The Wash Rag Issue 5.4 December, 1997 BOOK REVIEW SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER by Anita Hill Speaking Truth To Power by Anita Hill, Doubleday © 1997, 274 pages, indexed, ISBN 0-385-47625-6. Reading Anita Hill’s book, Speaking Truth To Power, which is both an autobiography and a stinging indictment of how the system malfunctions in cases of sexual harassment, I was moved first of all by her almost complete understanding of the issue, and second by her competence in relaying it to the reader. In most cases, her explanations of judicial processes are not complicated by excessive dependance on legal jargon, making the book accessible to anyone with basic reading skills. That an American citizen, trying to be of service to the Congress in the process of the confirmation of a Justice in the Supreme Court of this country, should end up as the target of investigations by it and other entities in the government, as well as the target of bigots and crackpots, is a travesty. At the time I was reading Anita Hill’s meticulously document account (to the extent that it can be documented), the veracity of which I believe from the first word to the last, a special about the founding of our government and the Revolutionary War appeared on public television. I feel that even as we speak, Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, Hamilton and others who fought and died to create our country are turning cartwheels in their graves. What happened at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme court were a complete prostitution of the process. Based on Anita Hill’s testimony and the testimony of others who offered to testify but who were not called, Thomas should never have been appointed, and those who were involved and apparently continue to try to dig up dirt on her, should have been elected out of office or dismissed. A few were, but entirely too few, including both Democrats and Republicans. My own conclusion is that Anita Hill was a far more appropriate a candidate for the Supreme Court than was the nominee in question. She showed more integrity and understanding of how the process should have taken place than either Thomas or his supporters. I was totally impressed by Hill’s support from friends and current and former colleagues during her ordeal. Those of us who have tried to make complaints with little, or in my own case, absolutely no support from family members or what were perceived at the time to be friends, can only admire her for the respect and affection which she was able to evoke from those she had associated with during her life. That a woman who had been a top student through school, who graduated from no less than the Yale Law School, could be inflicted with the kind of treatment she received from Thomas and later from the U. S. Senate is genuinely shocking. Most victims of sexual harassment have neither the credentials, the legal knowledge, nor the support system which she had. It puts their dilemma into focus: If she was treated like she was, how can we expect any consideration. I was slightly disappointed that she never suggested that the reasons why so many Senators and others involved in the misuse of the hearing process were so desperate to destroy her was because many of them had similarly mistreated women working for them and thus related more to his position vis a vie her testimony. Indeed, she, whose every small gesture, even wiping oil from her nose during the hearing itself, was analyzed and questioned, never once questions the deep-seated motives of her detractors past the placement of the nominee. I want to think that was because of her own commitment to the proposition that one remains innocent until shown to be guilty rather than ignorance. The sheer tenacity and vindictiveness of some of the individuals indicates a deep-rooted motivation and I believe that they want vindication and protection of behavior like that Thomas is alleged to have committed. I don’t think that there is any question but that Thomas does not now nor did he ever belong on the Supreme Court. If he does not voluntarily resign, he should be impeached. Whether the Congress has the courage to undertake such an action is to be questioned considering its incompetence in the Thomas hearings themselves. If you do not want to be enraged, I would advise women not to read this publication. It brings the inequities which we have all experienced into such sharp focus that they can no longer be ignored. For that, we owe Anita Hill our sincere gratitude. As she herself says, she did not choose the sexual harassment issue: It chose her. She only has tried to give her unprecedented appearance some kind of meaning for her own life and in the process, has given hope to those of us similarly abused, that the system will change to give us the dignity we have never before been able to expect. When first I read the title to the book, Speaking Truth To Power, I admit that the significance of it made little impression on me. But now I understand that power means the ability to decide what is true and what is not, indeed the power to rewrite history if necessary. A daunting task for a black farm girl from Oklahoma, but the amazing fact is that she was and is up to it. Perhaps our founding fathers have triumphed after all. MEDIA POTPOURRI Judge David Lanier of Dyersburg, Tennessee was ordered back to jail after his successful appeal was overturned. He went on the lam but was captured in Tiajuana, Mexico after being featured on America’s Most Wanted. Back in jail now, he is serving 23 years for sexually harassing and raping women while serving as a judge. Anita Hill was quoted in an Argus Leader article on October 17 as saying that the Thomas case has had a lasting impact. The Army’s top enlisted man, Sgt. Maj. Gene McKinney is going on trial for soliciting for sex and making unwanted sexual advances. He has denied the charges. The Sexual Harassment issue has surfaced in the Supreme Court. According to a November 15 article, case involving the liability of employers for employees who sexually harass