Significant Moments: Isolated But Powerful Figures

The Jew has therefore done exactly the same as the father. He has imposed the rule of the father, which explains why he particularly has been chosen by the anti-Semite for the abreaction of his Oedipus conflict. The Jew represents the father, and from that perspective we can understand the various aspects of the anti-Semite's behaviour. . . .

It would seem that the relation between certain brotherhoods and the Jew reproduces that which existed between the prehistoric brotherhoods . . . and the father. Brotherhoods banded together to fight the father's power. As such the brotherhoods fight against the Jew as they have always fought, and still fight, against the father. One might use this hypothesis in trying to understand better the youthful 'gangs' that give so many headaches to parents, police, and teachers. It would seem that what excites so much rebellion against the father is consciousness of the fact that their very union is charged with oedipal aggression, which therefore increases their guilt. The anti-Semite projects that guilt on to the Jew. . . .

During the Middle Ages the secret brotherhoods (the corporations or early trade unions) excluded the Jews from nearly all trades, and if the Jews were sometimes protected it was always by certain isolated but powerful personalities, in a sense paternal figures, never by the brotherhoods themselves.
Bela Grunberger, The Anti-Semite and the Oedipal Conflict.

When I worked at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, I think the word on the street was that I was being protected by the firm founder, Bob Strauss. At least, that's what I suspected some people thought.

I know that when I worked at Hogan & Hartson, in the firm's Computer Applications Department, under supervisor Sheryl Ferguson, there was a perception among employees that Sheryl Ferguson was protecting one employee, Matthew Allendar. On February 12, 1987, Sheryl Ferguson announced to the department's employees that she was resigning from the firm. A coworker, named Mary Jane Coolen, said to me: "Once she's gone, he won't last a minute. We'll see to that."

Is it possible that there was a perception that if Bob Strauss ever left the firm, I would become vulnerable? It's possible. Some people think the darndest things.

I do know this. I was fired by Akin Gump almost exactly two months after Bob Strauss resigned from the partnership to become U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Bob Strauss left the firm in about August 1991. I was terminated in late October 1991. Of course, I set the ball in motion by complaining to management that I was a target of job harassment. If I had kept my mouth shut and never complained, I wouldn't have been fired.

But why did I complain when I did? Is it possible that the pressures were becoming especially intense beginning in June 1991, after President George H.W. Bush announced the Strauss nomination? Perhaps.

I do know that if I were a paranoid person I might have some suspicions about things that went on in the Litigation Support Group where I worked during the summer of 1991.

Coincidence: I worked in a cubicle next to Sherri Ann Patrick from April 1991 till the summer of 1991. Sherri Ann Patrick used to engage in noxious behaviors including loud telephone conversations. On one occasion another employee posted revealing photos of male models all over Sherri Ann Patrick's work station. Sherri Ann Patrick was later promoted to the Legal Assistant Program.

Coincidence: I was reassigned (for some unknown reason) to work in a cubicle next to Lutheria Harrison some time during the summer of 1991. Lutheria Harrison used to engage in noxious behaviors including loud telephone conversations. Lutheria Harrison was later promoted to the Legal Assistant Program.

Is it possible that there was some quid-pro-quo arrangement between someone in the Legal Assistant Program -- the "brotherhood" -- and employees in the Litigation Support Group? "If you do this for me, I'll help you get a promotion."

Who knows? I don't like to impute sinister plans and conspiracies to people. People are far more spontaneous in their behavior than paranoid people are able to accept.

In about early August 1991, just weeks before Bob Strauss left the firm, I was assigned to the substantive task of data retrieval for the client Hoechst-Celanese. Maybe that was just a coincidence.

I do suspect that, in any event, life would have become even more difficult for me at the firm in the period after August 1991. The public perception might have been that my position in the firm had become vulnerable in the absence of a powerful protector.