my first experience with seething, white-hot, nauseating political anger

I was politically active long before I went to law school, an in my pre-law incarnation as a reporter I’d had plenty of exposure to the peculiar narcissism and hypocrisy of politicians.

But the Anita Hill hearings, during my first year at U of O Law, was the first time I wanted to reach through the teevee and throttle someone. Two someones, actually: Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter.

Just a year before, I had dealt with overt workplace sexual harassment for the first time. As a waitress in a diner/bar called The Hanger, I had tried to get an elderly regular kicked out and banned after I went to serve him his meal and found him not only unzipped, but with all his junk pulled out for display. There was no question that the show was meant especially for me.

The manager’s response? “Did you have your glasses on?” At this point I wore glasses only for driving at night. Why did that matter? “Maybe you didn’t see what you thought you saw.” How, exactly, do you mistake a tripe-white cracker penis and testicles - against a backdrop of dark green polyester pants - for anything else?

In the end, the regular’s daily lunch purchase was worth more than my “sensitivities.” Needless to say, I quit.

I was on my way to law school, and the waitress job was temporary; I wasn’t trapped by economics or by the demands of professional advancement. But I had learned enough of the disgust and humiliation of sexual harassment to have been appalled by Hatch and Specter during the Thomas-Hill hearings, who used the same tactics to deflect and minimize Thomas’s behavior as my manager had:

SEN. SPECTER: Professor Hill, you testified that you drew an inference that Judge Thomas might want you to look at pornographic films, but you told the FBI specifically that he never asked you to watch the films; is that correct?

MS. HILL: He never said: Let’s go to my apartment and watch films, or go to my house and watch films. He did say: You ought to see this material.

SEN. SPECTER: But when you testified that — as I wrote it down — quote, “We ought to look at pornographic movies together”, that was an expression of what was in your mind that he –

MS. HILL: That was the inference that I drew, yes –

SEN. SPECTER: The inference –

MS. HILL: — with his pressing me for social engagements, yes.

SEN. SPECTER: That — something he might have wanted you to do. But the fact is, flatly, he never asked you to look at pornographic movies with him?

MS. HILL: With him? No, he did not.

Orrin Hatch personified the reason more women do not come forward when they are the victims of sexual harassment:

Now, the latest spectacle involves an incident or incidents of alleged sexual harassment by Judge Thomas nearly 10 years old, and I say “alleged.” Let me be clear. I do not minimize sexual harassment on the job if it occurs. And in this case, it did not occur, and I feel confident in saying that, having known Judge Thomas for so long and having known his reputation, having watched him in action, having him work with probably thousands of women in the jobs that he’s worked on.
…
Does she claim that he touched her? No. Did she claim that he abused her? No. She claims that the words that he used were sexually harassing, and under the law if it is asked, she has explained, that can possibly be, if the truth is being told.

Well, I asked my colleagues: Is the behavior of this person indicative of someone who has been sexually abused or sexually harassed? I don’t think she claimed sexual abuse. But sexually harassed? I think the behavior is inconsistent with the allegation.
…
In this case, you have a situation where the woman says that — I guess he talked dirty to her. And I have to tell you that I confronted Clarence with this, and Clarence said: Senator, I would not have done that. I did not do that, and I don’t know why in the world she would be making these statements and especially at this time, other than the fact that I’m up for Supreme Court Justice.
…
I made my judgments in these matters, and we have to, by knowing the people and by watching. I’m not going to find fault with Ms. Hill. She has to live with whatever she’s said, and I’ve — I’ve — I looked at that, and I believe she’s probably sincere. On the other hand, I know Clarence Thomas … We know that it’s one person’s word against the other, and frankly I think under the circumstances the facts just don’t — they just don’t line up on the side of Ms. Hill. They just don’t line up, and her story just doesn’t make sense in its fullest sense. And although I am willing to say that I liked her and feel that she is trying to present herself in a very good way, I think it’s important to — to acknowledge that there may be other explanations as to why she currently feels the way she does, now in the fourth confirmation of Clarence Thomas and the most important confirmation of all.

What “other explanation,” Sen. Hatch? Is it the Woman Scorned defense? Or is she simply Oversensitive?

All these years later, it still makes my blood boil, and confirms my belief that manipulative, self-righteous assholes make the best prosecutors.

[emphasis added.]

