Melody Kology DB #10

I watched Anita: Speaking Truth to Power this week. Anita Hill’s treatment in 1991 was a fitting example of how Crenshaw’s Ted Talk describes intersectionality doubly harming someone experiencing two or more forms of marginalization.

Clarence Thomas was able to claim that his being on trial for workplace sexual harassment was a “high-tech lynching”, and an example of racism against him. If that were true, wouldn’t the same be true for how Hill was treated? Was she not black too, and having her character put on trial by a panel of white men, having her reputation compromised by a vindictive media, all because she anonymously told the truth when confronted?

She had to leave a job she loved because of rampant harassment, and years later, only when asked, provided an honest account of her working relationship with Thomas as being rife with inappropriate behavior that caused her to leave. She reported this anonymously, and yet was singled out, her name leaked. It was clear she never wanted to be called forward, especially in such a negative and public way.  Through the hearing, Anita remained unflappable and poised, but you can see how much the pervasive, graphic and probing questions weighed on her to vocalize repeatedly

But that was not the way she was treated, by a panel of white men who made it seem as though she had “come forward” with this information, and with questionable intent, treating her as if she were on trial, not Thomas. It is gut-wrenching to see them actually accuse her of being a “woman scorned”. This was all while colleagues, family, and friends of hers readily came forward to testify on behalf of her respectable character. Many of those who stood up for her even backed her claims with viable evidence – testifying that she had come to them in confidence and named the harassment as it was happening those 7 years ago. It makes you wonder, would this particular panel have treated her so horribly if she had been a white woman who had such clearly upstanding character?

It is amazing that wasn’t enough, but as we see, Clarence was able to dismiss the notion that a black man could be legitimately accused of harassment, even if this accusation was being made by another black person, the media ran with smearing Anita, and the legal system acted as though she had done something wrong in ways thick with undertones of racial stereotyping. Anita hill was at a crossroads of intersectionality that attacked her from multiple directions.

But what was worse was what happened after. Not only was Thomas’s nomination upheld, not only was he sworn into the Supreme Courts where he still sits, but powerful people had the nerve to actually retaliate against Hill for coming forward, trying to attack her job, and when unsuccessful, trying to attack the dean of her college and even the department she taught in altogether. This to me, is even more emblematic of the deep-rooted vitriol against speaking truth to power, she didn’t just get her name smeared in the courts and by the media, no, that wasn’t enough, they went after her afterward to send a message. It is such a testament to her strength that she has continued to speak out through the years.

I wonder how we as a society can so easily collectively forget how we treat women who come forward with harassment in the legal system, faulting them for not coming forward when they are harassed in the workplace, when we know that means running the risk of ruining their careers to name the harassment or press charges.

I wonder how many cases this precedent with Thomas wound up impacting, giving workplace harassment cases less power in the courts for less visible cases, and that leads me to wonder if any such prescient has actually been moved or impacted by the MeToo movement since 2016.