What do you think?
Real Anita Hill
In this New York Times bestseller, David Brock, a leading investigative journalist in America, presents an argument of the fact and fiction that made up the Hill-Thomas hearings of 1991.
Presenting a thorough investigation of the evidence in the Thomas-Hill hearings, Brock argues that there was no reason to believe Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas.
“ The Real Anita Hill is well written, carefully reasoned, and powerful in its logic. It is must reading for anyone who feels remotely touched by this case. …The questions [Brock] leaves the reader pondering are ancient but how do you keep separate the bad means and the good ends; how do you keep the bad means from rotting the entire system?” – Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, The New York Times
Presenting a thorough investigation of the evidence in the Thomas-Hill hearings, Brock argues that there was no reason to believe Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas.
“ The Real Anita Hill is well written, carefully reasoned, and powerful in its logic. It is must reading for anyone who feels remotely touched by this case. …The questions [Brock] leaves the reader pondering are ancient but how do you keep separate the bad means and the good ends; how do you keep the bad means from rotting the entire system?” – Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, The New York Times
472 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
About the author
David Brock
131 books32 followersDavid^Brock.
There is more than one author by this name in the database.
David Brock is a journalist currently living in Washington, DC. He started out in professional journalism with a piece in "The Wall Street Journal", that caught the attention of John Podhoretz, who was assigned with starting a magazine for the conservative daily newspaper, "The Washington Times".
He worked as a news reporter for a while at "Insight" (the Washington Times' magazine) until eventually moving up to work for the paper, itself. His prominence in the conservative movement as a journalist got him a job at the American Spectator. During his time at the Spectator, Brock became very well known for filing "hatchet jobs" against then-President Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Clinton) and the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
He wrote the hugely popular book, "The Real Anita Hill", which attempted to paint Anita Hill (who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment while he was being confirmed to the Court) as being a liar who could not be trusted (Brock labeled her "a bit nutty and a bit slutty").
He eventually "broke" with the conservatives and went on to try to make amends for his character assassination and fabrication of the truth while he was in the movement.
He detailed these fabrications and denounced much of his own earlier work in his 2002 book, "Blinded By The Right".
He is now the CEO and founder of "Media Matters for America", a progressive media watchdog group thats mission is to find and correct conservative misinformation in the mainstream press.
- IMDb Mini Biography By: Regis
There is more than one author by this name in the database.
David Brock is a journalist currently living in Washington, DC. He started out in professional journalism with a piece in "The Wall Street Journal", that caught the attention of John Podhoretz, who was assigned with starting a magazine for the conservative daily newspaper, "The Washington Times".
He worked as a news reporter for a while at "Insight" (the Washington Times' magazine) until eventually moving up to work for the paper, itself. His prominence in the conservative movement as a journalist got him a job at the American Spectator. During his time at the Spectator, Brock became very well known for filing "hatchet jobs" against then-President Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Clinton) and the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
He wrote the hugely popular book, "The Real Anita Hill", which attempted to paint Anita Hill (who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment while he was being confirmed to the Court) as being a liar who could not be trusted (Brock labeled her "a bit nutty and a bit slutty").
He eventually "broke" with the conservatives and went on to try to make amends for his character assassination and fabrication of the truth while he was in the movement.
He detailed these fabrications and denounced much of his own earlier work in his 2002 book, "Blinded By The Right".
He is now the CEO and founder of "Media Matters for America", a progressive media watchdog group thats mission is to find and correct conservative misinformation in the mainstream press.
- IMDb Mini Biography By: Regis
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Read
July 19, 2020Aside from the sickening plot and controversy it propagates, the lies is what this book is. Even though the author has said this is a work of fiction fueled by the want of money, I don't understand why this misinforming agenda is still in print? Is this the world we live in? Then it's filthier than anything imaginable. I must say how civil and stable Anita Hill has been through all the filth people have been giving her. Just don't read this, and propagate this please.
February 22, 2008
David Brock..before he jumped to the lunatic left. Et tu, David?
April 22, 2026
BROCK’S LAST ‘CONSERVATIVE’ BOOK---AN ATTACK ON ANITA HILL
David Brock is an American author and commentator. He wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ to this 1993 book, “Like most Americans, I tuned into the Thomas-Hill hearings with an open mind… Watching Anita Hill’s testimony with … other reporters and editors, I recall being one of two who believed that Clarence Thomas might well have been guilty as charged. The others were far more skeptical about Hill’s allegations. By the end of the weekend … I believed Thomas should not have been denied confirmation because Hill had not proven her case… Intuitively, I did not believe the nominee’s categorical denials, but I also did not think solid evidence had been introduced to disprove it.
