Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [143]
Thomas, the other side of the political coin, has aligned himself with what is now called the Black Conservative and New Right Conservative movements. He openly denounced those who remained in the civil rights movement in the 1980s and 1990s as individuals who do nothing but “bitch and moan” about the inequalities in the world. When confronted with the accusations of sexual harassment, Thomas, like Chavis later, categorically denied any impropriety in his behavior. Thomas defiantly declared the proceeding a “high-tech lynching,” refusing to take on the role of society’s bogeyman, the sexually aggressive black male. Many commented that Thomas’ use of the lynching metaphor to refer to accusations brought by a black woman was ahistorical. Yet the historical image of the lynched is so powerful that it defied the ill-fitting analogy. And one need only look to recent history to discover another irony in Thomas’ defiance.
Thomas, who refused to be cast as the ominous carnal villain, was, after all, nominated by George Bush, who had taken that role to its lowest and most manipulative depths in the form of the Willie Horton political ad which used the image of the villainous black man as rapist to attack Bush’s political opponent, Michael Dukakis. When it came to exploitation of racial fears, George Bush proved that he could indeed work both sides of the street. In the first instance he could exploit the racist fears held by society and in the later he could exploit the fear in society of being labeled racist. Both efforts represented brilliant and cynical rhetorical strategies and both worked.
Moreover, Thomas declared that the accusations were constructed by persons or groups who wanted to punish him for having the temerity to pursue his political agenda. In doing so he countered the response that the brutal lynchings of black men to which he referred do not stem from charges by black women. He pointed the finger at “someone who had put [me] up to this,” perhaps “the feminists.” Commentators Drs. Nathan and Julia Hare contributed to the perspective when they asserted, with no foundation at all, that I was an instrument of white feminists—outsiders who were trying to destroy the black community.
The willingness of African American intellectuals to embrace this theory and point the finger at feminists as malevolent outsiders ignores a community history as well as a modern reality. It turns people like Senator Strom Thurmond, one of Judge Thomas’ staunchest supporters, into community heroes, and on no evidence, it turns people like Ms. Washington and me into traitors. This is a product of racism that shows how deeply perverse gender bias is as well.
If Thomas had been successful in painting such a picture, his analogy to lynching might have made sense. Yet he named no groups or individuals who were responsible for the accusations. There were none to be named because none existed. He contrived the evidence to support his claim or acted on no evidence at all, the very thing we fear from a judge. He angrily denounced the process which called him to answer the charges, while all the time his chief supporter, John Danforth, was manipulating it behind the scenes to assist him, but declared that he would sooner die than give up his opportunity to serve on the Supreme Court. In the end when Thomas was confirmed by the narrowest of votes, he, according