Using at least nineexamples of mass media sources read, viewed, or discussed in class, trace the trajectory of a common media narrative that links the events of the first three modules. Be sure to use at least one of the key termsbelow throughout your essay as you explicitly identify and define the media narrative and explain why your chosen narrative is key to understanding the depiction of Blackness in the 1990s.
A successful essay will have a strong thesis statement that makes consistent use of textual evidence, informed by close readings and analysis of your points.
American Dream
Assimilation
Class
Cult of Personality
Critical Media Studies
Gender
Hermeneutics of Suspicion
Hypermasculinity
Ideology
Intersectionality
Meritocracy
New Racism
Stereotypes
THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL Coverage
Will Run From Serious to Offbeat, All the Time to
Sometimes
Braxton, Greg . Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) ; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]23 Jan
1995: 10.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
The media coverage of the O.J. Simpson murder trial will range from the straightforward gavel to gavel approach
of CNN and Court TV to the more offbeat involvement of E! Entertainment Television, a cable network that is
preempting its usual schedule of film and TV show promotions to provide continuous coverage of the trial,
complete with commentary from legal experts and gossip columnists.
Even comedians and sportscasters are getting into the act. Jackie Mason is taking two days off from his “Jackie
Mason: Politically Incorrect” Broadway show to cover the opening of the trial for BBC Radio, while all-sports
network ESPN plans to go live to the courtroom during key moments.
The networks’ and local stations’ strategy of backing away from extensive live coverage is a departure from
options that were considered last year when the media frenzy over the case broke out. Among the possibilities
pondered were gavel-to-gavel coverage and a rotation among ABC, CBS and NBC.
FULL TEXT
As the curtain finally rises on what some have called the trial of the century, television viewers can choose from
“All O.J.,” “No O.J.,” “Top of the Hour O.J.,” “O.J. Straight” and “O.J. Lite.”
Meanwhile, radio listeners can flip between “O.J. All Day” or “You Give Us 20 Minutes, We’ll Give You O.J.”
The media coverage of the O.J. Simpson murder trial will range from the straightforward gavel to gavel approach
of CNN and Court TV to the more offbeat involvement of E! Entertainment Television, a cable network that is
preempting its usual schedule of film and TV show promotions to provide continuous coverage of the trial,
complete with commentary from legal experts and gossip columnists.
Even comedians and sportscasters are getting into the act. Jackie Mason is taking two days off from his “Jackie
Mason: Politically Incorrect” Broadway show to cover the opening of the trial for BBC Radio, while all-sports
network ESPN plans to go live to the courtroom during key moments.
Adopting a more serious approach, most networks, as well as many local network affiliates and independent
stations, have opted to keep viewers informed with hourly updates of the trial without preempting regular
programming.
On radio, KNX-AM (1070) is planning to broadcast the entire trial, just as it covered Simpson’s pretrial and
preliminary hearings. KFWB-AM (980) will cover opening statements and “compelling testimony” live, but will
basically provide updates every 20 minutes.
The networks’ and local stations’ strategy of backing away from extensive live coverage is a departure from
options that were considered last year when the media frenzy over the case broke out. Among the possibilities
pondered were gavel-to-gavel coverage and a rotation among ABC, CBS and NBC.
Even on the eve of opening statements, news executives from radio and television were still debating how much of
their resources should go toward covering the trial, and whether the case had already been overexposed.
“We think it is a fascinating and multidimensional story with all these fascinating elements, from spousal abuse to
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 3
a potential fallen hero to a murder mystery,” said Steve Haworth, a spokesman for CNN.
Bob Sims, KNX news director, agreed.
“What we’ve got here is the biggest legal case, certainly in my lifetime,” Sims said. “It is right in our own back yard
and it wrestles with questions involving celebrity, race, domestic violence, jurisprudence, great wealth and fairness.
Any one of these would make it justify special coverage and consideration in terms of its news value. To my mind
the question becomes, why would you not provide special coverage of such an event?”
But Chris Claus, general manager of rival KFWB, argued that there has already been an overdose of Simpson
coverage.
“I’m personally tired of the story,” Claus said. “I think gavel-to-gavel coverage of the O.J. Simpson case is too much
coverage. I think our audience has spoken to us over the last six months very clearly that the story is getting tired.
As a consequence, there will be a shortage of places in the electronic media where you can be informed on what
else is going on. I frankly think everything else going on is equally important, if not more important, than the O.J.
Simpson story.”
Larry Perret, news director for KCBS-TV Channel 2, said: “We’re just going to do hourly updates. We’ve heard from
viewers and a lot of folks do not want gavel to gavel. We’re listening to them.”
KCOP-TV Channel 13 said it is determined to treat the trial as just another story on its 10 p.m. newscast.
“We will do as little as possible in what has become an inane effort to build this thing up,” said KCOP general
manager Rick Feldman. “This is not a fire, an earthquake or a story where people in Los Angeles are in jeopardy.
We will treat it as a news story unless something extraordinary happens. Giving this so much time is just sick.”
However, executives at the network affiliates and most local stations said they still plan to give the trial plenty of
time, with live coverage of the opening statements and closing arguments and the testimony of any important
witnesses-particularly Simpson, if he takes the stand.
The continuous broadcast of the weeklong preliminary hearing in June by all the networks resulted in each losing
an estimated $1 million in advertising revenue, and prompted an uproar from soap opera fans who were upset that
story lines were interrupted.
Network executives said sticking to hourly updates is the best way to keep viewers up to date on the trial while not
alienating devotees of other programming.
“There are a lot of really boring things that go on in the course of any trial proceeding,” said Lane Venardos, vice
president of hard news and special events for CBS.
“People are interested in watching their shows during the day. There is not unlimited interest in O.J. Simpson,” he
said.
Although there was a lull for several months and public interest in the case seemed to decline, executives said it
will revive once testimony in the trial starts.
“People were getting tired of all the related stories,” said David Bohrman, executive producer of news specials for
NBC. “When it gets back in court, the interest will come back.”
Times staff writer Claudia Puig contributed to this story.
Credit: TIMES STAFF WRITER
DETAILS
Publication title:
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext); Los Angeles, Calif.
Pages:
10
Number of pages:
0
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 3
Publication year:
1995
Publication date:
Jan 23, 1995
Section:
PART-A; Metro Desk
Publisher:
Tribune Interactive, LLC
Place of publication:
Los Angeles, Calif.
Country of publication:
United States, Los Angeles, Calif.
Publication subject:
General Interest Periodicals–United States
ISSN:
04583035
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
NEWSPAPER
ProQuest document ID:
292926746
Document URL:
http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/29292
6746?accountid=11107
Copyright:
(Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1995 all Rights reserved)
Last updated:
2011-09-28
Database:
Global Newsstream,ProQuest Central
LINKS
Find It @ GT
Database copyright 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 3
When Human Rights Are Violated
Los Angeles Times (1923-1995); Mar 12, 1991; Los Angeles Times
pg. SDB6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
More Americans Believe Thomas Than Accuser,
Poll Indicates
Morin, Richard; Edsall, Thomas B . The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) ; Washington, D.C.
[Washington, D.C]13 Oct 1991: a21.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
After two days of riveting and sometimes sexually explicit testimony, Americans appear more willing to believe
Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas’s testimony that he never sexually harassed a former aide than to
accept his accuser’s assertions that he did, according to a Washington Post-ABC News survey conducted
yesterday.
