Re "Anita Hill's still standing," Column, March 17
There's something puzzling about almost every Anita Hill story that I've read over the years.
The fact that there were a few other women ready to testify at the hearings who were not called never gets into the retelling of the confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, thereby leaving any reader new to this story with the misleading impression that this was a single he said/she said story.
I've often wondered why articles routinely leave out that part.
Robin Abcarian writes of Hill's allegations of sexual harassment against Thomas: "She was so obviously telling the truth."
How does Abcarian know this? Does she have access to some secret information not available to the rest of us?
I watched every bit of the hearings on TV, followed all of the printed discussion and even read transcripts of the testimony; I came to the opposite conclusion of Abcarian. At the time, I was an attorney with a lot of criminal law experience.
I still think I was right, but sometimes witnesses come to believe a story they've been telling for years.