That's Not the Anita Hill I Knew

PIOUS PLATITUDES notwithstanding, God is not on the side of the editorial board of The Crimson. Still, in spite of the spectre of rational argument and logic, the mind-readers and soothesayers in the majority have managed to determine that Professor Anita Hill is telling the truth. And that Judge Clarence Thomas is not.

We are humbled by the staff's omniscience, for nothing short of divine inspiration could give them the confidence to arrive at such a conclusion. If we consider only Hill's and Thomas's testimony, both seem believable, and no one, not even a senator, judge, or Crimson staffer, can ever know with metaphysical certitude what really transpired between them.

That is, no one except the liberals in the majority. In their rush to condemn Thomas, they ignore crippling inconsistencies in Hill's story. Contrary to what the staff implies, Thomas's credibility was bolstered over the weekend; Hill's got hammered:

1. If Hill suffered the alleged harassment, why did she accept a job with Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and then maintain contact with him throughout the '80s? After leaving the EEOC for private life, why did she continue to call her harasser-at least 10 times-and at one point, congratulate him on his marriage?

2. Why did Hill, a law professor familiar with sexual harassment cases, wait 10 years and three Thomas nomination hearings to come forward with her charges?

3. Why did Hill change her answers to questions about whether Senate staffers ever discussed with her the possibility of Thomas's withdrawing over her allegations? Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), a former prosecutor, says such flipflopping constitutes perjury. We agree.

4. Why did Hill tell mutual friends of hers and Thomas's at an American Bar Assotiation meeting in August that she was happy about the judge's nomination to the Supreme Court, and then deny during the hearings that she said this?

The majority also fails to consider the wealth of evidence that supports Thomas, choosing instead to rely solely upon four witnesses who testified on Hill's behalf. Thirteen women, many of whom disagree with Thomas politically, have come forward to defend his character under oath.

One self-described pro-choice feminist, who sat right next to Thomas at work for more than two years and heard almost every telephone conversation he had, says she never heard him make one sexist remark. Another remembers that Thomas corrected her for using profanity on official business. Yet another recalled that when Thomas spoke to female employees in his office, he always left the door open.

But perhaps the most revealing testimony came from J.C. Alvarez, former special assistant at the EEOC:

"That was not the Anita Hill I knew and worked with at EEOC. On Friday, she played the role of a meek, innocent, shy Baptist girl from the South who was a victim of this big bad man. I don't know who she was trying to kid, because the Anita Hill that I knew and worked with was nothing like that. She was arrogant. She was a relentless debater. And she was the kind of woman who always made you feel like she was not going to be messed with, like she was not going to take anything from anyone."

In short, although no one can know for certain what occurred, we have few lingering doubts. And most Americans seem to agree with us. As the results of two separate polls reveal, Americans are inclined to believe Thomas by a margin of two to one.

It's reassuring that most people still uphold basic princples of justice and fairness. We just cannot figure out why the liberals in the majority have forgotten them.

As Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said Saturday, in a case like this the presumption should be with Thomas, the accused. But not only is the evidence for him is overwhelming.

Thomas should be confirmed. Nothing could send a more powerful message to would-be dirt-diggers and rumor-mongers that the Senate's advise and consent function will not be further corrupted.