• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 883 0

how they had to be above reproach in the Reagan administration, given the sexual “stereotypes all black men deal with.” Neither Thomas nor the senators nor the press recognized how the attacks of the Republican senators pandered to the stereotypes about black women’s sexuality. Falsely casting me as an erotomaniac whose desire for an object prevented me from discerning reality from fantasy fit neatly within the myth of black women’s sexuality. Thus, despite the lack of any supporting evidence, the theory became believable. False claims about sexually provocative comments, behavior, and demeanor aimed at young white males at Oral Roberts University fit within the myth of black women as sexual aggressors who victimize white men. Despite their contextual absurdity, these claims became believable to many. Comparisons between me and the young Tawana Brawley, who exaggerated, perhaps even fabricated, claims of depraved abuse and violence, went unchallenged, despite their dissimilarities, because they fit within the stereotypes of black women’s sexuality. Orlando Patterson’s observation is as false and just as dangerous because it relies on and supports these myths.

Thomas’ selection and my shunning had its intended effect. Discussion in the white community turned away from the myths of black male sexuality and regrettably focused on the myths of black female sexuality. In 1925, in her prize-winning essay On Being Young—a Woman—and Colored, Marita O. Bonner asked, “Why do they see a colored woman only as a gross collection of desires, all uncontrolled reaching out for their Apollos and Quasimodos with avid indiscrimination?” But for the timing, Miss Bonner might well have been asking the question about the Senate Judiciary Committee members and Senator Danforth who sought to portray me as an erotomaniac. She could well have been referring to David Brock, whose fraudulent portrayal of me, presumptuously entitled The Real Anita Hill, hinged on sexual mythology about black women and society’s willingness to believe it. Because Brock supported his case with fabricated and misquoted sources, I was at first amazed that the press gave him such broad license to define me. (He admits to never having talked to anyone who was at any time close to me. On the other hand, the information which he reports on Clarence Thomas comes from many of Thomas’ political allies—in some cases the same people who provided information critical of me.)

When I realized the insidious resonance of these myths, the fact that reviewers failed to question Brock’s lack of balance is no longer surprising. In today’s society, with its demand for quick answers, David Brock’s writings and others of its ilk often pass for analysis. Today’s investigative journalism too often relies on salacious rumors to define a character. Yet despite the refutation of most of his material, many will believe David Brock because they are more comfortable rejecting my testimony than that of Judge Thomas. For to reject Judge Thomas’ testimony, one must conclude that a perjurer is sitting on the nation’s highest court. Moreover, those who have invested in his career, many of them highly placed and powerful, such as Senators Danforth and Specter, have placed their own judgment on the line in supporting him. To capitulate now would mean to admit a gross error and might even call for recompense.

David Brock is a product of the times in which we now live. As a white male he is given permission to define me, a black woman, on whatever terms he chooses, without establishing any credentials to do so. He is presumed to be free of bias, no matter how obviously biased his work may be. Many accept his claim to sources without reference to who they are or what their bias may be. Responsible journalists failed to see that there is a special danger in this approach, where it targets individuals who have been historically portrayed negatively without support. All too often all women and all men and women of color must then rebut the assumption created by misinformed definitions of us despite glaring logical