ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Anita Hill was no victim

| Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

As enjoyable as it is to watch the “holier than thou” Hollywood elites eat their own as they hurriedly slither out of the woodwork to denounce and accuse their liberal brother, Harvey Weinstein, it was equally aggravating to note the Trib's decision to run an AP story with references to the case of proven liar Anita Hill (“Sexual harassment talk receives push forward,” Oct. 15).

This story attempted to draw some sort of similarities between the two and continue the false narrative that Hill's story was a watershed moment for “outing” sexual harassers. Hill's reckless allegations against Clarence Thomas nearly derailed the nomination of a qualified minority to the Supreme Court. Thomas' only crime was being a conservative jurist.

Hill's accusations were “fake news” before we knew what fake news was. Elevating Hill's lies to a level of equality with the Weinstein allegations is more proof of how out of touch today's media are. Her story should be banished to history's trash heap.

Keep in mind, Hill followed Thomas from job to job. Hill continued to call Thomas after she left his employment. It took her being put under oath to admit that she had been in contact with Democrat staffers, despite denying it several times prior. Is this logical?

If we are on such a desperate search for “victims” to make our arguments, let's at least find legitimate and deserving ones. Why not run with the stories of the accusers of Bill Clinton instead? Are their stories less deserving, or are they just on the wrong side of the politics the left-wing media espouse?

Tim Kaczmarek


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me