Hill v. Thomas and Sanders v. Thomas: How much has really changed?

Megan Izen

Hill v. Thomas and Sanders v. Thomas: How much has really changed?

It’s bittersweet irony that the most publicized and racialized sexual harassment cases in two decades are now competing for top headlines. Anita Hill appeared on Good Morning America this morning to defend herself once more against Clarence Thomas’s attacks in his newly published memoir where he calls her his ‘most traitorous adversary.’ Hours later, a jury handed down a guilty verdict to New York Knicks head coach Isiah Thomas for sexually harassing former colleague Anucha Brown Sanders.

So what’s changed and what hasn’t? These are loaded discussions that bring to mind the hypersexualization, vilification and harassment of women of color in the workplace and beyond. All of which have deeply rooted historical contexts that won’t fit neatly into a blog post. A 2003 study revealed that women of color are more vulnerable to sexual harassment on the job than white women. What we can claim now that we couldn’t in 1991 is victory—a precedent that makes harassing women of color in the workplace intolerable.

That said, what resonates between both cases and touches the aforementioned issues is the persistent stereotypes of men and women of color in the media. In 1991, we watched in horror as Hill’s character, credibility and motives were picked apart day by day. Sixteen years later, the mainstream media was still stuck on the same tired story with Sanders. But somehow this jury was able to see past the counter-accusations heaped on Sanders and do the right thing. Maybe all these years have made a difference. At least we know that sometimes, if we fight, we can actually win.

Posted at 2:45 PM, Oct 02, 2007 in Women | Permalink | View Comments

Comments

I mentioned these two cases in a post I wrote about good ol' Clarence not more than a week ago.

As you wrote, the most regrettable aspect in all this is the fact that very little has changed. Women in general, and African-American women in particular, are still being forced to defend themselves against external and internal attacks on their characters. Anita Hill, having been permanently stigmatized by the hearings, was put into a position in which she HAD to go to the media to defend herself. What else could she do?

Thanks for that article, It gives me some insight that we are beginning to see right through the negative, hateful prism of the White owned media that has it out for Black self-love and focuses on Black separation.

Clarence Thomas is a race traitor. Even when Sean Hannity wanted to get Clarence wired up about the KKK, Clarence was sympathetic to them to the point of defending their presence as he walked around his local town by stating, "they didn't do anything to me". He then went on to point the finger at the "Anita Hill" confirmation hearing as if Black women were the enemy and were in cahoots with the White power structure to destroy him.

Clarence doesn't like Black women at all and that is why he reduced Ms. Hill to some of sexual object even though she was a highly respected and educated woman.

Too many BM of today have fallen for Black female inferiority and that trait is indicative to massive amounts of self-hatred.

ONLY TOGETHER CAN BLACK PEOPLE CHANGE THE WORLD!