“The problem is not only that there are a lot of bad guys out there with sleazy intentions, but now, sexual
harassment accusations are going to become a trend. You’ll see how many people, everywhere, will pop up saying,
`I have been sexually harassed,’ and that is going to hurt the way we normally conduct ourselves in a working
environment,” she said. “Whether Clarence Thomas did it or not is not the point anymore. This will transcend the
hearings, and you’ll see how big.”
Frank Moya, shopping at the Lincoln Market in Miami, was sympathetic to Hill, but he shared with many a deep
pessimism over the consequences of the dispute to the judicial system. “Can you imagine this guy taking his
picture with the rest of the judges after all this sexual talk. She is probably not lying,” he said, referring to Hill’s
testimony, “but what is important is how the image of judges will change after this.”
FULL TEXT
After two days of riveting and sometimes sexually explicit testimony, Americans appear more willing to believe
Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas’s testimony that he never sexually harassed a former aide than to
accept his accuser’s assertions that he did, according to a Washington Post-ABC News survey conducted
yesterday.
The poll also suggests that sharp differences have emerged since the hearings began in the way that men and
women see the nominee and his accuser, onetime aide Anita F. Hill.
And the survey found growing public anger with the Senate, whose Judiciary Committee resumes its third day of
hearings at noon today into charges that Thomas repeatedly harassed Hill while she worked for him during the
early 1980s.
Interviews with 513 randomly selected adults nationwide found that 55 percent of those questioned said they were
inclined not to believe the charges made by Hill. Thirty-four percent said they believed the allegations were true,
while 11 percent were undecided. The poll’s margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.
In addition to rejecting the charges, a plurality also said they found Thomas a more believable witness than Hill.
Overall, half of those questioned said that Thomas should be confirmed while 29 percent said the Senate should
reject his nomination and 21 percent were undecided.
The survey found that men were much more likely to believe Thomas than were women.
Men interviewed in the poll said they found Thomas to be the more believable witness by 56 percent to 20 percent.
Among women, however, 38 percent found his testimony more truthful while 28 percent were inclined to believe
Hill.
And by 59 percent to 28 percent, men interviewed said Thomas should be confirmed. Among women, 43 percent
favored confirmation while 31 percent said the Senate should reject his nomination.
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 4
Interviews in New York, Seattle, Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago reflected the diversity of opinion that the survey
found as Americans contemplated the sexual, political and judicial drama that has captured the nation.
In Los Angeles, Brad Pearsall, a sales representative from San Francisco said: “I think she’s telling the truth. Based
on that fact, I don’t think he should be a Supreme Court justice. I also think the hearing is making men more aware
of what sexual harassment is and that it can be subtle.”
To Lance Hayes, a 30-year-old black disc jockey in New York, Thomas is “hiding – because if he was totally innocent
he would have no problem with anyone addressing it in closed or in open hearings. . . .
“This really shows where America’s really at with itself. It shows the American woman how the American man
thinks of her. I personally feel that women are not being treated fairly.”
In Miami, however, Ruth Fuentes, a Cuban immigrant, believes the Judiciary Committee hearings raise the prospect
of groundless accusations of sexual harassment and could taint normal relations in any working atmosphere.
“The problem is not only that there are a lot of bad guys out there with sleazy intentions, but now, sexual
harassment accusations are going to become a trend. You’ll see how many people, everywhere, will pop up saying,
`I have been sexually harassed,’ and that is going to hurt the way we normally conduct ourselves in a working
environment,” she said. “Whether Clarence Thomas did it or not is not the point anymore. This will transcend the
hearings, and you’ll see how big.”
The latest Post-ABC survey also found growing disenchantment with the way the Senate has handled the Thomas
nomination. In the past four days the percentage of Americans who voiced disapproval increased from 42 percent
to 60 percent.
And the survey suggests that the decline in public support for Thomas that occurred when the charges were
disclosed last week might have halted. Still, a number of those interviewed said the controversy might have killed
his nomination.
At the Lincoln Market, a grocery on Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, Isidore Fedele had a little TV set by her counter
desk. Thomas was on the screen, giving his testimony before the committee, and everyone who came by had
something to say.
“Poor guy, I think he’s doomed,” Fedele said. “We can’t tell right now who is lying, but the only thing for sure is that I
don’t think he’s going to get the nomination, there has been too much scandal.”
In Seattle, however, Cynthia Gannett, a 36-year-old lawyer, said she was troubled by three things: There does not
appear to be a pattern of behavior by Thomas towards other women that would support Hill’s allegations; Hill’s
original statement to the FBI was not specific on salient points; and Hill did not make a meaningful job search
before following Thomas to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “I don’t find her testimony as
compelling, standing alone,” said Gannett.
Not only are people divided on the issue of whom to believe, there is serious disagreement over the potential
political consequences of the Thomas-Hill duel.
Julia Nierenberg, 67, a Manhattan writer, argued that, “There’s a certain heightened consciousness in terms of
women. Politicians are going to be paying more attention to women and their needs.” Mary Ann Sabol, a 39-yearold television producer in New York, warned: “If she’s proven wrong, we’re going to be laughed at as females. That’s
what worries me the most.”
Elizabeth Borden, a 51-year-old Manhattan real estate broker, said she believes “Thomas’s credibility is certainly
threatened. I can’t believe why anybody would open themselves to that kind of probing and be lying about
something like this {Hill}. . . . Everybody’s talking about it. I’m finding the women are more pro-Hill and that older
men, men of my generation, are more pro-Thomas.”
“I don’t know who is telling the truth,” said Julio Fischer, a salesman at the Buy Wise Mart in South Miami,
reflecting the seemingly irreconcilable doubt for the Senate and the electorate. “I don’t know why she {Hill} is
saying all these things, what the reason behind it is, and if it is true, why {wait} until now and not before,” he said in
a telephone interview.
Frank Moya, shopping at the Lincoln Market in Miami, was sympathetic to Hill, but he shared with many a deep
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 4
pessimism over the consequences of the dispute to the judicial system. “Can you imagine this guy taking his
picture with the rest of the judges after all this sexual talk. She is probably not lying,” he said, referring to Hill’s
testimony, “but what is important is how the image of judges will change after this.”
On the West Coast, Veronica Ilic, a 21-year-old UCLA student, reflected the ambivalence that has become
commonplace as the hearing progresses: “I think it’s going to be very, very hard for the Senate to decide. I’m not
sure who’s telling the truth. They both took an oath and they both have really conflicting testimony. I would not like
to be a senator right now.”
Staff writers Jay Mathews and Laurie Goodstein, special correspondents Lauren Ina, Ricardo Castillo, Leef Smith
and Casey Corr, and polling analyst Sharon Warden contributed to this report.
Illustration
PHOTO,,Ap;CHART CAPTION: Bruce Franson of West Newbury, Mass., views Hill’s testimony at a store Friday.
CAPTION:WASHINGTON POST-ABC NEWS POLL (Data from this chart is unavailable.)
DETAILS
Publication title:
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext); Washington, D.C.
Pages:
a21
Number of pages:
0
Publication year:
1991
Publication date:
Oct 13, 1991
Section:
A SECTION
Publisher:
WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post
Place of publication:
Washington, D.C.
