ANITA HILL AND CLARENCE THOMAS REVISITED

Victor Bloom MD

For those of you who follow the occasional courageous and controversial cable channel, Showtime, you know their made-for-TV movies match some of the best that Hollywood can put out. And you can watch the movie in the comfort of your own home, save the trouble of driving, parking and waiting on line for popcorn and pop. You can actually settle down for two hours of serious 'entertainment' without commercials in the comfort of your own home.

Several months ago Showtime did the remake of "Lolita" with Jeremy Irons as Humbert, a production which was closer in spirit and mood to Nabokov's classic novel, than Kubrick's of the early seventies. "Lolita" was a novel that was banned for a long time because staid editors were too upset by the theme of an apparently dirty old man sexually exploiting his ward, a pubescent girl, . With the sexual revolution, values changed and more and more taboo and explicit sexual themes appeared in media productions, from plays to movies to television serials and sitcoms, and so the book was published and the movies were made.

Last Sunday (August 29) Showtime aired another controversial film, "Strange Justice," which dramatized the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings, which were telecast across the nation and world ten years ago. The intense and labored controversy between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans riveted the nation. It was a classic, "he said, she said," there was no way to know the truth. There was no palpable evidence for Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment and there were no eye-witnesses. The country had to face the prospect of deciding who was telling the truth, and the decision was usually made along ideological lines.

In the same way, the country's attitude toward the 'not guilty' jury decision in the OJ case, depended largely on one's racial identity. People are biased. There is prejudice. There are skewed perceptions.

The truth is elusive, as was vividly demonstrated in the classic Japanese film of Kurosawa, "Rashomon." Each character in the film had a version of what happened which was self-serving, and it was impossible to tell which story was right. It was like the blind men describing the elephant. Even eye-witness accounts were unreliable. Perception is affected by motivation, even unconscious motivation.

It seemed certain that in the Hill-Thomas controversy one of the parties had to be lying. She accused him of sexual harassment and he denied completely and categorically that any such thing had ever happened. The repeated attacks on Clarence Thomas' integrity and veracity, and therefore his qualifications to serve as a lifetime member of the Supreme Court, resulted eventually in his impassioned speech where he claimed he was victim of a 'high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.' This speech seemed to turn the tide in favor of the Thomas nomination, and he is now a Supreme Court justice for the rest of his life. Significantly for many, he is a conservative black, replacing Thurgood Marshall, the liberal black justice who was famous for winning the landmark Brown vs Board of Education suit at the level of the Supreme Court, essentially putting an end to racial segregation in the schools.

As a liberal justice, Marshall was counted on to support Roe v Wade. Liberals and feminists feared that stacking the court with conservatives would be the end of freedom to have abortions-on-demand. Thomas, supported strongly by the religious right, was feared as resorting to 'natural law,' which might deny the right to abortion in many cases.

Significantly, the movie showed the backroom spin-doctoring, politicking and arm-twisting that came with the controversy, each side having only one issue or their ideology in mind. It became of utmost importance what went out on television, with millions of viewers. Many conservatives hark back to the 'Borking' of Bork, a conservative legal scholar who was more than qualified by his extensive bibliography and important judicial decisions to serve on the Supreme Court. But he was considered a danger to Roe v Wade, and so the liberal senators in effect cross-examined him to death on television. He had to step down.

Since the Democrats quashed a conservative white, the Republicans were now promoting a conservative black, a relative rarity among educated and political African-Americans. The Democrats would fear to attack him for fear of offending their African-American constituents. Generally speaking, the minorities seem to think that the Democrats who best defend and advance their interests, while the majority of women seem to support pro-choice candidates, such as Bill Clinton. The minorities plus women add up to many votes, needless to say. On the other hand, the moral majority favors laws against abortion on demand and wants prayer in the schools.

It is interesting that the women's movement attacked Thomas for his alleged harassment years ago, while being silent recently on Clinton's actual sexual harassment and womanizing. It seems that for most liberals, if you are pro-choice, you are OK, and if you are 'pro-life', you are not OK. Many people have a litmus-test for voting, as if the issues were simple, black or white, all or none. There are many other issues facing our country and the world besides abortion, and tunnel-vision will not serve us well.

The movie showed that both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were sympathetic figures, given their real and palpable harassment by spin-doctors, legislators and the press. They were caught up in a whirlwind not of their own making. Because of the implications of this film, the viewer has more reason to worry about the political process as it has evolved, in which image counts for more than substantive truth, and ideology clouds reality. Even the spin-meisters were shown as fallible, well-meaning humans who are caught up in an ideological warfare of leaks, rumors and innuendos. All's fair in love, war and politics, so it seems, but what happens to honesty, fairness and justice?

We are left with these questions. Perhaps this movie "Strange Justice" will play again or be available on video. In any event, it is highly recommended.

Dr Bloom is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University School of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and on the editorial board of the Wayne County Medical Society. He welcomes comments at his email address--- vbloom@comcast.net.