The Sound of Silence

"It's not sexual harassment if the harasser is a champion of women's issues, right? Or if the women are N.O.C.D. (not in our class, darling)? [Clarence Thomas] chose the wrong kind of girl. Yale, religious, primly dressed. Next time [Clarence], date down. Check out the rope line." — Maureen Dowd, New York Times.

The public leaders of the feminist movement, the self-anointed voices of oppressed women everywhere and the leaders of the National Organization of Women (NOW) seem to have misplaced their voices in the face of the increasing accumulation of evidence that President Clinton is something of a sexually predatory rogue. The President not only seems to be engaging in tawdry behavior, but in the process is publicly humiliating the patron saint of feminists, Hillary Clinton.

We can all remember when Clarence Thomas faced the wrath of these same feminists when he was accused of what now seem, in comparison, to be modest charges. Despite the fact that there was at best dubious contemporaneous evidence supporting the charge that Thomas may have created a hostile work environment by speaking of "pubic hairs," the legions of NOW relished using this big stick to beat and ideological opponent figuratively about the head.

When Patricia Ireland, NOW President, was confronted with the apparent case of selective indignation, she explained that that at the time of Anita Hill's charges NOW was just trying to ensure due process for Hill. "We just wanted to make sure that the public had a right to hear both sides and make a judgment."

Please. There was never such a balanced disinterested perspective. Would NOW demonstrate the same restraint if similar charges along with similar evidence were leveled against Newt Gingrich?

We were told that the public spotlight on work place harassment occasioned by Hill's brave charges would free women from such harassment. This is not the perspective of an organization only worried about everyone getting a fair hearing. NOW expected and enjoyed a public opportunity to portray a political opponent as a despicable wretch. As the Christian Science Monitor of 1991 reported, "People who never liked what Thomas represented saw the charges as fitting a pattern of insensitivity to gender bias." The Monitor went on to opine that ". . . even if the law was not violated, the accusations raise questions about the character of a man close to a lifetime appointment on the nation's ultimate court." Gee, I thought questions of character were just manifestations of an unhealthy focus on the private sexual lives of our public leaders.