“This book has its genesis a few weeks later in an assignment from ‘American Spectator’ to write about the leak of Hill’s allegations to the media… In the initial weeks of reporting, however, I was surprised to discover that a number of promising leads were left unpursued by the major media, which seemed to be devoting its resources … to digging up further evidence against Thomas. The leads bore directly on the credibility and veracity of Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations. In March 1992, the ‘Spectator’ published ‘The Real Anita Hill,’ and the response to the piece convinced me that it should be expanded into a book. (In his original article, he described Hill as ‘a bit nutty and a bit slutty.’)
“Though readers may be struck by this book’s seemingly single-minded focus on Hill… Thomas was once again investigated in the course of the research for this book. Nothing was discovered to contradict his sworn testimony or corroborate Hill’s charges… If the evidence had come out the other way, I was fully persuaded to write a book that questioned Thomas’s credibility and character and redeemed Hill’s. Some of this evidence has been obtained under the condition of anonymity for those who revealed it.” (Pg. vii-viii)
In 1992 (after Thomas’s confirmation), “Hill remained silent about her experience. She generally avoided interviews… where she might be asked specific questions about the substance of her charges. She spoke instead, in the language of gender feminism, of the ‘powerlessness of women,’ and our ‘misogynist society.’ She… explained how harassment is rooted in young boy’s heterosexual ‘rites of passage.’” (Pg. 12)
He reports of “an attempt to make Thomas appear hypocritical for criticizing affirmative action policies, since he himself had benefited from them… During the period that Thomas attended college and law school, however, neither school utilized group-based, quota-type affirmative action programs. Rather, they employed recruitment-type affirmative action, actively seeking out minority applicants who were fully qualified, including Thomas. Thomas had criticized the former, not the latter.” (Pg. 75)
About Thomas’s decision not to withdraw, he states, “How did he know Hill had not kept a diary, or written a poignant letter to her parents recounting the harassment? What if someone had seen or heard him harassing Hill in the EEOC Cafeteria?… In short, his own belief that he was innocent is the best explanation of how he could have been confident that her case would not be strong enough to defeat him.” (Pg. 132)
He asks, “If Hill had been complaining about Thomas’s harassment ten years back, why did no word of her complaint surface during those ten years, despite strenuous efforts by Thomas’s detractors to discover damaging information to use against him in prior Senate confirmations?” (Pg. 206)
He notes that Hill passed a polygraph test, but then argues, “The polygraph does not actually detect lies… Shortly after the test results were released, a number of polygraph experts were quoted… Their comments suggested that this test was of little importance to the issue of Hill’s truthfulness.” (Pg. 281)
He notes, “There is no evidence other than Hill’s testimony that Thomas asked Hill for dates… On October 7, the [NY] Times reported, ‘Judge Thomas told the FBI’s investigators that he had asked Ms. Hill out a few times and, after she declined, eventually dropped all advances.’ This created… the ONLY discrepancy in his story that has been identified either during or after the hearings.” (Pg. 293)
He acknowledges, “There probably WAS some basis in Thomas’s conduct toward Hill that sowed the seeds of her decision to leave the agency feeling as though Thomas had severed and betrayed their bond…” (Pg. 312)
Of course, nearly all of us now know that in 2002, Brock published ‘Blinded by the Light: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,’ in which he apologized to Hill (and also admitted that he was gay), and now describes himself as having been “a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine.” He is now a favorite of both the Clintons, and the Democratic left.
David Brock is an American author and commentator. He wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ to this 1993 book, “Like most Americans, I tuned into the Thomas-Hill hearings with an open mind… Watching Anita Hill’s testimony with … other reporters and editors, I recall being one of two who believed that Clarence Thomas might well have been guilty as charged. The others were far more skeptical about Hill’s allegations. By the end of the weekend … I believed Thomas should not have been denied confirmation because Hill had not proven her case… Intuitively, I did not believe the nominee’s categorical denials, but I also did not think solid evidence had been introduced to disprove it.
“This book has its genesis a few weeks later in an assignment from ‘American Spectator’ to write about the leak of Hill’s allegations to the media… In the initial weeks of reporting, however, I was surprised to discover that a number of promising leads were left unpursued by the major media, which seemed to be devoting its resources … to digging up further evidence against Thomas. The leads bore directly on the credibility and veracity of Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations. In March 1992, the ‘Spectator’ published ‘The Real Anita Hill,’ and the response to the piece convinced me that it should be expanded into a book. (In his original article, he described Hill as ‘a bit nutty and a bit slutty.’)
“Though readers may be struck by this book’s seemingly single-minded focus on Hill… Thomas was once again investigated in the course of the research for this book. Nothing was discovered to contradict his sworn testimony or corroborate Hill’s charges… If the evidence had come out the other way, I was fully persuaded to write a book that questioned Thomas’s credibility and character and redeemed Hill’s. Some of this evidence has been obtained under the condition of anonymity for those who revealed it.” (Pg. vii-viii)
In 1992 (after Thomas’s confirmation), “Hill remained silent about her experience. She generally avoided interviews… where she might be asked specific questions about the substance of her charges. She spoke instead, in the language of gender feminism, of the ‘powerlessness of women,’ and our ‘misogynist society.’ She… explained how harassment is rooted in young boy’s heterosexual ‘rites of passage.’” (Pg. 12)
He reports of “an attempt to make Thomas appear hypocritical for criticizing affirmative action policies, since he himself had benefited from them… During the period that Thomas attended college and law school, however, neither school utilized group-based, quota-type affirmative action programs. Rather, they employed recruitment-type affirmative action, actively seeking out minority applicants who were fully qualified, including Thomas. Thomas had criticized the former, not the latter.” (Pg. 75)
About Thomas’s decision not to withdraw, he states, “How did he know Hill had not kept a diary, or written a poignant letter to her parents recounting the harassment? What if someone had seen or heard him harassing Hill in the EEOC Cafeteria?… In short, his own belief that he was innocent is the best explanation of how he could have been confident that her case would not be strong enough to defeat him.” (Pg. 132)
He asks, “If Hill had been complaining about Thomas’s harassment ten years back, why did no word of her complaint surface during those ten years, despite strenuous efforts by Thomas’s detractors to discover damaging information to use against him in prior Senate confirmations?” (Pg. 206)
He notes that Hill passed a polygraph test, but then argues, “The polygraph does not actually detect lies… Shortly after the test results were released, a number of polygraph experts were quoted… Their comments suggested that this test was of little importance to the issue of Hill’s truthfulness.” (Pg. 281)
He notes, “There is no evidence other than Hill’s testimony that Thomas asked Hill for dates… On October 7, the [NY] Times reported, ‘Judge Thomas told the FBI’s investigators that he had asked Ms. Hill out a few times and, after she declined, eventually dropped all advances.’ This created… the ONLY discrepancy in his story that has been identified either during or after the hearings.” (Pg. 293)
He acknowledges, “There probably WAS some basis in Thomas’s conduct toward Hill that sowed the seeds of her decision to leave the agency feeling as though Thomas had severed and betrayed their bond…” (Pg. 312)
Of course, nearly all of us now know that in 2002, Brock published ‘Blinded by the Light: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,’ in which he apologized to Hill (and also admitted that he was gay), and now describes himself as having been “a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine.” He is now a favorite of both the Clintons, and the Democratic left.
April 7, 2019
Informative book - scary in that game plan opponents of Clarence Thomas apparently used to derail his nomination sounds exactly like to one recently used in an attempt to defeat Brett Kavanaugh. I thought Brock painted a convincing picture of both how Anita Hill was used by left as well as vendetta she had for Thomas and his political ideology. Ironically I checked her website which says that Brock has subsequently admitted to her that he got it wrong and apologized. I checked his website and there was no mention of that. If he does feel as though he got it wrong in this 400 page detailed description of the hearing and surrounding events I wish he would clarify. Book was written in 1993.
August 9, 2026
Found this at a thrift store and read out of morbid curiosity. This is a sort of second-order horror in which the book itself as an object and the entire apparatus of its production is more terrifying than the absolute dreck within.
November 29, 2009
Very informative companion to the hearings for those that like myself who listened to the hearing. Moderately well written.
January 11, 2012
The book was great and well researched.
I have not read him since he turned left, but I think I should, he backs up his stuff with a lot of citations and quotes.
I have not read him since he turned left, but I think I should, he backs up his stuff with a lot of citations and quotes.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews