Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [119]
Years after the hearing I would telephone Dr. Dietz. Relying on his sense of professional integrity and willingness after the fact to put politics aside, I questioned him about his role in the hearing. He seemed willing to talk to me, giving me the best time to contact him and returning a telephone call twice until we finally connected. He reported to me that he first got involved through a telephone call from a political lobbyist for conservative causes who had liked an antipornography position he had taken prior to 1991. Senator Danforth ultimately flew him to Washington to consult with the Republicans.
During our conversation Dr. Dietz defended his role in supplying the information about De Clarembaults’s syndrome while arguing that he “wanted to keep psychiatry out of it.”
“Dr. Dietz,” I inquired, hoping for redemption for the profession, “have you ever studied individuals who were sexually harassed?”
“In my practice, I have had occasion to see patients who have been victims of harassment,” he was quick to respond.
“You must then be familiar with the symptoms of those suffering from sexual harassment—based on your work with your patients,” I offered. He allowed that he had counseled a number of sexual harassment victims.
“Did any one of the Republicans ever ask you about the symptoms of actual sexual harassment victims?” I asked. He paused, explaining that he was asked about his work on erotomania. “Did anyone ever ask you how to distinguish between someone suffering from delusion and an actual victim of sexual harassment?” I pressed.
He paused again. “No, no one ever asked.”
Late Sunday evening it became clear that neither Wright nor Hardnett or the witnesses who could support their claims would be called to testify. As I listened to the testimony of John Doggett, followed by the panels of women who testified that Thomas behaved properly toward them, the whole affair moved beyond the realm of the unreal into the surreal, from an intensely painful experience to a spectacle as ludicrous as it was bizarre.
The media’s lack of sensitivity about harassment, the brevity of coverage allotted, along with the media manipulation by White House staff members and consultants, may explain the faulty coverage. And these factors may shed light on why, throughout the process, an independent press went along with the Republican perspective. But I can make this observation only with the benefit of hindsight. At the time of the hearing, I read, watched, and listened, searching for something in the stories and commentaries that showed that they indeed reflected my experience. Finding very little, my feeling of isolation grew all the more intense. Fortunately, in the days and years to follow, the press would look more closely at the issue of sexual harassment and begin the work of a more complete appraisal of the hearing itself. Unfortunately, however, much of the damage to the issue of harassment, my reputation, and the idea of citizen involvement in the nomination process had already been done. And as absurd as some commentary and reporting was, I felt the sting deeply. By Sunday night I had had more than enough. I would not subject my friends to any part of the committee’s character assaults, nor would I myself. Neither the press nor the committee seemed interested in getting to the truth of the matter.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
When I was a child, I eagerly accepted invitations from relatives and family friends to go home with them. Unlike JoAnn, who was more of a homebody, I followed aunts and uncles and neighbors whenever allowed. Because I was so willing, I got a number of invitations. “Why don’t you let us take Faye home with us?” Mrs. Reagor would suggest. After some consideration and stern admonitions to “be good” and “mind” Mrs. Reagor or whoever was taking me, my mother would pack a few of my clothes, and off I would go, anxious for the new experience.