Feminist harassment

National Review, Nov 4, 1991 by Barbara Amiel

DID Clarence Thomas tell Anita Hill the size of his penis? When the two of them worked together ten years ago, did he use office time to tell her about his preferences in pornographic films? Would Miss Hill, the youngest of 13 from a dirt-poor black family, ruin the career of Judge Thomas, the prodigal son of another impoverished black family?

These weighty matters were pondered by a Senate committee that includes such stalwarts of the new moral order as Edward Kennedy (Chappaquiddick) and Joseph Biden, the man who plagiarized Neil Kinnock's speech. We will never know whether Judge Thomas or Professor Hill is telling the truth. After watching them give evidence, live and complete on CNN, I defy anyone but the good Lord to say what actually happened between that man and that woman. Which brings me to the core of the matter. Let us assume that every word Professor Hill is saying is true. What on earth does this have to do with Judge Thomas's fitness for the Supreme Court?

As I understand it, feminism notwithstanding, we have not yet made it illegal to discuss sex. Since Professor Hill chose not to complain about the conversations and, indeed, followed Thomas when he changed jobs, it is possible that he did not realize she disliked this sort of chat. If he did what she alleges, we can convict him at worst of bad taste and possibly poor judgment of another person's reactions. Perhaps he is so full of himself that he does not notice the effect of his conversation on others. This may make him a rotten dinner companion, but it has nothing to do with character or fitness for the Supreme Court. What then is this fuss all about?

If we forget the pointless "who is telling the truth" and simply assume Professor Hill is, one can see the real story. Judge Thomas's nomination had infuriated the left-wing lobby. It tried to discredit him by labeling him an "arch-conservative" because of his reservations about affirmative-action policies and a suspicion that he did not favor abortion on demand. Since Thomas's views in these matters concurred with those of about three-quarters of Americans, the block-Thomas campaign failed. The more conservative he was said to be, the more support he was getting.

At this point, someone on the losing side leaked the FBI report on sexual-harassment charges, hoping it would stop the "conservative" Thomas. What needs to be said very loudly to the left-wing/liberal lobby in America is this: If you want a soulmate on the Supreme Court, do it through the ballot box rather than smear tactics. You have no innate right to a political appointment of your choice without first getting a political victory. If you can elect a President who reflects your views, then, you will be able to have Supreme Court nominees who reflect your views.

One wondered, after the defeat of Communism, where the totalitarian impulse would next emerge. My bet was on the feminist movement or environmentalism, and sure enough we can see it in the kangaroo trial of Clarence Thomas, who had no due process of law to protect him.

There is such a thing as sexual harassment in the workplace. It involves a person demanding sexual favors in return for job security or promotion. That is extortion. But that is a far cry from the charges against Judge Thomas. If he had appealed to Professor Hill's idea of an interesting man, his requests for a date would have been pleasurable, not abominable. His conversation might have been teasing, not revolting. As it was, Professor Hill tolerated the alleged conversations because, she says, they guaranteed her job. If she had been promoted, would the conversations have been okay or totally forgotten? And if an action can be legal when performed by someone I think is attractive and a crime when performed by someone who is unappealing, well, the mote is in thine own eye, isn't it?

I was amused to see an executive of a large U.S. oil company commenting on the Thomas affair with the rueful remark: "Corporate America has had to put up with this, why shouldn't Washington?" In the feminist Salem that the corporate American workplace has become, men and women must relate to one another like humanoids. Take this sequence from a training video depicting the horror of sexual harassment:

Woman (at a photocopying machine): "Sorry, I'll be out of your way in a second."

Man (leaning on counter): "Take your time. I'm enjoying the view."

Who, but disturbed human beings, would see this as sexual harassment? The answer came from a female attorney on CNN. "We must," she said after viewing the video approvingly, "make the response on the reasonable woman's behavioral standard, not the reasonable man's." What she really meant, of course, was that the response of the pathologically neurotic woman has become the standard.

Extreme feminism is now a state religion in America. People are being disentitled to their own sexuality, which, in the case of men, allows them to initiate courtship, make compliments-and the occasional pass. This all goes fundamentally against a free society, but that, one fears, may be part of the feminists' agenda as they rearrange social structures. Meanwhile, about the only relevant argument Professor Hill might have made was that anyone crazy enough to ask her out is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.