Anita

I watched this documentary about Anita Hill's 1991 testimony before the state judiciary committee against her former boss, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, for his repeated sexual harassment to refresh my memory and learn more about circumstances surrounding the events.

It was interesting to learn about Hill's life, see who was supporting her, (her wonderful family, Professor Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School, and others), and wrenching to rewatch what are to me excruciating details of this terrible, sexist, judgmental, power-system that masquerades as justice.

As I the watched the self-righteous men click their pens and grill Anita, I heard Tom Wolfe's words echo in my head, "They have a way of making the vicim look like the criminal and the criminal the victim." They of course did that quick flip and turned valid charges of sexual harassment into claims of racial harassment against Clarence Thomas.

Joe Biden is responsible for not having called the witnesses who could have corroborated Anita Hill; that's not something I can or want to forget.

Like many women, I've experienced gender based violence and sexual harassment, which is just part of the problem of gender inequality. I've also been a witness in two trials, neither was a picnic, and in both I was attacked for speaking the truth. In one trial, the criminal was put away; in the other, the corruption prevailed and the criminal went on to hurt other women and is still free today. In my experience, American courts and the U.S. government are unflinchingly corrupt.

Near the end of the film, Anita says, "Despite the high cost that is involved, it is worth having the truth emerge." I agree with her, but what a struggle it is. Why don't people come forward more readily? Because they are blamed and skewered when they do.

I believe Anita Hill. Never a question about it. She told her friends and colleagues at the time and well... she's telling the truth.

It saddened me, but I'm glad I watched the movie.

I vaguely recall the case. The coverage could hardly be missed. But all I really remember -- and what occupied the media so prominently -- was the pubic hair on the soft drink can and the expression "Long Dong Silver." I don't know what was edited out of this film but as it stands it presents a fairly convincing case that Anita Hill was intelligent and honest. She has neither a ghetto nor a Southern accent and, practically speaking, that helps her. And she didn't make public appearances denouncing Thomas. The "harassment" was uncovered in the course of a routine FBI examination and she was called to testify.

Clarence Thomas speaks without a regional accent too but his statements are far more forceful and inflammatory than hers. He denies outright that any such exchanges took place. And, unlike Hill, he "plays the race card," as they say. "This is a high tech lynching." I hate that phrase, but that's what he does. It's a trump card. It frightens people and they back off. It changes the structure of the inquiry from the work harassment of Anita Hill to a racist attack on Clarence Thomas.

Nobody kisses Anita Hill's ring and some of the questions sound not only adversarial but actually hostile. "Why did you wait so long to bring this up?", is a reasonable enough query. But, "Do you see yourself as a symbol of black womanhood and liberation?", is a bit much. So is, "Do you like the attention you're getting?" So is, "Are you a woman scorned?" Of course her answer will be "no," but it's the kind of question that gives the anti-Hill folks a handle to hang their dismissal on.

She volunteered to take a polygraph test and passed. Four female witnesses supporting Hill waited in the wings to be called but were ignored. Female witnesses were called on Thomas' behalf. The judgment of the Judiciary Committee as to his being qualified were split, 7 to 7, and the nomination was sent to the Senate without any recommendation, which was rare.

After the questionable exchanges and requests for dates, she accompanied Thomas to his next job and spent another two years working for him. She claims that it was in a field she wanted to work in, the exchanges had apparently ended, and she didn't have a job waiting anywhere else.

Frankly, I don't care much about Thomas' having made some questionable remarks to her. A lot of men are raunchy and some raunchy men are clumsy in their jokes with women.

But that exchange -- the one that people like me remember -- is a minor point. The attacks on Anita Hill continued after the investigation was closed. Thomas went on to become a Supreme Court Justice. Hill wound up at Oral Roberts University. Hill had become a tenured professor. Moves were made, according to her, to get her fired. When that didn't work, the Dean of the university began receiving threats. Years later, the wife of Clarence Thomas left a voice mail message for Hill, asking that Hill apologize for her testimony. Hill turned it over to the FBI who found it authentic.

The impression left with the viewer is that the committee were anxious to discredit her, close the investigation quickly, and end the publicity. What actually went on between the two is unknowable.

In my judgment, I don't find myself sobbing because of Anita Hill's mistreatment. If that's the worst problem one has at work -- a boss joking about pubic hair and asking you for dates -- it's not much of a problem. We've all had much worse. But Clarence Thomas has turned out to be a complete nonentity. He votes reliably in a predictable way and years passed without his ever asking a question from the bench. (That's not in itself a bad sign but it leaves us blind to his reasoning.

Her academic career has been an unqualified success. After graduating as valedictorian from Morris High School, Hill enrolled at Oklahoma State University, receiving a bachelor's degree with honors, in psychology 1977. She went on to Yale Law School, obtaining her Juris Doctor degree with honors in 1980. After her penal servitude at Oral Roberts, she taught at Berkeley and is now at Brandeis University. Thomas' education is equally impressive.

The film presents her as a heroine of epic stature, a sacrificial victim almost, in a patriarchal and conservative society. I don't. I see her as another woman who was addressed in questionable ways by a boss and testified about it without being anxious to do so. Personally I wish her testimony had had more impact. Thomas was a fan of Ayn Rand, which I'm not.

Anita Hill shares her story about the sexual harassment she suffered from her former boss Clarence Thomas to the US Senators in this documentary. Throughout the whole proceedings, it appeared that the senators had been intimidating Mrs. Hill to repeatedly recount the disgusting details in an effort to humiliate and demoralize her, but she remained calm, patient, and determined to express her point. Her claims was not taken seriously, yet even so, I was delighted to know she had a positive influence on others. She might not have believed that voicing the truth would benefit her much, but in reality, it impacted a lot of others who were or are hesitant to speak out against their boss for fear of losing their jobs, having their reputations tarnished or receiving threats.

If you don't remember the Anita Hill story you should see this story. If you remember Anita Hill and the media around the story...you don't really know the story. Speaking truth to power is the sub-title and is the tale of her life story. Amazing how far our country has come since 1991, and how far it still has to go. Anita's bravery in standing up and telling the truth, being a good American and doing the right thing, when she had so much to lose is more than most of us would have the courage to do. From her childhood in Oklahoma, to Yale Law, to DC, and beyond this film by an Oscar Award Winner tells Anita's story beautifully and shows how much she gave up to tell the truth about Clarence Thomas. It's time to open our eyes. See it.

This woman is SO remarkable. To come forward to tell the truth (when she was asked mind you) in a predominantly male, white congress and the "establishment" backing the perpetrator is simply remarkable. Courageous. Admirable. Had this hearing been held TODAY during/after the MeToo movement, she would have been believed, as she should have been and that "man" would not hold one of the highest jobs in this country. I was disgusted at the way she was treated and dismissed by the people that should be there to listen and protect her and keep a "man" out of a position that would give him power to make decisions he should not be allowed to make.

Random-70778 🙄