I vaguely remember the Anita Hill hearings. I do remember wondering at the time why Anita Hill would follow a man who was sexually harassing her from job to job. Why didn’t she just say good riddance and stay in the job she had instead of moving on to the next job working with him? If the harassment was real, I seriously doubt she would have followed him. At any rate, there are some interesting similarities between the attempted destruction of Clarence Thomas and the attempted destruction of Brett Kavanaugh.There is also some revising of comments made during the Anita Hill testimony being done.<\/p>\n
Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist<\/a> posted an article yesterday citing some of the revised history now being spouted.<\/p>\n The article at The Federalist notes:<\/p>\n \u201cNot only didn\u2019t I vote for Clarence Thomas, I believed her from the beginning. I was against Clarence Thomas, I did everything in my power to defeat Clarence Thomas and he won by the smallest margin anyone ever won going on the Supreme Court,\u201d Biden told \u201cThe View\u2019s\u201d Joy Behar.<\/strong><\/p>\n That is the current statement.<\/p>\n The article notes past statements:<\/p>\n But in 1998, Biden admitted to Specter (Senator Arlen Specter ) that \u201cIt was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, [Hill] was lying\u201d about a key part of her testimony. The exchange was published in Specter\u2019s 2000 memoir<\/a>, \u201cPassion for Truth: From Finding JFK\u2019s Single Bullet to Questioning Anita Hill to Impeaching Clinton.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The issue is important, as the media and other partisans rewrite the historical record about Hill and her accusations. The widely watched hearings revealed inaccuracies in Hill\u2019s various versions of events and ended with 58 percent of Americans believing Thomas and only 24 percent believing Hill<\/a>. There was no gap between the sexes in the results. In the intervening years, activists have relentlessly attempted to change the narrative, writing fan fiction about Hill, bestowing honors on her, and asserting that her disputed allegations were credible.<\/strong><\/p>\n The article also notes:<\/p>\n Finally he asked Hill about a USA Today article that claimed, \u201cAnita Hill was told by Senate staffers her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that \u2018quietly and behind the scenes\u2019 would force him to withdraw his name.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Specter read from the article: \u201cKeith Henderson, a 10-year friend of Hill and former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer, says Hill was advised by Senate staffers that her charge would be kept secret and her name kept from public scrutiny.\u201d Later it said, \u201cThey would approach Judge Thomas with the information and he would withdraw and not turn this into a big story, Henderson says.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Specter asked her if this was true, attempting to find out what Senate Democrats had arranged with Hill. Nine times she denied the claim, demurred, or otherwise attempted to get away from the question. She said she could vividly remember events related to Thomas from many years prior, but couldn\u2019t quite remember this conversation from weeks prior.<\/strong><\/p>\n Somehow this all seems too familiar. I am grateful for men who do not back down when faced with accusations that have no evidence and no collaboration. If women are serious about ending the sexual harassment of women, they also need to be serious about ending false accusations against men whose politics they may disagree with.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I vaguely remember the Anita Hill hearings. I do remember wondering at the time why Anita Hill would follow a man who was sexually harassing her from job to job. Why didn’t she just say good riddance and stay in … Continue reading