Country of publication:
United States, Washington, D.C.
Publication subject:
General Interest Periodicals–United States
ISSN:
01908286
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
NEWSPAPER
ProQuest document ID:
307455166
Document URL:
http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/30745
5166?accountid=11107
Copyright:
Copyright The Washington Post Company Oct 13, 1991
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 4
Last updated:
2010-08-03
Database:
Global Newsstream,ProQuest Central
LINKS
Find It @ GT
Database copyright 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 4
THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL Feast of the
Insatiable Media
Rosenberg, Howard . Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) ; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]25
Jan 1995: 13.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
Or does it just seem like seven years, instead of merely a bit more than seven months, since the start of the
overblown odyssey that has consumed so many of the media, and much of the nation, since the discovery of the
bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman outside her Brentwood townhouse?
* So overblown that Tuesday’s long-awaited opening statements in O.J. Simpson’s murder trial seemed almost
anticlimactic coming after months of wild speculating, fantasizing and rumormongering. The exception came late
in the day when Judge Lance A. Ito angrily aborted Tuesday’s session-prior to defense attorney Johnnie L. Cochran
Jr. delivering his opening statement to the jury-reportedly after learning that at least one alternate juror had been
caught by the Court TV pool camera as it roamed the courtroom.
* So overblown that the Simpson-Goldman case has become a common denominator, a shared national language
by which many Americans now communicate, the case having been indelibly branded into their psyches.
Simpsonspeak has penetrated even the world of hoops where, in the course of his radio/TV play-by-play
announcing of Monday night’s Los Angeles Lakers-Charlotte Hornets game, good old Chick Hearn weighed in,
saying about a disputed referee’s call: “Judge Ito wouldn’t have changed that call. Boy, is he some smooth man?”
Will Simpsonspeak also seep into Sunday’s Super Bowl telecast that Ito has given jurors permission to watch?
FULL TEXT
At last, something to overshadow that other obese spectacle, the Super Bowl. Inscribe it in stone: O.J. Simpson VII.
Or does it just seem like seven years, instead of merely a bit more than seven months, since the start of the
overblown odyssey that has consumed so many of the media, and much of the nation, since the discovery of the
bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman outside her Brentwood townhouse?
How overblown?
* So overblown that Tuesday’s long-awaited opening statements in O.J. Simpson’s murder trial seemed almost
anticlimactic coming after months of wild speculating, fantasizing and rumormongering. The exception came late
in the day when Judge Lance A. Ito angrily aborted Tuesday’s session-prior to defense attorney Johnnie L. Cochran
Jr. delivering his opening statement to the jury-reportedly after learning that at least one alternate juror had been
caught by the Court TV pool camera as it roamed the courtroom.
At least temporarily, the lapsed-telecasting issue threatened to eclipse the trial itself, and it remained to be seen
whether Ito would now permanently boot TV from the courtroom, something the defense apparently would oppose.
Cochran’s co-counsel Robert L. Shapiro gave the dispute a cosmic spin: “The world has a right to hear our opening
statement.”
Earlier, a sweeter, gentler, softer, frillier Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark had presented the “how” of the homicides,
following Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden’s depiction of Simpson as an uncontrollably jealous man who
slew his gentle Desdemona and her friend, Goldman.
As for the prosecution’s side, at least, hadn’t we heard the thrust of all of this previously? Thus, was it worthy of the
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 3
mass simulcasting-all these screens showing identical pictures-by ABC, NBC, CBS, three cable channels and six
local stations?
* So overblown that the Simpson-Goldman case has become a common denominator, a shared national language
by which many Americans now communicate, the case having been indelibly branded into their psyches.
Simpsonspeak has penetrated even the world of hoops where, in the course of his radio/TV play-by-play
announcing of Monday night’s Los Angeles Lakers-Charlotte Hornets game, good old Chick Hearn weighed in,
saying about a disputed referee’s call: “Judge Ito wouldn’t have changed that call. Boy, is he some smooth man?”
Will Simpsonspeak also seep into Sunday’s Super Bowl telecast that Ito has given jurors permission to watch?
* So overblown that early Monday morning the usually circumspect Aaron Brown, one of four ABC News
correspondents now assigned to cover the case full time, promised on radio that the Simpson trial would be “the
biggest trial ever.” That’s an upgrade from trial of the century.
As Ito likes to advise hyperventilating lawyers: It’s time to take a deep breath. Is the Simpson trial bigger, in terms
of lasting impact, than the Nuremberg tribunal that sent Nazi war criminals to the gallows? Bigger than the Adolf
Eichmann trial? The Scopes Monkey Trial or those trials that have led to landmark Supreme Court decisions that
have dramatically altered U.S. society? Bigger than the trials of those four Los Angeles police officers accused of
criminally beating Rodney G. King, the first of whose verdicts sparked rioting in some sections of Los Angeles? Of
course, anointing it as the “biggest trial ever” was one way to justify months of the biggest coverage ever-as part of
that steady media drum roll leading to Tuesday’s opening statements. No wonder that probably many more
Americans knew in advance about those opening statements than about that evening’s live TV coverage of State
of the Union speech by President Clinton.
Say what you want about the Super Bowl, but at least its kickoff begins on schedule, whereas an array of tedious
legal skirmishes caused the long-awaited opening statements to the jury to be rescheduled to Monday from last
week, then rescheduled again to Tuesday.
Not so tedious, however, as to alter preset plans by much of television to preempt regular programs to carry the
opening of O.J. Simpson VII live on Monday. These electronic media folks were anticipating the start of opening
statements but instead found themselves rouged, massacred and gowned to the hilt with no place to go. Rather
than withdraw, however, everyone went with full-blown live coverage anyway.
It’s just a hoot that television, which zooms to breaking news with astonishing speed, often becomes trapped in
the quicksand of its own technology in seeking to remove itself from a story when there is no story. At least not
one that merits this level of mobilization, or the attention to minutiae reflected in ABC News correspondent Cynthia
McFadden’s comment to anchor Peter Jennings during Tuesday’s lunch break: “Jurors No. 620, 1427 and 2457
were each taking notes at various points.”
By that time, prosecutor Darden already had described Simpson to the jury as a man whose private face differed
dramatically from his public face. TV’s inquiring minds wanted to know which face was on exhibit during the
prosecution’s opening statements.
At one point Tuesday, Shapiro looked directly at the camera as it shot Simpson in close-up, then whispered
something to his client, who nodded and then resumed taking notes on a legal pad. Was it rehearsed behavior?
And was that a thin smile on Simpson’s face at another point or merely a neutral expression? TV’s in-house facial
experts warmed to this long-range speculation with a fury, and KCBS-TV Channel 2, for one, promised to “analyze
his expression for clues” to what Simpson was thinking. Twitch by twitch, presumably.
You’d expect nothing less from coverage of the biggest trial ever. We have a right to hear it. The world has a right
to hear it.
DETAILS
Publication title:
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext); Los Angeles, Calif.
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 3
Pages:
13
Number of pages:
0
Publication year:
1995
Publication date:
Jan 25, 1995
column:
HOWARD ROSENBERG
Section:
PART-A; Metro Desk
Publisher:
Tribune Interactive, LLC
Place of publication:
Los Angeles, Calif.