Last 2 posts in Republicans

don't forget tomorrow's moneybomb for strangebedfellows - August 7th, 2008
republican economic genius - August 1st, 2008

Sphere: Related Content

If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds

5 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

(listed oldest to newest)

Never during those hearings did I find it credible that Anita Hill was telling anything but the whole truth and nothing but. I strongly believe most judges and juries would have agreed with me.

But this jury was rigged. Thomas should have been Borked but because he had a friend in a high place (Bush I), he got a pass, not unlike Bush II on most everything.

If you expect fairness in life you will be sorely disappointed. But I still believe in karma, although it is not always evident.

[Reply]

1. Above comment written by bushtool on October 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
I’ve been a witness in several sexual harassment situations with the same perpetrator, but the victims did not want to press the matters. Later a very brave woman followed through on the culprit and his employment was terminated by the State of Washington.

What Slim describes as her personal experience is honest to God harassment aided and abetted by her employer. What Anita Hill descibed was not.

Sometimes we cannot read our experience into the experience of others. Emotionally, it might make sense but rationally it might not. This is one reason men are so often seen as abusers when they are in fact not; just good fathers and grandfathers who are every bit as loving and protective as most women…

[Reply]

2. Above comment written by Pat Campbell on October 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
What Hill testified to about his behavior, if true (which I believed her and found her a credible witness), made him unfit for the position he now holds even if it didn’t rise to the level of a crime.

Sexual harassment can be hard to exactly define and even harder to prove. And I agree many men get unjustly accused of abuse. I personally knew a man who got life in prison with no parole who was unjustly accused of abuse. It happens IMO all the time.

But I also knew a nurse who lost custody of her children only because her estranged doctor/husband hired a psychiatrist friend to slander her in court.

There is nothing much fair about just ice.

[Reply]

3. Above comment written by bushtool on October 3rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Pat,

Please understand, I do not want to be argumentative. But your assessment of my situation vs. Anita Hill’s is a bit cunfounding.

Why was what Anita Hill described not sexual harassment? If your boss repeatedly refers to pornography with the implication that (1) you would enjoy it and (2) you would enjoy it with him, that is de facto sexual harassment. If she was his superior the idea that he would have talked to her like this is laughable.

And if you think it wasn’t harassment because she didn’t leave, that ignores the experiences of thousands of men and women who fear for the impact on their careers or cannot afford to lose their paycheck. Why should a woman lose her opportunities for advancement because she’s got a prick for a boss? And if she feels like no one will believe her (as you and others do not), most women in this situation will just keep their head down and take it, hoping to someday be in a position where such assholes cannot impact their advancement.

My own father ignored sexual harassment going on right under his nose because he refused to believe his law partner was capable of such things. And my father is a very honorable man. He just wrongly believed that those he worked with were as honorable as he was. And when he finally grasped the truth, he was devastated - but he did the right thing.

Far more often the opposite is true - employers believe women should just lighten up, or ignore it, because boys will be boys, you know?

Until you’ve been on the receiving end of this kind of treatment (whether from the harasser or from an employer who doesn’t believe there’s a problem), it is belittling and the experience leaves behind this feeling that you’ve got some stench on you that you can’t wash off. Sometimes I think men just don’t understand what this feels like, because they are so rarely in that position. I don’t know whether you’re a man or a woman, Pat, but I hope you understand how damaging this kind of harassment is, whether it’s verbal or otherwise.

No one should have to work in an environment where their superiors make inappropriate social advances - whether or not they include pornographic discussions, or pubic hairs on Coke cans.

[Reply]

4. Above comment written by slim on October 3rd, 2007 at 7:38 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
This area is difficult to deal with for all; the accuser, the falsely accused, the witness, the victim, the court system, and the criminal justice system.

I personally do not believe Anita Hill’s testimony rose close to the level to derail another person’s life and career.

My experience is that sexual harassment is generally an ongoing character flaw. It doesn’t stop at one point in time. It does not appear that Judge Thomas has brought such a flaw into the Supreme Court over these past years.

Your father’s associate continued in his or her path until your dad realized the truth and took action.

[Reply]

5. Above comment written by Pat Campbell on October 4th, 2007 at 8:49 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

Moderation Active: Comments are open on this post and will be moderated (i.e. the post will not appear immediately, please don't submit twice !)