Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 14, 1993 TAG: 9304140319
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
ANITA HILL'S NON-CREDIBILITY
HE BRINGS it up without prompting. The public lynching of Clarence Thomas, 18 months ago, continues to occupy much of the Supreme Court justice's thinking. But a visitor has the impression it is more than a gnawing personal pain. To be called a sexual harasser and hear words attributed to you that you never said - words that would have crushed the nuns who taught you, and the grandfather who reared you, and the wife and children who love and respect you - is something you never forget. Thomas obviously believes he was done a grave injustice.Of greater concern to him, though, is the effect his experience has had on the Supreme Court and on the nation's dwindling respect for law and the legal system.
But now, like the convict wrongfully accused who is set free from an unjust sentence, Clarence Thomas can see the light of vindication. It comes in a new book by David Brock titled "The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story," a portion of which has been excerpted in The Wall Street Journal.
It takes every charge leveled by Hill during those riveting hearings and destroys them (and her credibility) one by one.
Revisiting each allegation Hill made during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Brock dismantles every statement, offering names of numerous witnesses and/or Hill's own contradictory statements to dismantle her contentions.
Brock reminds us that everyone who worked with and knew both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill believed Thomas, not Hill. Those with political scores to settle and who knew neither Hill nor Thomas skillfully turned what should have been a hearing that focused on background, writing and evidence into a political show trial on the issue of sexual harassment. In a courtroom, such an attempt would have been deemed immaterial and objections would have been sustained. But a show trial permits anything that helps make the point those holding power want made.
Hill could not find a single corroborating witness to back up her charges. During the time she alleged Thomas was sexually harassing her, Brock writes, "Hill complained that Thomas `did not even notice me'; she portrayed him as the `ideal boss' who was particularly respectful of women employees; and she asserted he would `make a great father.' "
Are these the words of someone who feels sexually harassed? If Hill was afraid of losing her job (which Brock debunks, saying she had job security and knew it), she might have made lukewarm comments in favor of Thomas, but those she did make went above and beyond generalities. They are words of conviction, not pragmatism.
Hill testified she had agreed when making her complaint to the Judiciary Committee that Thomas could be told her name. In fact, says Brock, she did not. Brock also notes that when the Justice Department suggested Hill as a possible witness in Thomas' favor, before Hill made her charge, Thomas thought it was a good idea. Even after the charge, Thomas refused to withdraw from the nomination. Is this the behavior of a man with something to hide?
Brock notes that Hill denied the sworn testimony of Carlton Stewart (former special assistant to Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and Stanley Grayson (former deputy mayor of New York City) that she said Thomas deserved the nomination. Hill offered a misleading account of how she got her teaching job at Oral Roberts University.
Because the alleged sexual harassment is supposed to have occurred behind closed doors with just the two of them present, there will never be a "smoking gun" document or third-party witness who will persuade everyone who is telling the truth. So we have to look at the character of those involved, and Brock does this with the thoroughness of an FBI agent conducting a background check.
It was suggested during the hearings that Hill should be believed over Thomas because she had nothing to gain and he had everything to lose. But since the hearings, Anita Hill has enriched herself with speeches at a reported $10,000 a pop. She refuses all questions about her testimony from audiences and the press. Given her contradictory statements and the fact that more than a dozen credible witnesses with reputations of integrity would have had to perjure themselves in order to testify in favor of Thomas, it ought to be clear to fair-minded people, who are interested in the truth instead of scoring political points, that Clarence Thomas suffered cruel and unusual punishment he did not deserve.
In addition to vindicating Clarence Thomas, the book also supports the prosecutorial tactics of Republican Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who were denounced at the time for not "getting it" in their relentless pursuit of the truth.
The press, especially television, has an obligation to give Brock and his book the saturation coverage they deserve. Anita Hill was never held accountable for her remarks and continues to profit from them. She has become a high priestess in the cult of feminist male-bashing.
Those who believed Anita Hill, based on her testimony, need to read this book and then offer Clarence Thomas an apology.
Los Angeles Times Syndicate