Country of publication:
United States, Los Angeles, Calif.
Publication subject:
General Interest Periodicals–United States
ISSN:
04583035
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
Column
ProQuest document ID:
292974943
Document URL:
http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/29297
4943?accountid=11107
Copyright:
(Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1995 all Rights reserved)
Last updated:
2011-09-28
Database:
Global Newsstream,ProQuest Central
LINKS
Find It @ GT
Database copyright 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 3
Hard Questions for Chief Daryl Gates: Thursday’s hearing must yield some honest answers
Los Angeles Times (1923-1995); Mar 13, 1991; Los Angeles Times
pg. VCB12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Investigation of a Videotaped Beating
Shocking incident leads to worrisome questions
about L.A. police
Publication info: Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) ; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]07 Mar
1991: 6.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
This shameful violence committed by Los Angeles police officers last Sunday night has drawn a collective national
gasp of horror as the videotape has played time and again on television. The victim, Rodney King, was driving at
speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour on the Foothill Freeway but refused to pull over, according to the California
Highway Patrol. The CHP requested assistance from the Los Angeles Police Department when King drove from
freeway to surface streets in the Lake View Terrace section of the San Fernando Valley. Whatever King’s actions,
there can be no justification for the brutality.
Obviously the chief does not endorse police brutality. But through his occasional shoot-from-the-hip, insensitive
remarks over the years (chokeholds and blacks versus “normal” people; Latino officers who were “lazy,” and other
such comments), has Chief [Daryl F. Gates] unwittingly sent the wrong message to his troops? Does departmental
culture tacitly encourage macho cops to use whatever they can get away with in their “war” against crime?
FULL TEXT
The cops thought nobody was looking-but some folks made good use of a video camera, and now the whole world
has seen a deeply disturbing and shocking vision: at least 10 officers, clearly out of control, wielding their batons
like baseball bats, ferociously beating and kicking a black man who lay helplessly on the ground.
This shameful violence committed by Los Angeles police officers last Sunday night has drawn a collective national
gasp of horror as the videotape has played time and again on television. The victim, Rodney King, was driving at
speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour on the Foothill Freeway but refused to pull over, according to the California
Highway Patrol. The CHP requested assistance from the Los Angeles Police Department when King drove from
freeway to surface streets in the Lake View Terrace section of the San Fernando Valley. Whatever King’s actions,
there can be no justification for the brutality.
Mayor Bradley, a former cop, has strongly condemned the violence and the improper use of the batons. He has
also called for additional training for officers and asked the department to determine if there is a pattern of
excessive use of force against minorities.
So far Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates, however, has tempered his remarks with a caution against a quick
judgment until a high-priority internal investigation is completed. Fair enough, perhaps; the chief is upholding his
obligation to respect the rights of his officers. But what about his obligation to reassure the citizens of this city?
Where was his outrage over the patently inappropriate use of force by his officers?
Obviously the chief does not endorse police brutality. But through his occasional shoot-from-the-hip, insensitive
remarks over the years (chokeholds and blacks versus “normal” people; Latino officers who were “lazy,” and other
such comments), has Chief Gates unwittingly sent the wrong message to his troops? Does departmental culture
tacitly encourage macho cops to use whatever they can get away with in their “war” against crime?
Because the victim was black, the incident inevitably raises questions about police and race relations in Los
Angeles. Is there a disparity between the treatment of minority men, blacks particularly, and others? Is there a link
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 3
between the recent official state findings of discrimination against black and Latino officers within the department
and the treatment of black and Latino men who are stopped by police?
Businessman and former Lakers basketball player Jamaal Wilkes complained recently that LAPD officers stopped
him, ordered him out of his car and handcuffed him because his registration was about to expire. Baseball Hall-ofFamer Joe Morgan recently won a federal jury award of $540,000 because an officer mistook him for a drug
courier, roughed him up and illegally detained him at Los Angeles International Airport. Similar suits and
settlements involving police misconduct cost the city more than $8 million last year alone.
The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office is investigating the King incident to determine if the police
officers broke any laws. The FBI is investigating to determine if a civil rights violation took place. Did the
supervisor at the scene order his men to stop? Did other officers attempt to stop their colleagues? What would
have happened to King’s complaints of abuse if the incident had not been videotaped?
The frightening images, captured by amateur cameraman George Holliday, are a grim reminder of a time and place
when all black people were fair game for white cops. That is not the case today. The entire Los Angeles Police
Department should not be smeared by the improper actions of the officers involved in the beating.
But until the extent of the problem is identified and the public is fully reassured that this violation of policy will not
happen again, top Los Angeles Police Department management must understand that a hot, bright spotlight is
now on them.
Illustration
PHOTO: Videotape shows L.A. police officer about to beat a suspect while others watch. / From George Holliday
video
DETAILS
Publication title:
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext); Los Angeles, Calif.
Pages:
6
Number of pages:
0
Publication year:
1991
Publication date:
Mar 7, 1991
Section:
Metro; PART-B; Editorial Writers Desk
Publisher:
Tribune Interactive, LLC
Place of publication:
Los Angeles, Calif.
Country of publication:
United States, Los Angeles, Calif.
Publication subject:
General Interest Periodicals–United States
ISSN:
04583035
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 3
Document type:
NEWSPAPER
ProQuest document ID:
281310329
Document URL:
http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/28131
0329?accountid=11107
Copyright:
(Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1991all Rights reserved)
Last updated:
2011-09-15
Database:
Los Angeles Times
LINKS
Find It @ GT
Database copyright 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 3
It’s His Celebrity, Not His Race In his wealth and
fame, O. J. Simpson is insulated from racial
assumptions. If only most black people could be
treated so fairly.
Banks, R Richard . Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) ; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]11 July
1994: 7.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
In the rush of opinions and analyses following the arrest oJ. Simpson, few have been as misguided as those
tagging the Simpson saga as a case of another black man toppled by the System. “Let a brother get too big,” this
chorus of voices declares, “and the white man will bring him down. Now he’s going to find out what it is like to be
treated like a black man.” In addition to his fame and wealth, his marriage to a white woman, the argument goes, is
what made it necessary to bring him down. This cluster of views ranges from the assertion that Simpson was
quickly considered a suspect because he is black to the claim that he was set up by the police or other officialsframed. Similar laments were heard during the legal troubles of Marion Barry, Michael Tyson and, to a lesser
extent, Michael Jackson.
In spite of overwhelming circumstantial evidence, many people, white and black, cling to their belief that Simpson
could not have committed the murders. “It just doesn’t seem like the type of thing he’d do,’ people explain. Had he
not been insulated by personal wealth and celebrity from prevailing societal attitudes toward black men, the
presumption would have been the opposite. The people lining the freeways during that slow-speed chase did not
cheer for Simpson’s capture. They showered him with the same words of encouragement as when he darted past
tacklers on the football field: “Go, [O. J. Simpson]., go!”
FULL TEXT
In the rush of opinions and analyses following the arrest oJ. Simpson, few have been as misguided as those
tagging the Simpson saga as a case of another black man toppled by the System. “Let a brother get too big,” this
chorus of voices declares, “and the white man will bring him down. Now he’s going to find out what it is like to be
treated like a black man.” In addition to his fame and wealth, his marriage to a white woman, the argument goes, is
what made it necessary to bring him down. This cluster of views ranges from the assertion that Simpson was
quickly considered a suspect because he is black to the claim that he was set up by the police or other officialsframed. Similar laments were heard during the legal troubles of Marion Barry, Michael Tyson and, to a lesser
extent, Michael Jackson.
