Speaking Truth to Power

by Anita Hill

  Whereas Hatch’s overstatement lumps false and legitimate claims together in the minds of potential claimants and the public, Specter erroneously elevates the burden in a sexual harassment complaint to some tortious or criminal act, so that individuals who have not experienced physical contact or outright coercion at the hands of their harassers may wrongly conclude that they have no cause of action. Both statements are unfortunate reflections of the senators’ ignorance, passed into the public domain as wisdom. Such flawed analyses from the mouths of public officials are worse than unfortunate on the eve of a hearing in which they are charged as fact finders. After all, since Congress is responsible for passing the legislation aimed at ending racial and gender discrimination in the workplace, the public assumes that members of Congress have some knowledge of those laws. Thus, the public is likely to be swayed when a senator espouses a position on the limits of the laws’ protection. Faulty information, negligently or purposefully spread for partisan reasons, is particularly harmful when its source is a person in public trust.

  As Tuesday, October 8, wore on, pressure mounted for a delay of the Senate vote on the Thomas nomination. Once the Republican senators realized that a hearing on my claim was increasingly likely, the negative rhetoric escalated. The generalized comments and misrepresentations about sexual harassment turned into personal attacks on me. Like the rhetoric of the day popular in today’s political campaigns, the pro-Thomas rhetoric was based more on aspersions to me than enthusiastic arguments for the candidate.

  As the Senate debated a postponement of the vote, Senator Hatch displayed his ignorance of the issue of sexual harassment as well as his hostility to my claim. “She isn’t some young, high school secretary,” he said. “She’s a Yale law graduate interested in civil rights and these issues and an expert on them.” Over the course of the two preceding days, Hatch had declared my claim a political ploy. He had even accused Senator Metzenbaum of leaking the confidential FBI report to the press, though he later apologized for this unsupported accusation. While declaring that he took sexual harassment seriously and was sympathetic to its victims, Hatch had decided days before my testimony that my statements about my experience were untrue, apparently, at least in part, because I was too old and/or too educated to be sexually harassed.

  When Senator Hatch said that I was not “some young, high school secretary” but “a Yale law graduate,” his information was not faulty, but the conclusions he apparently drew from it were. First, Hatch may have meant that harassment is directed only at young women whose education does not include a college degree. In fact, women of all age groups and educational levels are victims of sexual harassment. And though I was twenty-five when I worked for Clarence Thomas, well within the range of twenty-two to thirty-five whom harassers tend to target, women in their forties, fifties, and sixties are also sexually harassed. Nor does a woman’s education or profession exempt her. Dr. Frances Conley, a neurosurgeon at Stanford University, left her position there after years of experiencing sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination. One of the most patently offensive incidents occurred when one of her male colleagues fondled her under the operating table during a surgical procedure she was performing. In a 1989 survey, 52 percent of the women engineers polled reported that sexual harassment was the greatest frustration of their work. By suggesting that only high school secretaries are subject to sexual harassment, Hatch painted a picture of harassment victims that was misinformed and patronizing. He promoted a myth that excluded most of the workingwomen in the country from his sympathy, since most who experience harassment do not fit Hatch’s description.

  Hatch may also have been implying that lawyers, particularly those who graduate from Yale, are more likely to raise complaints about harassment than other women. Again he was wrong. While lawyers often defend the rights of others, there is no evidence that they are more forthcoming in complaints about violations of their own civil rights. I know of only one major case in which a woman lawyer brought a claim of sex discrimination against her employer, Hishon v. King and Spaulding, in 1980.

  Most sexual harassment cases do not involve women lawyers as plaintiffs. Yet one should not conclude that sexual harassment does not exist in the profession or that women lawyers are not its targets. In a 1991 survey conducted by the American Bar Association’s Committee on the Status of Women, four of five women lawyers said that they had experienced or witnessed incidents of sexual harassment in their workplace. Surveys from around the country support this finding. And women versed in civil rights law are no more likely to bring claims than other women lawyers. In 1994 a group of female attorneys with the NAACP, the oldest civil rights organization in the country, complained publicly for the first time about a pattern of gender bias that had existed in the NAACP for years. Their allegations included harassment-related charges as well as charges that women were not paid comparably to men in similar positions and were not promoted at the same rate as men. Despite their familiarity with civil rights law, these women did not sue to complain about violations of their civil rights. For years they attempted to deal with the matter internally. There is no factual basis for Hatch’s implied assertion that women lawyers either are not victims of discrimination or are more likely to complain immediately.

  Hatch may have been making an even more troubling, if veiled, assertion in his statement from the Senate floor: that well-educated older women do not deserve sympathy even if they are harassed. While women in these categories may be in a better position to complain about sexual harassment, they are still subject to the social and legal constraints that compel other women to remain silent. As court cases and empirical studies show, neither education nor professional achievement nor age insulates a woman from the attacks on character often waged if she raises a sexual harassment claim.