co-workers or subordinates should clarify whether employers have culpability. The court ruled earlier that employers could be liable even if they have policies against sexual harassment. There have recently been numerous reports about the case of a male worker on an oil rig making a sexual harassment complaint against fellow workers, also male, which the Supreme Court is reviewing. The significance of this is much greater to women than one might think at first, and indeed the NOW Legal Defense Fund has commented on the importance of the case. The complaining man commented to the media that he thought that the reason his co-workers selected him out for what appears to have been sexual hazing was because of his small stature (5’ 4”). The “Why’s” of sexual harassment are of primary importance here. One often wonders why men do the atrocious things to women that they do. In this case, it seems to have been “because they can.” Perhaps it always is “because they can.” Even conservative members of the Supreme Court were of the mind set to allow the case to go forward under sexual harassment legislation, which the defendants claimed could only occur if both the complaining part and the defendant were not of the same sex. Reprocussions are expected in such organizations as the military and fraternities known for hazing rituals should the complainant win. The case is being watched closely by Gay and Lesbian organizations. The National NOW Times, in its October issue, includes an article on Sleazy Courtroom Tactics including comments on the Hill/Thomas hearings. They comment that part of the public’s response to the hearings was the record number of women elected to Congress in 1992. I only hope that they also resulted in a change in political parties on the executive level. Whether or not Clinton is guilty of inappropriate behavior in the Paula Jones matter, he certainly is more sensitive to women’s issues than Bush was. Anti-Abortion Violence Watch, a pro-choice newsletter, detailed in the August issue the amount of domestic terrorism against doctors performing abortions. I think that we women should keep in mind that women should always keep in mind that we are not the only members of society who are subjected to harassment. The truth is that anyone who does not bow to the wishes of individuals who feel that they have the right to control and manipulate others will be harassed. Only yesterday, after I had described to an acquaintance a couple of recent incidents of harassment, she commented that she had never in her life experienced anything like that. To be honest, the lady is eighty or close to it, and she has never in her life done anything that the system did not want her to do. Apparently, she did this because she wanted to and she has enjoyed doing it. But those individuals who are obsessed with manipulating others will always use harassment to punish those who defy them. She has no interest in understanding my problems because that would mean she would have to take a stand, impossible for her to do and avoid harassment at the same time. At eighty, that would not be possible for her to do. The Introduction Continued THE NATURE OF HARASSMENT I am a person who feels more comfortable with a routine. I like to keep my coffee cup in the same place, I like to go to the same stores, I prefer certain foods, etc. Harassers depend on routines to foul up your life. If they are going to follow you to work, they have to know how you get there, what time you leave, what route you take, etc. If they want to taint the food products you buy, they have to know where you shop and what products you buy. Varying these common practices fouls up their system. If you always shop at a different super market, they must cover much more space. If you buy different brands, they won’t know which ones to taint. If you take different routes to work or leave at different times, they will be frustrated in trying to keep track of you. This is also a matter of spreading out the pressures. Assuming that the harasser is going to apply pressure to anyone you deal with, then you make it easier on your sources of sustenance and support if you constantly use different ones. Anything you can do to make it hard for a harasser to be a step ahead of you will benefit you and make it more likely that you will be successful in evading harassment. My advice for survival is to be unpredictable. When I look back on the many years of harassment I have endured, I realize that survival was not the most important issue, it was the only issue. Anything I had to do to survive was acceptable. That is why being independent is so important, because many things a person has to do to survive harassment are idiotic to anyone who has never been its victim. They are perpetually the object of the ridicule of individuals too plain or stupid to be attractive to harassers. And unless an individual can survive, nothing else is pertinent. Survival is everything. I have heard experts on rape advise us that anything you can do to survive a rapist alive is all right. They offer some suggestions, but almost all of them add that anything you can do to survive a rape attack is OK. The same is true of harassment, although a rape attack usually has a brief time span and harassment almost always lasts for a much longer time. Nobody can really tell you exactly what you should do in all instances, all I can do is give suggestions. Since the harasser’s methods will change as you find methods of dealing with any given set of terrorist tactics, you must be constantly changing your methods of dealing with the harassment. Flexibility is absolutely necessary. The harassment by a known individual is obviously much easier to deal with than harassment by unknown assailants. If you know who the perpetrator is, then you can use all of the common means of restraining orders, etc., which the legal system is becoming able to recognize and use. If they don’t work, you may have to use some of the methods used by those who don’t know who their harasser is. I have heard the harassment establishment suggest moving