For all their rhetorical flourish, such claims misconstrue the contemporary role of race in American society and
interpret a 1990s event through the lens of an outdated 1960s vision of race relations.
Proponents of this argument ignore the reality: Simpson has been treated more in accord with his class and
celebrity status than his race. Even after evidence connected him to the murders, police granted Simpson the
dignity of turning himself in rather than arresting him as they would a less famous suspect. And if people were
trying to bring him down, they could have done so during those many occasions when the police were called to his
home because of his brutalizing Nicole Simpson.
O. J. has escaped many of the limits that other black men regularly encounter, both in his life and during this
criminal proceeding. The overworked publicly financed lawyers who represent most black men accused of felonies
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 3
often plea-bargain without the benefit of elaborate strategizing or excruciatingly detailed preliminary hearings. In
contrast, some of our nation’s premier criminal defense attorneys have joined Simpson’s defense team.
Before this tragedy, Simpson’s public persona, including his marriage to Nicole, had made him more acceptable to
many whites, not more threatening (as would have been the case a generation or more ago). His famous Hertz ads
were not targeted toward black audiences; they had nothing to do with race. As America’s most celebrated black
athlete at the outset of the post-segregation era, Simpson led the way for others, including Michael Jordan, Charles
Barkley and Bo Jackson, to attain levels of commercial success and public adoration not limited by their race.
In spite of overwhelming circumstantial evidence, many people, white and black, cling to their belief that Simpson
could not have committed the murders. “It just doesn’t seem like the type of thing he’d do,’ people explain. Had he
not been insulated by personal wealth and celebrity from prevailing societal attitudes toward black men, the
presumption would have been the opposite. The people lining the freeways during that slow-speed chase did not
cheer for Simpson’s capture. They showered him with the same words of encouragement as when he darted past
tacklers on the football field: “Go, O. J., go!”
For sure, this society remains hostile to black men and there are undoubtedly bigots who revel in Simpson’s
downfall. But we are past the time when all black Americans are smeared with the same broad brush of explicit
racial bias.
Race relations are more complex and nuanced than a few generations ago. Race does play a role in contemporary
society, but not its predictable, traditional role. Distorted racial imagery lingers in our national consciousness and
our painful past reaches into the present. Nowhere is that more evident than in our national discourse about crime.
Our willingness to imprison young black men reveals a presumption of worthlessness and criminality. Although
legislators talk about harsh criminal sanctions in terms of fear of crime, rather than race, the two mix in ways
people often prefer to ignore.
Yet the norms against bias and stereotyping mean that the underlying racial images are rarely expressed openly.
And more than at any previous time, the social mobility afforded by wealth and celebrity allows countless black
Americans to separate themselves from the prevailing social image of black Americans. People like Simpson are
exempt from what others have called “the black tax.” Thus, how other people see him, and perhaps how he sees
himself, results more from the individual identity he has carved in the American mind than from his race.
Whatever happens, O. J. will not only not be lynched, high-tech or otherwise; he will receive the fullest protections
the Constitution provides. If only most black Americans did as well.
Illustration
PHOTO: R. RICHARD BANKS
DETAILS
Publication title:
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext); Los Angeles, Calif.
Pages:
7
Number of pages:
0
Publication year:
1994
Publication date:
Jul 11, 1994
Section:
Metro; PART-B; Op Ed Desk
Publisher:
Tribune Interactive, LLC
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 3
Place of publication:
Los Angeles, Calif.
Country of publication:
United States, Los Angeles, Calif.
Publication subject:
General Interest Periodicals–United States
ISSN:
04583035
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
NEWSPAPER
ProQuest document ID:
282319943
Document URL:
http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/28231
9943?accountid=11107
Copyright:
(Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1994all Rights reserved)
Last updated:
2011-09-28
Database:
Global Newsstream,ProQuest Central
LINKS
Find It @ GT
Database copyright 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 3
4 Testify Hill Spoke Years Ago of Harassment;
Others Assert Her Picture of Thomas Is False
Marcus, Ruth . The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) ; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]14 Oct
1991: a01.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
Both sides seemed less than eager to hear from [Angela Wright]. A [Anita Hill] supporter said Wright was “no Anita
Hill” in terms of credibility, partly because she had been fired by [Clarence Thomas] at the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The Thomas proponents had no interest in bringing forth another woman who would
make charges against the nominee and thought Thomas’s uncontested testimony that she was fired for referring
to homosexuals as “faggots” had sufficiently rebutted her.
Thomas’s former secretary, Diane Holt, said she recalled other telephone calls from Hill to Thomas beyond the 11
recorded in his official telephone logs. Holt, who was a friend of [Hills], said she was never aware of any problems
with Thomas “nor did I ever discern any discomfort when Professor Hill was in Judge Thomas’s presence.”
PHOTO,,Gerald Martineau;Ray Lustig CAPTION:Friends or professional acqaintances of University of Oklahoma law
professor Anita Hill testify on her behalf. From left, they are [Susan Hoerchner], Ellen M. Wells, John W. carr and
[Joel Paul]. CAPTION:Former employees of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas testify before Senate
Judiciary Committee. From left, they are J.C. [Alvarez], Nancy Elizabeth Fitch, Diane Holt and [Phyllis Berry].
CAPTION:Clarence Thomas’s chief sponsor, Sen. [John C. Danforth] (R-Mo.), center, talks with Sens. Alan K.
Simpson (R-Wyo.), left, and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). CAPTION:[John Doggett III], a Texas lawyer and management
consultant, testifies at committee hearing on allegations against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.
CAPTION:Former employees of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas testify before Senate Judiciary
Committee. From left, they are J.C. Alvarez, Nancy Elizabeth Fitch, Diane Holt and Phyllis Berry. (This photo
appears in an earlier edition.) CAPTION:Witnesses who testified for Anita Hill are, from left, law school classmate
Susan Hoerchner, Washington friend Ellen Wells, Wall Street lawyer [John Carr] and American University professor
Joel Paul. (This photo appears in an earlier edition.) CAPTION:Sen. [Arlen Specter] (R-Pa.) addresses a witness. He
handled much of the questioning for Senate Judiciary Committee Repuclicans at the hearing. (This photo appears
in an earlier edition.) CAPTION:Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman [Joseph R. Biden Jr.] (D-Del.) makes a point
during tesimony. At right is Sen. [Edward M. Kennedy] (D-Mass.). (This photo appears in an earlier edition.)
FULL TEXT
Four witnesses testified yesterday that law professor Anita Hill told them years ago that she was sexually
harassed by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, and Hill’s lawyers released results of a polygraph test that
they said demonstrated her truthfulness.
Four women who worked with Thomas defended him in equally strong fashion, and termed as “impossible” the
idea that he would engage in inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Some were sharply critical of Hill.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) gaveled the extraordinary hearings to a close
just after 2 a.m. today, when he announced that Hill and Thomas would pass up their chance to address the
senators again.
In a surprise move, Biden earlier announced that Angela Wright, scheduled to testify that Thomas had made
unwelcome sexual advances toward her when she worked for him, would instead enter only a transcript of her
interview with committee lawyers.
