Item description for The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story by David Brock...
Overview Brock's thorough investigation of the evidence in the Thomas-Hill hearings concluded that there was no reason to believe Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas. Brock's book--a national sensation which landed on the New York Times bestseller list--is the definitive rebuttal of Hill's charges.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 9.17" Width: 6.16" Height: 1.22" Weight: 1.43 lbs.
Release Date Apr 1, 1994
ISBN 0029046564 ISBN13 9780029046562
Reviews - What do customers think about Real Anita Hill?
David Brock Admits to Smearing Anita Hill Aug 24, 2007
Reader beware: In David Brock's later book, Blinded by the Right, he admits to smearing Anita Hill in this book. "Doubts about (Anita Hill's) testimony were furthered by the widely publicized and later recanted claims of David Brock, who coined the phrase "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" to describe Professor Hill. Later, in his book "Blinded by the Right," Brock confessed that, to please his conservative backers, he had deliberately gone after Anita Hill's reputation in a smear campaign that relied on false and unfounded information." Wikipedia entry on Anita Hill, August 24, 2007
Interesting To Say The Least Nov 30, 2006
Before I read this book I read "Capitol Games" by Timothy Phelps, the liberal leaker who broke the law trying to make a name for himself. That book had some good points, but it was so biased and obviously a hatchet job that I waited.
Then along came David Brock.
This book is the full expansion of an expose originally written by the right-wing tabloid "The American Spectator." Some of the arguments I found highly questionable, and Brock was guilty of a few leaps of illogic. Almost as many leaps as reviewers have made on this book.
I do find it amusing how many people hated this book when it came out but produced nothing to 'refute' it - and then when Brock jumped ship they somehow jumped to the TOTALLY DISCONNECTED conclusion that if Brock was lying, Hill was innocent.
Does this mean if Phelps was lying - and he clearly was in some instances - that Thomas was innocent?
If both lied and both are innocent, one wonders what the fuss was all about.
Neither conclusion, of course, is true.
The Anita Hill hearings - and that is what they were, Thomas had already testified for his confirmation when the Hill story leaked - were one of the darkest periods in American politics. I felt sorry for both of them to a degree. The bottom line is this: one Democratic Senator was SO desperate to keep Roe v. Wade on the books that he broke the law and leaked a confidential FBI report to a reporter. Those hearings were NEVER about sexual harrassment. Let's face it, a number of the politicos involved in this could have written books about how to commit sexual harrassment and get away with it. These include Ted Kennedy, Chuck Robb, Bob Packwood, Max Baucus, Daniel Inouye, and Brock Adams.
No, they were about that critical swing vote that was supposedly going to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Hill had to be sacrificed, so be it. I believe it to be an irony - because I believe a strong argument could have been marshaled against Thomas as unqualified and succeeded if it had been done right without having to smear him. Thomas was not even the most qualified black conservative jurist in 1991.
Once the lynch mob was out, however, Thomas became a sympathetic figure. I do wish to point out a few things about sexual harassment.
1) Most harrassers are predators with a long line of victims. It is VERY RARE to have a person who has only harrassed ONE victim.
2) It is now fifteen years later and NOBODY else has accused Clarence Thomas.
3) The Democrats controlled Congress from 1991 to 1994. If a charge had been made and substantiated, he could have been impeached and prosecuted for perjury for his under oath testimony. The failure to do just this shows that in all probability, Thomas did not do anything substantial.
I would also point out that the question of whether or not Thomas was a sexual harrasser really peels away from the more long-term relevant question of whether or not he was qualified.
This book raises some provocative issues. It could have been an all-star work. The author, however, spends his time vacillating - seeming to be more interested in fame than in facts. Too bad. He wrote a semi-decent tome and has written nothing decent since.
Read only if you have nothing else to do.
David Brock admits he was wrong about Anita Hill Aug 29, 2006
I do not understand why this book is still in print, or at the very least is not published with a huge disclaimer on the front cover. The author himself has admitted in more recent books (_Blinded by the Right_ and others) that he was *lying* when he wrote this book, and that he deliberately spun every piece of information about Anita Hill to discredit her.
This is a smear job trying to pass off as real literature. Sep 14, 2005
This book is clearly partisan without any objectivity whatsoever. All attempts at actual journalistic integrity totally failed.
The New Yorker got it right May 11, 2004
just found this in the May 24, 1993 issue of "The New Yorker" Magazine: a review of Brock's book by Jane Meyer & Jill Abramson includes...
"All nonfiction books contain errors, but this book is unusual in the extent to which its key arguments are based on them."
"At a certain point, a knowledgeable reader begins to wonder how many of these errors are innocent and how many are deliberate distortions."
"Once the sources are evaluated and the contradictory evidence is considered, Brock's arguments evaporate into an amorphous cloud of ill will."
...and the reactionaries of the right still hold fast to their hatred of reality. [Why is this book of lies still in print?]