Consider it either one of the perils or benefits of channel surfing. There I was Saturday evening, trying to find some semblance of a good college football game on TV. Using my DirecTV channel guide, I happened to notice what was on CSPAN1: “Hunter College: Anita Hill 20 Years Later.”
I figured if I viewed CSPAN1, it would be at my own risk. I was not in for a “goody goody gumdrops” moment.
But I did get sufficient grist for a columnist’s mill. University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law professor Devon Carbado was speaking as I tuned in, and — quelle surprise! — was in the middle of delivering an anti-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas rant.
According to Carbado, Thomas’ sins are legion. The justice is against race-conscious remedies to cure social ills; he didn’t vote with the majority in the Lawrence v. Texas ruling that struck down the state’s anti-sodomy law, even though he called the statute “uncommonly silly.” And — oh, the horror! the horror! — Thomas called the Roe v. Wade decision “grievously wrong.”
Carbado didn’t much care that, to many Americans, those things are precisely what makes Thomas a man to be admired and a hero, not a villain.
But to Carbado and many others at Hunter College on Saturday, Thomas was, and remains, a villain.
It was after watching Carbado’s exhilarating performance that I went to Hunter College’s Web site to learn more about Saturday’s shenanigans.
There, at the very top of a news release put out by the college’s office of communications, was a headline that told me what the shenanigans were all about:
“Anita Hill 20 Years Later; Historic Conference on Sex and Power Will Be Held October 15 on Hunter Campus.” Here’s the first sentence of the news release:
“An all-day conference titled ‘Sex, Power and Speaking Truth: Anita Hill 20 Years Later” will be held on the Hunter campus on Oct. 15.
So, the administration and faculty at Hunter College would have us believe, Anita Hill spoke “truth” when she testified before Congress 20 years ago and accused then-Supreme Court nominee Thomas of sexually harassing her. What they base their conclusions on is, to put it kindly, unclear.
I listened to coverage of Hill’s and Thomas’ Senate testimony as much as my work schedule would allow. When it was all done, I reached one conclusion.
Hill was the one who lied. I believed that in 1991, and I believe it today. True, I have nothing more to go on than do the folks at Hunter College, nothing other than common sense and a knowledge of how real women, not radical feminists pushing an agenda, react to sexual harassment.
If Hill’s testimony is true, then her reaction wasn’t to report Thomas to anyone when he was her boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
She didn’t bring up the sexual harassment issue until years later, when Thomas was a Supreme Court nominee.
Curious timing, wouldn’t you agree?
Here’s how women I know react to sexual harassment, in the workplace or anywhere else.
* A stern verbal rebuke and dressing down of the harasser. In the workplace, this is probably best, but there are other options.
* A slap in the face.
* Fingernails raked across the eyes.
* A knee placed squarely in a certain body part.
* Bringing in a guy the woman knows — a boyfriend, husband, father, brother, uncle — who would have a nice sit-down with the harasser and help adjust his attitude.
Hill did none of those things, and she remains today what she was in 1991, part of an anti-Thomas hit squad.
Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.
