Amanda Hess points to this terrible blog post from Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen rationalizing Anita Hill's charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas:
In fact, they have nothing to do with anything -- unless it is to prove that nothing about Thomas and his initial accuser, Anita Hill, makes any sense. Her charges fell somewhat short of blatant, coercive, sexual harassment -- or, if they didn't, then why did she follow her abuser, Thomas, from one job to the next? A black, female Yale Law School graduate was not lacking in employment opportunities.
From Hill's testimony:
His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess.
Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about these subjects. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters such as his background or his beliefs. My efforts to change the subject were rarely successful.
[...]
One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has pubic hair on my Coke?" On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex.
Cohen concludes, "I was young and boorish once myself and have turned out to be a veritable saint." Sure, boys will be boys. If you don't like your boss constantly making sexually explicit remarks and advances toward you, you should just leave your job. If you don't, you have it coming. It's one thing to say you don't believe Hill's charges; to argue that they fall short of sexual harassment is ridiculous. Although I suppose Cohen would fit right at home at Sterling Cooper.
UPDATE: According to the New York Observer, Cohen has been disciplined for making sexually explicit remarks to other employees at the Post before, although that internal inquiry concluded that while Cohen had helped create a "hostile working environment" and had engaged in "inappropriate behavior" he was not guilty of "sexual harassment," which I guess explains why he's splitting hairs here. The Post has been down this route before with Juan Williams, who was facing his own allegations of sexual harassment while defending Thomas from Hill's charges in his published columns during the confirmation hearings.
Makes you wonder who thought Cohen writing a blog post dismissing Thomas' alleged behavior was a good idea.
