From: politics@hpbs654.boi.hp.com (Concerned Citizen)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:22:57 GMT
Organization: a town in America
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism

I think the following article sums up the Anita Hill 'controversy' pretty
well.

from:

The New American
P.O. Box 8040
Appleton, WI  54913
414-749-3784

=========================================================================

PUBLISHER'S PAGE 
John F. McManus

Anita Hill's "Heroics"

A full year after Professor Anita Hill aimed sensational charges of sexual
harassment against Judge Clarence Thomas, she continues to be lionized by
the
media while, in many circles, the mere mention of Thomas' name evokes anger
and
hatred. Continuing to portray herself as the innocent victim of a sleazy
boss
whose conduct toward her was disgusting, Hill has traveled the nation to
deliver
speeches and to receive the plaudits of those who claim to be defenders of
women
in the workplace. In many cases, Hill's partisans seem far more upset about
a
conservative taking his place on the Supreme Court. Lawyers Know Better

Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, speaks mainly
before
groups of lawyers. On October 16th, she went back to the nation's capital
where
she had shocked the nation last year with her lurid testimony before the
Senate
Judiciary Committee. Speaking to 400 lawyers at the Georgetown University
Law
Center, she aimed her guns at the senators who heard her accusations a year
ago
but who approved the Thomas nomination anyway. "Not only did the Senate
fail to
understand or to recognize me because of my lack of attachment to certain
institutions, like marriage or patronage, they failed to relate to my race,
my
race and gender combined, and in combination with my education, my career
choice
and my demeanor," she told her audience. In other words, the senators
believed
Thomas and not her because she was black, unmarried, a professional woman,
and
unescorted to the hearings by some powerfully connected person.

The New York Times said Hill received a standing ovation. Which means that
the
400 lawyers present continue to accept her accusations against Thomas as
fact.
Whatever happened to the old standby about a person being innocent until
proven
guilty?

Every lawyer in that room knows from legal training that Anita Hill proved
nothing when she sought to savage the reputation of Clarence Thomas. Her
charges
dealt with their relationship (boss to employee) 10 years earlier, were
completely without any corroborating testimony, and existed in the total
absence
of any evidence-or even any charges-of similar behavior over his career.
If
Thomas were indeed guilty of the behavior she charged him with, there would
have
been a trail of similar behavior wherever he had been employed.

Had Hill's testimony been given in a court of law, it would have-certainly
should have-been treated as unsubstantiated vindictiveness. Lawyers know
that
she might easily have been charged with defamation of character by Thomas.
Had
they cared to do so, the legal practitioners could have turned to
psychiatric
experts for a possible explanation of what was transpiring.

Dr. Melvin Anchell, a 40-year veteran psychoanalyst who has spent a
lifetime
supplying expert testimony in court cases involving human sexuality,
suggests
that Hill suffers from a disorder known as pseudology. In an interview
published
in THE NEW AMERICAN magazine, he described pseudology as "pathological
lying in
speech or in writing where the lies consist of ... sensual exploits or
experiences that are completely false but which the patient believes are
true."

The legal profession in America is top-heavy with partisans for liberal
causes.
Many see the rise of sexual harassment charges as a boon to their legal
practices. Others are delighted to see the sharp increase in the number of
women
political candidates, most of whom are strident liberals. But few if any
defend
Judge Thomas, a man charged without any proof whatsoever. In the total
absence
of any such proof, a lawyer who cheers for Hill and sneers at Thomas ought
to be
shunned.

Occasional Sanity

While Hill was receiving the cheers of the Georgetown group, Ms. Ricky
Silberman
was defending Judge Thomas at another Washington gathering. The vice
chairman of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ten years ago when both Thomas
and
Hill were employed there and when the sexual harassment described by Hill
allegedly took place, Silberman declare, "In the year since Clarence Thomas
won
his case before the America people, the losers have rewritten history
because
they own the pens."

Insisting that Hill's charges were  unbelievable to anyone who knew 
Thomas, she
added: "In the press, at the American Bar Association, even in Hollywood
sitcoms, they canonized Hill and demonized Thomas." Accurately terming the
incident "an unsubstantiated charge of sexual harassment," she note that it
had
"launched the mother of a gender wars."

The war she alluded to had its effect in numerous political races this
year. Al
a time when liberals continue to insist that Americans should not allow our
nation to be divided along racial, religious and ethnic lines, most delight
in
the growing division over gender. The "mother of all gender wars" has also
spawned a sharp increase in the number of sexual harassment charges filed
with
government agencies. While some are based on provable cause, the sympathy
generated about sexual impropriety in the workplace has encouraged some
women to
level the charge against bosses or fellow employees whom they merely
dislike.

One year after Anita Hill's performance before the Senate committee an the
American people, she has still no provided any evidence that her charge are
based on fact. She should be ignored, not treated like a hero.

THE NEW AMERICAN / NOVEMBER 16, 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh