I feel sorry for all those poor media types who have recently, in numerous heart rending columns, eulogized the brave and courageous Anita Hill.

Here she is hobnobbing with the likes of Hilary Clinton and Gloria Steinem and being named Vanity Fair’s Woman of the Year.  Why she’s even given credit for the election of President Clinton, the number of women elected to Congress and the 45 per cent increase in sexual harassment cases.

A new book, The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story by avid Brock, says Hill was almost entirely obsessed with gender and race issues.

The book feels that the single most important factor in explaining the growth of the Anita Hill myth was her portrayal as a straitlaced Baptist girl who would have been profoundly shocked by offensive language, the language which was alleged to have been used by Judge Clarence Thomas.  According to many, the real Anita Hill was much different.

One professor who was well-acquainted with Hill at the University of Oklahoma said she was quite familiar with pornography and often candidly talked with other young law professors about sex.

This professor went on to say that “every failure in her life was due to discrimination.”  He claimed that Hill often saw evidence of racist or sexist hostility and prejudice where none existed.  Everything was racism, sexism or sexual harassment.  She was obsessed with it.

Now, for $12,000 a lecture, she’ll tell her “atrocity stories” to anyone who wants to listen.  She’s on speakers’ circuit.

In Toronto, we had an Anita Hill lecture that cost up to $100.  The only people who turned up were those who hadn’t read Brock’s book.  Brock assembles a mountain of evidence that Hill lied in her Senate hearings – about her career and her relations with Thomas.  It blows away any claims of integrity and truthfulness which she might make.

Brock says that Anita Hill wanted to do an anonymous stab job on strongly pro-life Clarence Thomas by charging him with sexual harassment.  She was pulled into the public arena when her written statement to the Senate was leaked by her anti-Thomas “friends” who were out to beat the Thomas nomination.  Hill became a willing ally – possibly with an eye towards a future lecture tour.

Thomas’ personal reputation was impeccable until Hill made her embroidered charges.  She swore that her testimony contained more lurid details than her FBI interview because the two agents had not asked for all the details.  Both FBI agents disputed her comments, which, if you believe them, would make her a liar.

When Hill was asked about her departure from her Washington law firm, she testified under oath: “It was never suggested to me that I should leave the law firm in any way.”  A senior member of the law firm swore an affidavit that Hill was told that the low calibre of her work made it “in her best interests” to seek employment elsewhere.

Furthermore, not one of the scores of women that Thomas had worked with over the years supported Hill’s portrayal of Thomas.  A co-worker testified that Hill had told her that she had hoped for a more “personal relationship” with Thomas.  She even followed Thomas from the Education Department to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission even though she was guaranteed a job under the new head who took over from Thomas.  This is harassment?

Telephone logs show that after Hill moved to Oklahoma she called Thomas many times.  First she called the logs “garbage” and then she said that she was only returning calls from him.  And then she conceded initiating some.  This is harassment?

Why did she smear Thomas publicly?  Was it the old plot of “a woman scorned”?  Was it revenge?  Was it jealousy on her part?  Was it to puff up her image?

Or was she the visible part of a pro-abortion lobby meant to defeat Thomas’ efforts to become a Supreme Court Justice of the United States and turn the Court over to a pro-life position?  It worked against Bork and just barely failed against Thomas.  When Thomas, a conservative, was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization of Women, declared, “We’re going to bork him.”  Hill was obviously part of the problem.

Our servile media never mentioned that nor expressed any sympathy for the character assassination of Clarence Thomas.  No, they call Hill a “victim” and let her prattle on about “the powerlessness of women” in “our misogynist society.”

As we used to say: “Don’t eat that, Elmer.”