Category Archives: Political history

First of all, i was alive when this happened, but I was not really picking up on just how horrible this situation was.  Anita Hill was a woman that had worked for Clarence Thomas in the early 80’s and had been repeatedly sexually harassed by him.  She came forward and testified to some of the most horrible and unacceptable behavior of how any man would act towards any woman inside or outside of a work setting.  Clarence Thomas just said she was lying, and the men that conducted the hearings treated her like she was lying too.

The point in time is important because it was where I knew something was wrong, but nobody could explain to me so that I could understand it what exactly what was wrong, or what was so wrong about what was going on.  It was presented in the news very much like each person had their side to the story, and not like “Come on folks, no woman would make this stuff up.”

(This is just extra me-on-a-soapbox now.)  First, look at the picture and figure this is in 1991, almost 20 years ago and the article inside that issue is titled “He Said She Said” and the cover calls it the “watershed” debate on sexual harassment.  I’m not sure what exactly was meant by watershed at the time, but I can tell you that although this despicable human being was appointed to the Supreme Court, that was the last time we ever seriously doubted a woman’s word and it was the beginning of making it very clear that sexually harassing behavior in the workplace was – without question – off limits.

So I was just looking for other Time Magazine pictures and came across this letter to the editor about a book on Clarence Thomas:

…But what is Thomas accused of? Behaving crudely toward Anita Hill. Either it never happened, or it was so minor that it did not matter to Hill at the time… – Marc Richmond

I look at that statement now and I think what the heck could that guy be thinking?  Well it’s almost impossible to comprehend just how quickly this has changed in the past 40 years.  When Hill was working for Thomas in the early 1980’s, it was unthinkable for someone in Anita Hill’s position to speak up and risk her job – she would not be believed and she would be fired for making such accusations.  By the 1990’s, people were willing to believe there were two sides to every story (lies) about this, but after this, it was almost as if no man was safe from the accusations of a woman – and that had negative consequences, too.  It’s actually weird that Time would print such a letter because it’s one thing to complain about your boss when you’re trying to build your career – but this woman courageously stepped up when it was necessary to save America from this person of despicable character.

I remember at the time that there was a television show called Murphy Brown that ran an episode about how awful this whole thing was:  that Anita Hill would come forward with such embarrassing details and they publicly rebuffed her and appointed Clarence Thomas anyway.  Murphy Brown was on Mondays at 9pm and it ran for 10 or 11 years, it was our “Two and a Half Men” of the 1990’s – it was a huge show for a long, long time.  I knew at the time something was wrong and our country had done something wrong when I saw that episode and it ended quietly and sadly with his confirmation being replayed.  I wouldn’t figure it really what was so wrong about it until I saw Clarence Thomas interviewed on 60 Minutes a couple of years ago and he was such arrogant you-know-what and I thought wow, that’s one rude obnoxious SOB who I wouldn’t want greeting customers at my local Walmart, forget making decisions on the Constitution of the United States.  Now whenever I happen to read something in the newspaper about a Supreme Court decision, he just always seems to be on the wrong side of what I was taught about liberty, democracy and basic fairness.

I don’t really follow nominations as I don’t think there is very much we can do to stop them, but I think this hearing is part of the trend that contributed to the kinds of appointments we see now where Judges avoid specific or deep questioning, and has now resulted in the nomination of Elena Kagan where we really know so extremely little about her.