  Hatch’s misguided observation reminds me of a comment attributed in 1981 to Phyllis Schlafly of the conservative Eagle Foundation, who claims that men hardly ever ask sexual favors of women from whom the certain answer is no. Virtuous women are seldom accosted by unwelcomed sexual propositions or familiarities, obscene talk, or profane language. Accordingly, since virtuous women so seldom experience harassment, the numerous claims must be raised by women without virtue and thus society should not be concerned about it.

  Stretching the imagination to assume that Schlafly is correct about the experiences of the virtuous woman does not resolve the problem. Schlafly still misses the point that the law is in place to protect a victim’s civil rights, not her virtue. The issue of virtue has no bearing on the question of the law’s application. Similarly, my age and education had no bearing on whether the behavior Thomas engaged in was offensive. After all, we do not require that a man who complains about a mugging show that he is a good person or even that he acted sensibly to prevent the mugging. Nor should we care in the case of a mugging whether the victim has other resources. We ask only that he show that he was mugged. Very often we conclude that he was by simply taking his word for it. Hatch and Schlafly reduce the issue of harassment to the question of who is most likable rather than whether there has been a violation of a person’s civil rights. Schlafly stacks the deck by declaring that victims lack virtue. Senator Hatch did likewise by implicitly limiting the right to complain to young women with only a high school education.

  Unfortunately, it is true that society is often less sympathetic to victims of sexual harassment who in its assessment ought to be able to take care of themselves. Hatch played on that lack of sympathy and missed the point altogether that the issue of the hearing was not sympathy for me but whether an individual who had engaged in harassing behavior should be appointed to a lifetime term to the country’s court of last resort. Here again, context is important. If the character and fitness of the nominee are the central issue, the age, education, or profession of the complaining witness should not matter. For even if society is willing to say that it does not care about a particular category of harassment victims, it still must ca
re about the qualities of a person who is to be appointed to the Supreme Court. In the debate about whether to delay the confirmation vote, Senator Jim Sasser of Tennessee reminded his colleagues of their “most profound responsibility to advise and consent” and their obligation “to the character of the judicial branch.” The comments emanating from Washington in the days leading up to the hearing show that some in the Senate had lost sight of both.

  Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, also forcefully reminded her Senate colleagues of the message they would send to the American public if they decided to proceed with the vote. In clear terms, she warned them about wielding the Senate’s power to attack a woman and pointed out the irony of wielding that power in the context of a claim about sexual harassment—behavior that is itself about the abuse of power.

  What disturbs me as much as the allegations themselves is that the United States Senate appears not to take the charge of sexual harassment seriously. We have indicated that it was not serious enough to be raised as a question in the Judiciary Committee. We did not think it serious enough to apprise the Senators themselves that this was an allegation.… And then over here we have Professor Anita Hill.… She has come forth with pain because reliving this situation has indeed been extremely painful for her. If we do not give full airing to this, she will always be the woman who made these allegations. And now, we face the fact that even yesterday, Professor Hill was attacked on the Senate floor with unprecedented venom. A woman was attacked on the Senate floor with unprecedented venom when she was herself talking about being a victim. We owe it to Professor Hill not to attack her on the Senate floor, but to submit her to a line of question about the events that she alleges to see if in fact, they are true.…

  To anybody out there who wants to be a whistle-blower, the message is: Don’t blow that whistle because you’ll be left out there by yourself. To any victim of sexual harassment or sexual abuse or sexual violence either in the street or even in her own home, the message is nobody’s going to take you seriously, not even the United States Senate.

  While the senators displayed a lack of empathy with the experience of sexual harassment from the point of view of the target, they showed that they were well versed in the diversionary tactics used to attack individuals who raise claims of sexual harassment and to avoid any scrutiny of the alleged harassers. In the days before the hearing, senators denigrated my claim maliciously and with total disregard for its validity. Senator Strom Thurmond called the claim the “rantings of a disgruntled employee who had been reduced to lying.” Senator Danforth called it “garbage” and “sleazy,” expressing his concern for the sanctity of the U.S. Senate: “we can’t have this body known as the trash dump of American politics.” Senator Hatch described the charges as “trumped up.” President Bush and his staff got involved as well. Marlin Fitzwater, veteran journalist and White House spokesperson at Kennebunkport, called the charges an attempted “smear,” and the president summed up the attitude of the entire lot when he declared that he was “not in the least concerned” about the charges.

  Surprisingly, the Senate voted unanimously to delay the vote on Thomas and hold a hearing on my claim. But during the debate Senator Danforth had given the speech that most likely compelled his colleagues to do so. He revealed that Judge Thomas himself wanted the hearing held to “clear his name.” In hindsight I think the Senate’s consent to the hearing was quite cynical. I believe that the Republicans who voted to hold the hearing did so because they felt that the idea of a public hearing would be so threatening that I would withdraw my complaint, or that even if I did appear they would be able to destroy me.