as a means of avoiding harassment. Unless you have strong support in this, such as the witness protection program the U. S. Government, I believe moving is pointless. By moving, you disrupt your life, not the harasser’s. You may lose your own base of support by moving, if you have one. And my experience has been that if the harasser is truly dedicated, he can and will follow you to the ends of the earth to do it. I have personally experienced the same harassments on two different continents and in various parts of the U. S. Geography is no barer for a harasser. So I would never move again thinking I would get away from a harasser. Once in California I moved to a different town because I was getting death threats (I think from a former employer). I was very careful to take different routes to my new home, had my utilities turned on under a false name, had my mail sent to a post office box in the town where I had previously lived, etc. Within two weeks after I moved, a letter addressed to my post office box was delivered at my new address. Nobody knew where I was living, not my sister, not my daughters, not anybody. Yet my harasser was smugly telling me he knew where I was living, and was able to get hold of a piece of my mail out of the post office and put it into my new mail box. Facing the harasser down is something he does not expect you to do. He enjoys the harassment much as a hunter enjoys the hunt. My cat, an avid and accomplished hunter, recently brought a dead rat into my living room to show me. She tried to get it to move so she could chase it some more, fun for her, no doubt. I can sense a feeling of disappointment when I don’t give the harasser something to chase, much as my cat would have felt if the rat had stayed in its hole. Unfortunately for the rat, it was eaten in the living room leaving a smear of blood and a pile of intestines to clean up, not knowing if I should scold or praise the cat. Having your own territory is much like the rat having its nest. When you leave your territory, you are more vulnerable. In that particular instance, I disagree totally with the so-called experts on harassment. I am totally convinced that there is a network which is active in harassing certain kinds of individuals. If you commit certain acts, you will be targeted by them for the rest of your life. These acts are acts of defiance to their control. Filing a sexual harassment grievance or having an abortion are, I believe, the kinds of acts which arouse their vengeance. Whether the network is government or not is disputed. Some seem to think it is, but I believe it is organized crime being utilized by fanatics which has many governmental connections, not government per se. Believing this may be a mere survival technique on my part. I may want to believe it is not the government itself which is at fault, but some individuals working for government who misuse their powers and influence. It is hard for me to believe that everyone working for government is misusing their influence. There have been enough instances of government officials who quit rather than be a part of some diabolical action, or became whistle-blowers and were punished by those using their positions in inappropriate manners, and many have ended up being themselves victimized as a result. I think that most if not all of them end up that way. While I believe that the government has been slow to find and root out the evil within it, it itself is not the problem. In a way, we ourselves have been the problem. We have been too silent about the miseries that have been inflicted on us by individuals using government influence for their own ends. It is much too hard to get rid of incompetent or abusing government officials. The rest of us can lose our jobs on the whim of some executive (reorganization) but it is almost impossible to get rid of a dishonest public servant. I think the civil service laws should be changed. I don’t see any reason why they should be next to immortal while everyone else is constantly at the mercy of erratical and temperamental managers. I don’t believe that current civil service laws have led to better government, and if they have not, they should be changed to make it easier to get rid of those guilty of misusing their positions. For anyone who is not sure whether they are being stalked and harassed, there is one litmus test. That is the kind of friends you have. When I was younger, I had friends who had common interests with me. When we went anyplace together, it was because we were all interested in doing it. Sometime after my marriage, I realized that I had no friends that I really enjoyed. This bothered me over the years, but it seemed like whenever I met someone I seemed to have a lot in common with, things never seemed to work out and eventually, I found myself stuck with acquaintances with whom I had nothing in common, not really friends at all. At some point, I made more efforts to analyze the problem and realized that from the beginning, whoever was stalking and harassing me was keeping me from having friends with mutual interests because they wanted to prevent me from having the support that friendship offers. Since this began after I got married, I have always suspected that my ex-husband, if not the cause of my stalking and harassment, at the very least was a part of it. I have even wondered, because he seemed to have so little genuine respect for me from the beginning, if he didn’t marry me for the sole purpose of controlling and harassing me. In rec ent years, I have observed some of the substitute friends trying to use their position to influence my actions and to undermine the things I needed to get done and have come to the conclusion that with friends like them, one has no need for enemies. They are the worst kind of enemy, being in place to disrupt your life because they know everything you do and how you do it. The WASH RAG is published by Women Against Sexual Harassment, P. O. Box 164, Canton, South Dakota 57013-0164. ISSN 1068-2449. Subscription price is $10.00 a year. Copyright 1997 Tesseract Publications.