• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 893 0

by the press to support this allegation, Senator Simpson declined. But the purpose of his jacket-flapping display was not to prove any of the contents of the documents which he purported to have, so much as to put the idea in the mind of the public that it could not trust me to be truthful. Moreover, no one with an honest understanding of the seriousness of sexual harassing behavior could have called it “sexual harassment crap,” as Simpson did then, or distinguished its pain from that of “real harassment,” as he had done earlier. And in advising that the committee should have one hundred and four days to look into my background, as it had to review Thomas’, Simpson must have forgotten that I was not being considered for the Supreme Court. I was not being scrutinized for a position of public trust. I was simply giving evidence as a witness. No one else acting in that role had ever been scrutinized or had to be qualified in such a manner. In one statement, no part of which was made in my presence or objected to by the chairman of the committee, Senator Simpson questioned my background, character, and “proclivities.” Journalist William Safire later gave definition to the term “proclivities,” lest there be any doubt that Simpson was questioning my sexual orientation and following up on earlier efforts to get Oral Roberts law students to state that I was a lesbian.

On Sunday Senator Simpson suggested that there should be an investigation of me—to discover my “proclivities.” As if to follow that lead and notwithstanding the lack of relevance to the issue of harassment, Lynn Duke, one of the reporters at The Washington Post, telephoned Keith Henderson seeking verification that I was a lesbian who had had an affair with my roommate in Washington. Henderson took her to task for resorting to the same myths that the senators had to explain the claim. The senators’ actions were explainable: their political agenda was more important than painting a clear picture of the nature of the problem. However, the Post, whose objective was to inform the public, in stooping to the same tactics, was irresponsible. Even if the claims about my sexual orientation had been true, in pursuing the information the newspaper seemed only interested in satisfying the public about intensely private matters, unrelated to the claim. The investigation resembled so closely voyeuristic tabloid journalism as to be indistinguishable. Unfortunately, Duke was not the only reporter to pursue this approach to the story.

By Saturday afternoon, after the “high-tech lynching” claim, it appeared as though none of the members of the committee were my allies. And with the media blitz organized and executed by the Republicans, even time was against me. In pensive moments I listened to what was going on before me and wondered how it might have turned out differently. How might I have avoided being sucked into the nastiness that I was witnessing? Had I refused to participate when called or lied when questioned, might the whole matter have ended in September? At one point I closed myself into the bedroom of the hotel suite and started to cry. Almost instantly, however, I reminded myself that it would do no good for me to fall apart at this point. I pulled myself together and returned to the living room area where Shirley Wiegand was preparing for the following week’s classes. When called, I did what most citizens confronted with such a situation would do. Having made the decision to disclose what I knew, I had to complete it no matter how badly the process was failing. I just prayed to live through the next few days.

Though the team had been apprehensively hopeful, after my testimony on Friday, less than twenty-four hours later we felt we had been crushed. Thomas had concluded his second day of testimony. The Republicans had stepped up their crusade to shatter any chance that the substance of my complaint be heard by bombarding the media and committee with false information and taking control of the process. We were clearly outnumbered, outfinanced, and, in terms of media and