  The tone was set for the hearing by many irresponsible and insupportable accusations. Hostile senators primed the public to despise my claim and the law from which it arose. The press contributed by publishing the misinformation with little attempt at balance. A 1992 Columbia Journalism Review study showed that the press coverage was biased in favor of Thomas, with his proponents quoted three times more often than those who favored a hearing on my claim. Thomas’ family life and personal background were explored quite positively by the press for weeks prior to the leak. Before the hearing the press gave little attention to my background. The New York Times carried a major story about me featuring a photograph of my parents, but it was the only paper to do so. Only after the hearing did the press explore my background, and then only to prove or disprove this or that theory about my charges. With nothing to contradict them, hostile senators could portray me in any manner they chose. Once the hearing started, those same senators could paint my claim as bizarre or aberrant and therefore incredible, since credible information about sexual harassment was also absent from the press coverage.

  The hearing had not started, but already five members of the Judiciary Committee had blasted my claim publicly. Despite the many errors in their statements, the press continued to pay great deference to the senators. Peter Jennings described them as “profoundly intelligent men.” No member of the committee expressed a belief in the veracity of my claim. Those who did not actively campaign against it preferred to remain neutral.

  I realized that I would go to Washington for a hearing but had only the sense from the statements of Senators Simpson, DeConcini, and Specter of what reaction to expect. David Boren, the Democratic senator from Oklahoma and a graduate of the University of Oklahoma School of Law, had not returned calls from Dean David Swank, who had begun calling him on Monday, October 7. Surely by now Senator Boren knew the reason for the call. But in an unmistakably political move Boren had already declared his support for Thomas, even before the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded its first hearing evaluating Thomas’ competency for the position. Yet, neither Boren nor anyone on his staff has ever discussed any matter related to the hearing with me. Interestingly, on my subsequent return to Oklahoma, Lyle Boren, the senator’s father and a former politician, made a concerted effort to contact me, calling the law school more than once until he reached me. The elder Mr. Boren, now deceased, apologized to me and told me of his embarrassment at his son’s position during the hearing.

  David Swank had also contacted Senator Don Nickles, Republican from Oklahoma, who did return the call, though he supported the Thomas nomination as well. During our conversation on Tuesday, October 8, he seemed uninterested in my claim. He talked instead about the difficulty of traveling from Oklahoma City to Washington, D.C. He also invited me and my family to visit his office for a tour if we were “out sight-seeing during your trip to Washington for the hearing.” At the time, I declined his offer, and I rather doubt that I will be asked again. It was clear that despite the fact I was a voter in Oklahoma, I had no representation in Washington from either Boren or Nickles.

  During the evening of October 8, I received a telephone call from Senator Joseph Biden, who formally informed me of the hearing. It was to be a public hearing that would convene “as early as Friday.” This left me less than seventy-two hours to prepare. “Harriet Grant will help you with the witnesses,” Biden said.

  “How many witnesses will I be allowed to call?” I wanted more specifics than I had gotten from the committee before.

  “Anita, I mean Professor, I assume that in addition to your testimony we will hear from Ms. Hoerchner,” he responded. “You both will be subpoenaed by the committee. I strongly recommend that you contact someone who can talk about sexual harassment. I understand that Judge Thomas plans to call two coworkers as well as women who worked around him,” he added.

  Thomas seemed much more organized than I. I asked how the hearing would be conducted.

  “Well, at this point the only thing we can do is to conduct an open hearing,” he said, almost as if I were to blame. “I give you my word that I acted only to protect your confidentiality.” He began to outline the measures he had taken to ensure that the press would not get my statement. But by now the leak of my statement was of little consequence to me. I had to begin the business of preparing to present my testimony
to a hostile panel of senators.

  “The only mistake I made, in my view, is to not realize how much pressure you were under. I should have been more aware,” Senator Biden confessed over the telephone line. “… Aw kiddo I feel for you. I wish I weren’t the chairman, I’d come to be your lawyer,” he added when I told him I had not secured legal counsel. I fought the urge to respond as I furiously took notes of our conversation, hoping for some useful information. Little concrete information was forthcoming. As he closed the conversation, I could almost see him flashing his instant smile to convince both of us that the experience would be agreeable.

  Though Senator Biden had offered members of his staff to assist me, including Grant and Ron Klain, past experience suggested that the staff would not be very helpful. That meant that I had to contact Sue Hoerchner myself and prepare “character witnesses” for a hearing that might begin fifteen hundred miles away “as early as Friday.” Again, where process was concerned, I was at a complete disadvantage. And after making some telephone calls with very little result, I gave up. The whole thing was overwhelming. The only good news of the evening came when my brother Ray called to say that he would be in Norman the next day and would travel with me to Washington.