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 6
Both sides seemed less than eager to hear from Wright. A Hill supporter said Wright was “no Anita Hill” in terms of
credibility, partly because she had been fired by Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The
Thomas proponents had no interest in bringing forth another woman who would make charges against the
nominee and thought Thomas’s uncontested testimony that she was fired for referring to homosexuals as
“faggots” had sufficiently rebutted her.
In the transcript, Wright said Thomas persistently tried to date her, commented on the size of her breasts and once
showed up unannounced at her apartment.
The witnesses for Hill described her as an unhappy and embarrassed woman who confided her predicament to
three of them while she was working for Thomas in the early 1980s, and the fourth in 1987.
John Carr, a partner in a prominent New York law firm who dated Hill briefly during the period she worked at the
EEOC, said a “troubled and upset” Hill told him that Thomas “had asked her out on dates and showed an unwanted
sexual interest in her.”
Carr said he recalled thinking “how appalling it was that the head of the EEOC,” the agency charged with enforcing
laws against sexual harassment, “would engage in sexual advances towards one of his own employees.”
However, J.C. Alvarez, a former EEOC employee, said “I cannot believe one word of her testimony.”
Alvarez described the 35-year-old law professor as “a very hard, tough woman” who was “nobody’s victim,” an
“opinionated” and “arrogant” person who “looked out for herself first” and has “a view of herself and her abilities
that did not seem to be based on reality.”
Another former employee, Phyllis Berry, said she believed Hill “had a crush on the chairman” when she worked as
his aide at the EEOC and suggested “her feelings were hurt” when Thomas did not return that interest.
However, Temple University professor Nancy Fitch, another former staffer who testified on Thomas’s behalf, said
she did not believe that. Under questioning from Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.), Berry was unable to point to any
specific reasons for believing Hill had a romantic interest in Thomas.
The session, the third day of the unprecedented inquiry into the sexual harassment allegations, stretched late into
the evening, as the panel raced to finish in time for the confirmation vote by the full Senate scheduled at 6 p.m.
Tuesday.
In contrast to the two earlier days, in which Thomas’s vehement denials dominated the day’s events and Hill’s
credibility was sharply attacked, yesterday’s testimony offered Hill’s defenders the opportunity to develop her side
of the story.
It also served as a seminar on the real world of sexual harassment, and why it may go unreported. The two women
who testified on behalf of Hill said they understood, based on their own experience, why she might not have
reported the harassment at the time or wanted to antagonize Thomas after she left his employment.
“There are things that you have to put up with. And being a black woman you know you have to put up with a lot.
And so you grit your teeth and you do it,” said Ellen Wells. She said a “deeply troubled and depressed” Hills told her
about Thomas’s alleged conduct during her time at the EEOC. Wells said she had been similarly silent when she
was touched against her will on the job.
But Alvarez – citing Hill’s continued contact with Thomas – said that “having lived through {sexual harassment}
myself, I find Anita Hill’s behavior inconsistent with these charges.”
The polygraph – conducted by the man who ran the FBI’s polygraph program from 1978 to 1987 – was released
outside the hearing room by Hill’s attorney, Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree. It indicated “no
deception” in Hill’s answers to questions about the sex harassment allegations.
Polygraph tests are generally not admissible in court, and the committee erupted in partisan bickering over the
appropriateness of Hill taking such a test.
Ogletree noted that Hill had offered in her first interview with the FBI and again before the committee to take a
polygraph. “It was my judgment, given the accusations that have been made over the last few days about fantasy,
about grudges, about being a martyr . . . that this has just gone too far, and that Professor Hill in my opinion had to
fish or cut bait” and take the test, he said.
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 6
With the positive result, Ogletree said, “She is very pleased, we are pleased, and we hope this issue is put behind
us.”
Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), Thomas’s chief advocate and spokesman, said the polygraph test had no impact. “I
have never accused Anita Hill of lying,” Danforth said. “A lie is an intentional statement.”
“Clearly there are people who make statements about things that were done to them, particularly of a sexual
nature, that turn out not to be true,” he said, adding he was not speaking specifically of Hill.
Biden said polygraph tests were “not the appropriate way to get to the truth” and said it would be a “sad day for the
civil liberties in this country” if they became the basis for important decisions.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) became the first member of the panel to speak out strongly on Hill’s behalf,
delivering an impassioned statement rebuking his Republican colleagues for the use of “dirt and innuendo” in their
treatment of Hill.
“I hope we’re going to be sensitive to the attempts of character assassination on Professor Hill,” said Kennedy, who
has taken a backseat in the hearings. “They’re unworthy. They’re unworthy.”
Kennedy was critical of Thomas’s accusation Saturday that Hill’s charge that he bragged to her about his sexual
endowment and prowess played into ugly racial stereotypes.
“The fact is that these points of sexual harassment are made by an Afro-American against an Afro-American,” he
said. “The issue isn’t discrimination and racism; it’s about sexual harassment. And I hope we can keep our eye on
that particular issue.”
Kennedy and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) also tangled over Specter’s characterization of some discrepancies in Hill’s
testimony as “flat-out perjury.” Kennedy said it was “preposterous to call it perjury.” Specter reiterated his view,
retorting, “I regard that comment and that characterization as preposterous.”
Yesterday’s testimony, which began at noon and lasted well past midnight, represented the first time the Senate
Judiciary Committee has heard from witnesses other than Thomas and Hill. Sen. Herbert H. Kohl (D-Wis.) said the
testimony from witnesses saying Hill had told them of the alleged sexual harassment rebutted suggestions
yesterday by the nominee and his defenders that Hill had “concocted” her story.
“If there was a plot afoot, it must have originated 10 years ago,” Kohl said.
If Hill had told her story years before in order to build a case against Thomas’s nomination, said American
University professor Joel Paul, “she would be not only deserving of an Academy Award, she’d be a prophet.”
Paul said Hill, “reluctantly and with obvious embarrassment,” told him in 1987 that she left the EEOC because she
was being sexually harassed by an unnamed supervisor.
None of the four witnesses corroborating Hill’s account said they heard the lurid and vivid details of Thomas’s
alleged sexual harassment, including such statements as a recommendation that she watch pornographic movies
showing women having sex with animals.
“Women typically don’t talk in sexually explicit terms,” Wells said.
“The situation was to me too clearly painful to her to try to pull out any additional information,” said Susan
Hoerchner, a law school classmate who said Hill confided in her when she was working for Thomas.
Hoerchner said Hill, sounding “humiliated and demoralized” during a lengthy telephone conversation about her
trouble, told her that Thomas insistently asked her out and refused to take no for an answer. “He kept pressing her,
and repeating things, like `I’m your type,’ and `You know I’m your kind of man, but you refuse to admit it,’ ” said
Hoerchner, now a worker’s compensation judge in California.
“One thing Anita told me that struck me particularly . . . was that Mr. Thomas had said to her, `You know that if you
had witnesses, you’d have a perfect case against me,’ ” Hoerchner testified. Hill did not recount any such
conversation in her testimony Friday.
Republican questioners, led by Specter, emphasized that Hill had remained as Thomas’s aide and even moved with
him to the EEOC, despite her situation.
