In light of the rash of sexual misconduct scandals being spotlighted all over Hollywood, the industry has announced its own oversight group. In a stunning move affirming its allegiance to the Democratic Party, Tinseltown’s commission to end sexual harassment will be chaired by Anita Hill — the woman who accused Clarence Thomas of inappropriate workplace comments as he was being confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.
Despite two made-for-TV movies conferring sainthood upon Hill, her real story is one of partisan strategy and unsupported claims. In 1991, Thomas was set to be the second black Chief Justice in our nation’s history. This should have delighted the minority-championing Left; however, Thomas was a Republican, which meant the Democrats' true colors would show: they would do everything possible to destroy any black man who stood in the way of their party’s success.
Subsequently, on the verge of Thomas's confirmation, Dems introduced Anita Hill, who claimed Thomas had made sexual comments as her EEOC supervisor almost two decades prior. Thomas refuted her claims, the veracity of which were never established. Furthermore, after the alleged comments, Hill had followed Thomas to a second job. However, despite there being no evidence to support Hill’s story, the Left in the media immediately championed her.
In spite of the media’s embrace of Hill, after her weekend of hearings were over, a poll by CBS and The New York Times revealed that Americans did not believe her:
Americans' generally favorable view of Judge Thomas is reinforced by a generally adverse opinion of Professor Hill. Forty-six percent of those surveyed said they had an "unfavorable" opinion of her, while only 17 percent said they had a "favorable" view.
Asked whom they believed more, Professor Hill or Judge Thomas, 58 percent of the respondents said Judge Thomas; 24 percent said Professor Hill. Women were only slightly more likely than men to side with Professor Hill; 26 percent of the women said they believed her more, as against 22 percent of the men.
Only twenty-six percent of women believed Hill. Still, the media were undeterred. For nearly thirty years, they have routinely used her as a symbol of sexist oppression. An entire generation has grown up hearing her name — and recently, thanks to two movies, including one in 2016 starring Kerry Washington — not realizing that her claims were completely unsubstantiated.
Unlike the accusers of Bill Clinton, of whom there were several (no other claims have ever been made against Thomas), the Left have protected Hill — they raised money to position her at the University of Oklahoma, which led to her professorship at Brandeis University. In addition, she was paid over $1 million for a two-book deal.
Hill’s position as chair of Hollywood’s anti-sexual harassment commission is bizarre, unless viewed as a continuation of the Left's partisan support for the woman they attempted to wield as a weapon to defeat the Republicans three decades ago. What’s more, in 1998, Hill dismissed accusations of the mired-in-scandal President Clinton:
TIM RUSSERT: When you made your accusations about Clarence Thomas--verbal abuse, in effect--many said, well, because of that alone, he was unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. This is physical abuse alleged against the president. Would that disqualify him to be president?
ANITA HILL: Well, first of all, the office of the president is an elected office, and the people have to decide whether or not they want to elect a president. I think they've already made that decision. They made it twice. There were rumors of these allegations or this type of behavior out there before, and the people in 1996 elected him after the Paula Jones incident, so I think the people have already spoken…We don't have Miss Willey claiming that this behavior was severe and ongoing or pervasive enough that it became a condition of her employment. She's not making that claim at all, and, in fact, no one has, in fact, made that claim. She says in the deposition, I believe, that she was not given any particular favor at the White House because of this incident, nor could she say that she suffered any disadvantage because of this incident. So I think, in fact, we aren't talking about sexual harassment, at least based on the facts that we have in front of us, even if we assume that what she said in her interview and the depositions are true.
Moreover, about Paula Jones's implication of the President -- which resulted in him settling with her out of court -- Hill said:
“The allegations, even if we assume that they are true, show a level of misconduct, but the allegations about some kind of poor or bad effect on her employment don't seem to really meet the standard for a sexual harassment…”
Regarding the judged merits of our leaders in government -- objectively determining their innocence or guilt -- our nation deserves better. Hill’s appointment as Hollywood’s watchdog is just one more reminder that the Left doesn’t care about facts or principle; they care only about politics, and winning by any means necessary -- even if by that win, the country and the truth lose.