had to perjure their testimony as well if Hill was to be truthful.
Republican Senators became more indignant when they found that Hill's testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee was more graphic than her sworn FBI statement. Senator Specter asked her why. She claimed that they did not ask for graphic details. The two FBI agents who took Hill's statement flatly contradicted her on this. The content of the conversation she would "always remember" were two different stories-- one to the FBI and one to the Judiciary Committee.
Perhaps the most telling example of the falsehoods of Miss Hill is the corroborating testimony proffered by Susan Hoerchner. Hoerchner claimed that Hill called her during the time the harassment supposedly occurred. In her deposition to the Judiciary Committee, Hoerchner claimed that Hill was harassed by Thomas in March of 1981. Yet Hill did not start working for Thomas until September of 1981. After consulting her attorneys, Hoerchner's memory became remiss. This also could not have been a case of Hoerchner forgetting the date of the conversations. Hoerchner said that she was in Washington when Hill called her about the supposed harassment. Hoerchner moved to California in September 1981 and said she lost touch with Hill after leaving for California. This shows that Hoerchner contradicted herself when asked the same question twice, which makes her an unreliable witness.
In March of 1981, Hill was working for the liberal law firm Wald, Harkrader, and Ross. Brock asks, could Hill have been harassed here and not at the Department of Education? Yet her record at Wald, Harkrader, and Ross was spotty at best. When Senator Joe Biden asked her whether anyone suggested she leave the law firm, she denied it. Many lawyers at the firm remembered her performance at Wald as substandard. John Burke, a partner at the law firm, stated in a sworn affidavit that her state- ment was false. When the Republican Senators wanted to subpoena the Wald, Harkrader and Ross records, the Democrats refused, apparently un- concerned about uncovering the truth.
Two of Hill's other witnesses, John Carr and Joel Paul said that Hill was telling them about the alleged harassment, but neither one could recall under oath whether she mentioned Clarence Thomas. Why did those two wait to render judgment on Thomas until 1991, when both of them could have done so in the American Bar Association ratings? Both opposed the Thomas nomination for political reasons. Her other witness, Ellen Wells, could not corroborate that Judge Thomas's comments to Ani ta Hill at the office were sexual in nature. They could just as easily been a chastisement for poor work performance or a passing over for a promotion or work assignment. Wells also had ideological disagreements about Thomas views on abortion.
A supposed second Thomas victim, Angela Wright was drawn before a group of liberal Senate Staffers who opposed Thomas. She made an unsworn statement that did not accuse Thomas of sexual harassment. However, Wright had been fired at the EEOC by Thomas because he was dissatisfied with her work at the EEOC and because she referred to one of his assis- tants as a "faggot." When she was also fired from the Agency for Inter- national Development by Kate Semerad, she also made eleventh-hour alle- gations opposing her. An aide of Thomas, Armstrong Williams stated under oath that she said "If it's the last thing I ever do, I'll get Thomas!" This showed that she was seeking revenge for her termination.
Although left-wing Senator Howard Metzenbaum relegated a series of female Thomas supporters' testimony until after midnight when no one was watching, their statements did much to vindicate Thomas. Liberal co- worker Pamela Talkin described how Thomas was keenly sensitive to the needs of women. Constance Newman said that in a large agency such as the EEOC, an allegation of sexual harassment would not remain secret for ten years. Nancy Altman, herself a victim of sexual harassment, corroborated Newman's testimony and stated that she did not believe Hill. Linda Jack- son talked of Thomas support for her when she left an abusive marriage. Janet Brown , another victim of sexual harassment, said that Thomas was so sensitive to harassment that he wouldn't do it. Thomas had many poli- tical enemies watching him, Brock notes, and they would have noticed harassment at the first opportunity. They did not. Not one co-worker of Hill and Thomas believed Hill. Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, in their negative review of The Real Anita Hill, also do not contest this.
Hill passed a polygraph test. But they said that the test was fi- nished at 1pm, yet it was not reported until 5pm. Could Hill have taken the test until she passed it? The administrator of the test, Paul Minor, had bungled the results of two previous polygraph tests. These tests are unreliable enough, Brock states, that they cannot be used for evidence. Even Hill's biggest partisans (Senators Metzenbaum, Kennedy, and Simon) all had spoken out against polygraph tests in previous years out of con- cern for civil liberties .
Hill lied under oath, contradicting herself on the witness stand four times. Twelve people plus her four witnesses would all have to lie if Hill was telling the truth. Why did she perjure her testimony? Brock uncovers a previously unknown Anita Hill. She became disgruntled at Tho- mas starting in 1982 because her workload was increasing while she was being passed up for promotions. She simply was unable to handle the work. She also disagreed with Thomas' increasing hostility to racial quotas. She kept in touch with Thomas in case she needed him for a re- commendation, which she needed at Oral Roberts University. She became a professor at the University of Oklahoma Law School, where she often pro- moted leftist ideas in the classroom. About fifteen students sent this information to Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) unsolicited. She also supported codes against "hate speech." Brock reveals newspaper inter- views where she publicly criticized Thomas for ideological reasons. She resented Thomas' opposition to quotas, and his presumed opposition to abortion on demand (Thomas later voted to overturn Roe v. Wade).
Hill never intended to come forward and hoped her anonymous state- ment would be enough to get him to withdraw. Left-wing Senate staffers wanted her to defeat Thomas so badly that they slowly drew her out of the closet. Her statement was leaked, causing the saga. During the hearings, Brock shows that Hill lied under oath on four key occasions, and sixteen people would have to be all lying if she were to be telling the truth beyond those four lies. David Brock's carefully and indus- trially researched work shows that any reasonable person should ignore the radical feminist cries that those skeptical of Hill "simply don't get it", and realize that Anita Hill perjured her testimony on many occasions when she accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment before the Senate, the media and the country.
James McCloskey is a Junior in the College of Human Ecology.
Clarence Thomas is a porn addicted hypocrite. It is obvious that he was never qualified to be a supreme court justice. He's one example of the long history republicans have of appointing minimally qualified individuals to important government positions.
He is a porn addicted hypocrite? Well I must say you really did well to establish your credibility right out of the gate. Did you skip recess to do the research? I must offer a suggestion though that maybe its not that he is not qualified to be a justice, but rather that he spends 14 out of 16 hrs a day watching porn and neglects his duties. It is true that Democrats have a knack for putting qualified people in at key government positions but the republicans are getting better and better at putting the same sleazy vote whore liars in their power schemes.
Is it true CT is into "secretary" porn? You should claim that as fact, it would convict him in a million more minds than the truth ever will. Anita Hill is credible because she keeps on being the hero that we get to see in her hero movie. Like Erin Crockowitch. Now that lady was a hero for sure. Hero to Parasites called litigation lawyers. See how she charmed a whole town into falling for an easy hustle so they could use them to extort money from an energy supplier?
Have you seen his ex girlfriend speak about him? And unless you are a black woman living in a male dominated world, you really have no right to speculate on why she kept working with him or did not want to alienate him in any way after their tenure together. He was a powerful man heading to the top and clearly she saw a path through him to something larger. And for that many women would suffer many indignities.
Greeat blog you have
Post a Comment