Even after leaving, they said, continuing a theme that Thomas’s supporters have emphasized throughout the
hearings, she remained on apparently cordial terms with him, telephoning him, meeting with him twice in
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 6
Oklahoma, and driving him alone to the airport on one occasion.
“The realities of business and professional lives are such that she could not afford to burn that particular bridge
behind her,” Hoerchner said. “She in my impression only wanted the behavior to stop . . . . She has no desire to get
even.”
Biden took on the idea that Hill’s failure to come forward with complaints suggested that the incidents did not
occur. “I wonder how many tens of thousands of millions of men in this country work for a boss who treats them
like a lackey, tells them to do certain things, and stay on the job, and we never ask, `Why does that man stay on the
job. . . , ‘ ” he said. “I don’t know why we have so much trouble understanding the pattern of a victimized person.”
Hoerchner, responding to suggestions that Hill’s allegations were the product of “fantasy,” described her as “one of
the most level-headed people I have ever known. Her feet are firmly on the ground. She has never conveyed any
fantasy to me whatsoever.”
The witnesses denied that they were part of any plot to block Thomas’s confirmation. Wells, a Republican, said “I
would not be here if I could have done something else.” Hoerchner said she was hesitant about speaking out
because she was a state court judge under the authority of a Republican-controlled executive branch.
They also said they could imagine no motive for Hill to invent her story. Paul, noting that Hill had been an
outspoken supporter of her former law professor, Robert H. Bork, during his heated unsuccessful confirmation
battle in 1987, said the “only book I can conceive of her wanting to write is a book on the Uniform Commercial
Code.”
The next panel of Thomas supporters was equally outspoken in their defense of the nominee.
Thomas’s former secretary, Diane Holt, said she recalled other telephone calls from Hill to Thomas beyond the 11
recorded in his official telephone logs. Holt, who was a friend of Hill’s, said she was never aware of any problems
with Thomas “nor did I ever discern any discomfort when Professor Hill was in Judge Thomas’s presence.”
“I can’t find any conceivable motivation for her saying it did happen,” Holt said.
In another panel late last night, John Doggett III, a Texas lawyer and management consultant, testified about what
he said was a “bizarre” incident at Hill’s going-away party in 1983, when she was headed to Oklahoma to teach law.
Doggett said a “very, very intense” and “very upset” Hill berated him for leading her on and failing to follow through
on asking her out.
Doggett said he had never encouraged Hill to think he was romantically interested in her. Thomas’s supporters are
likely to cite Doggett’s testimony as evidence that she had unfounded fantasies about men’s interest in her.
But Biden seemed incredulous at Doggett’s testimony. “How can one draw the conclusion from that kind of
exchange that this woman is fantasizing?” he asked Doggett.
Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) then questioned Doggett about allegations by two women that he sexually
harassed them. One employee at the consulting firm where he formerly worked told committee lawyers that
Doggett kissed her on the mouth on her first day of work, used language laced with sexual innuendo and asked her
after a promotion who she had slept with to get it.
“Whoever believes that really needs psychiatric care,” Doggett said, raising his voice and lecturing Metzenbaum.
He said the consulting firm employee was a “profound liar.”
Biden, who had been out of the room when the exchange started, tried to interject. Doggett said he was being
subjected to “exactly what happened to Clarence Thomas.”
Questioned by Specter, Doggett suggested that Hill was the victim of a delusion, exaggerating her relationship with
Carr, misinterpreting her situation with him, and imagining Thomas’s behavior.
“I believe Anita Hill believes what she has said,” he said. “I believe . . . that there is absolutely no truth to what she
has said.”
Charles Kothe, the former dean at Oral Roberts University law school, said that even when they were working
together on a seminar on sexual harassment, Hill never mentioned any problem with sexual harassment. He said
Hill seemed “fascinated” by Thomas and looked at him as a “hero.”
Staff writers Guy Gugliotta and Sharon LaFraniere contributed to this report.
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 6
Illustration
PHOTO,,Gerald Martineau;Ray Lustig CAPTION:Friends or professional acqaintances of University of Oklahoma law
professor Anita Hill testify on her behalf. From left, they are Susan Hoerchner, Ellen M. Wells, John W. carr and Joel
Paul. CAPTION:Former employees of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas testify before Senate Judiciary
Committee. From left, they are J.C. Alvarez, Nancy Elizabeth Fitch, Diane Holt and Phyllis Berry. CAPTION:Clarence
Thomas’s chief sponsor, Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), center, talks with Sens. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), left, and
Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). CAPTION:John Doggett III, a Texas lawyer and management consultant, testifies at
committee hearing on allegations against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. CAPTION:Former employees
of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas testify before Senate Judiciary Committee. From left, they are J.C.
Alvarez, Nancy Elizabeth Fitch, Diane Holt and Phyllis Berry. (This photo appears in an earlier edition.)
CAPTION:Witnesses who testified for Anita Hill are, from left, law school classmate Susan Hoerchner, Washington
friend Ellen Wells, Wall Street lawyer John Carr and American University professor Joel Paul. (This photo appears
in an earlier edition.) CAPTION:Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) addresses a witness. He handled much of the
questioning for Senate Judiciary Committee Repuclicans at the hearing. (This photo appears in an earlier edition.)
CAPTION:Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) makes a point during tesimony. At
right is Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). (This photo appears in an earlier edition.)
DETAILS
Publication title:
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext); Washington, D.C.
Pages:
a01
Number of pages:
0
Publication year:
1991
Publication date:
Oct 14, 1991
Section:
A SECTION
Publisher:
WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post
Place of publication:
Washington, D.C.
Country of publication:
United States, Washington, D.C.
Publication subject:
General Interest Periodicals–United States
ISSN:
01908286
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
NEWSPAPER
ProQuest document ID:
307444637
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 5 of 6
Document URL:
http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/30744
4637?accountid=11107
Copyright:
Copyright The Washington Post Company Oct 14, 1991
Last updated:
2010-08-07
Database:
Global Newsstream,ProQuest Central
LINKS
Find It @ GT
Database copyright 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 6 of 6
Hill Passes Polygraph Test as Allies Back Her
Claims; Thomas Is Praised in Testimony by
Former Colleagues
Noah, Timothy; Calmes, Jackie . Wall Street Journal , Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]14
Oct 1991: PAGE A6.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
Anita Hill, who has accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, passed a lie-detector test and new evidence
was introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee suggesting that Thomas had made sexual comments to a
second female aid, Angela Wright.
FULL TEXT
WASHINGTON — The roller-coaster ride that is Clarence Thomas’s political fortunes took a turn as Anita Hill, his
chief accuser of sexual harassment, passed a lie-detector test while new evidence was introduced suggesting that
Judge Thomas had made sexual comments to a second female aide.
The former employee, Angela Wright, was director of public affairs at the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in the mid-1980s. In a transcript released late last night by the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said
Judge Thomas repeatedly pressured her to date him and made comments about her body. On one occasion, she
said, he “asked me what size my boobs were.” Ms. Wright left the EEOC when Judge Thomas fired her.
Another former EEOC employee, Rose Jourdain, submitted a separate affidavit saying that Ms. Wright told her
Judge Thomas made comments “concerning her figure, her body, her breasts, her legs,” and “how she looked in
certain suits.”
Earlier in the evening, the Senate panel heard from four supporters of Judge Thomas, all women who once worked
for him. Two of the supporters coupled praise for their former boss with jabs at Ms. Hill. And Judge Thomas’s
former personal secretary said that Ms. Hill called him “five or six” times more than the widely publicized 10 calls
listed in phone logs that Ms. Holt kept for Judge Thomas over six years at the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
Meanwhile, the committee left open the possibility of hearing from Ms. Hill and Judge Thomas again today, as the
full Senate steeled for tomorrow’s vote on his confirmation for a seat on the Supreme Court.
In the polygraph test, Ms. Hill was asked whether she had deliberately lied about Judge Thomas, whether she
fabricated her allegations that Judge Thomas discussed pornography with her, that he mentioned “specific sexual
acts” to her, and that he made references to her “about the size of his penis.” The test concluded that Ms. Hill
hadn’t fabricated the allegations.
The lie-detector test was released during a break in the Senate proceedings by Ms. Hill’s lawyer Charles Ogletree,
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 4
who arranged for the test to be done by American International Security Corp., Fairfax, Va. Mr. Ogletree said there
was no plan to formally release the study to the Judiciary Committee.
Judicial experts have long debated the validity of such polygraph tests, which generally aren’t admissible in court.
But committee member Sen. Herbert Kohl (D., Wis.) said the test “buttresses” Ms. Hill’s position.
It appeared unlikely, however, that Judge Thomas himself would agree to take a lie-detector test. Sen. John
Danforth (R., Mo.), Judge Thomas’s mentor and shepherd in the volatile hearings, said that requiring a high court
nominee to submit to polygraph tests would set “a terribly demeaning and very, very bad precedent.” He dismissed
the significance of Ms. Hill’s test, saying, “Some people are extremely good at taking lie-detector tests — even if
they’re lying.”
Ms. Hill’s test, whatever its validity, was a setback for Judge Thomas’s supporters, who scrambled to try to counter
the effects on public opinion. They reiterated the suggestion that Ms. Hill had sexual delusions and that she
believed things occurred in her relationship with Judge Thomas that didn’t happen. “What is going on in her head is
not clear,” said Sen. Danforth.
Judiciary Committee Republicans, stunned by the news of the lie-detector test, immediately sought to cast doubt
on its validity. Sen. Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.) called it “bush league,” and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) said the use of a
polygraph was the work of “a two-bit slick lawyer.” But the company that administered the test was picked by
Charles Ruff, a highly respected former U.S. attorney under both the Carter and Reagan administrations and now a
partner in the prestigious law firm of Covington &Burling.
The panel of Ms. Hill’s allies, all four of them lawyers, portrayed her as the heroine and, by inference, Judge
Thomas as the villain in the continuing drama of accusation and denial. But they also continued a by-now familiar
pattern where testimony first by Judge Thomas, then by Ms. Hill, and again by Judge Thomas led to pendulum
swings in support for each.
None of the panelists could say Ms. Hill specifically identified Judge Thomas as the person who sexually harassed
her when both worked at the Education Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But all
four said that Ms. Hill had told them she was harassed by her supervisor, whom they took to be Judge Thomas.
One of the witnesses, Susan Hoerchner, a workman’s compensation judge in California who attended Yale law
school with Ms. Hill, also said that in a phone conversation at the time, Ms. Hill referred to the man who harassed
her as “her boss, Clarence.”
But Sen. Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.) said he remained baffled that after Ms. Hill left Judge Thomas’s “influence or his
domination or whatever it was” that Ms. Hill would continue to have contact with him.
The answer offered by the panelists was that Ms. Hill’s professional contacts with Judge Thomas were too
valuable to throw away. “We’re all told about networking,” said Ellen Wells, who described herself as a longtime
friend of Ms. Hill’s. She cited women’s magazines that advise women, “take up golf, ladies, take up tennis” and
“don’t burn bridges.”
Asked by Sen. Howell Heflin (D., Ala.) whether Ms. Hill showed any signs of being unstable or politically militant,
the panelists painted a picture of a sober moderate who supported her former Yale law professor, the conservative
Robert Bork, when he was nominated for the Supreme Court.
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 4
All four members of the panel, which also included John Carr, a lawyer with Simpson, Thatcher &Bartlett in New
York who had been a friend of Ms. Hill’s, and Joel Paul, a professor at American University Law School, where Ms.
Hill worked during the summer of 1987, said they were acting on their own, and not at the request of any organized
groups.
Judge Hoerchner testified that she recalled being told by Ms. Hill that her supervisor had said to her, “You know I’m
your kind of man, and you refuse to admit it.” In addition, Judge Hoerchner said Ms. Hill had told her that her boss
had said, “You know, if you had witnesses, you’d have a perfect case against me.” But Judge Hoechner said she
hadn’t been present when such conversations occurred.
The revelation that Prof. Hill passed the lie-detector test could cause problems for some politicians who have
attacked her credibility. GOP theoretician Kevin Phillips, for example, singles out Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), who is
up for re-election next year and who on Saturday accused Prof. Hill of committing “perjury.” “Imagine what
Republican women in Pennsylvania may conclude about his role in these proceedings,” Mr. Phillips said. “There’s
high risk” for these politicians.
Meanwhile, the evening panel of Thomas champions took turns shooting at Ms. Hill’s credibility. Ms. Holt, the
judge’s former personal secretary at the EEOC, disputed Ms. Hill’s previous suggestion that Ms. Hill’s calls to
Judge Thomas might actually have been intended for Ms. Holt. The two were one-time co-workers and friends at
both the Education Department and the EEOC. “That’s not true,” Ms. Holt said.
But more fierce, sharply personal attacks on Ms. Hill came from J.C. Alvarez and Phyllis Berry, both former special
assistants to Judge Thomas at the EEOC. Ms. Alvarez mocked Ms. Hill’s earlier testimony to the committee Friday,
saying she “played the role of a meek, innocent, shy Baptist girl from the South who was a victim of this big, bad
man.”
“Who is she trying to kid?” Ms. Alvarez continued. She went on to say that “the Anita Hill I knew” was hard, tough,
arrogant, “holier than thou” and an ambitious self-promoter. Both she and Ms. Berry testified that Ms. Hill was
bitter that she didn’t have better assignments at the EEOC or a more direct working relationship with the chairman.
All four women depicted Judge Thomas as upright, reserved and socially aloof at the office.
Credit: Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
DETAILS
Subject:
Sexual harassment; Judges &magistrates; Hearings &confirmations
People:
Wright, Angela Thomas, Clarence Hill, Anita Faye
Company:
Senate-Judiciary, Committee on the
Publication title:
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.
Pages:
PAGE A6
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 4
Number of pages:
0
Publication year:
1991
Publication date:
Oct 14, 1991
Publisher:
Dow Jones &Company Inc
Place of publication:
New York, N.Y.
Country of publication:
United States, New York, N .Y.
Publication subject:
Business And Economics–Banking And Finance
ISSN:
00999660
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
News
Accession number:
01463596
ProQuest document ID:
398336640
Document URL:
http://prx.library.gatech.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/39833
6640?accountid=11107
Copyright:
Copyright Dow Jones &Company Inc Oct 14, 1991
Last updated:
2017-11-02
Database:
The Wall Street Journal
LINKS
Find It @ GT
Database copyright 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 4