Alternative Insight
The Legacy of Anita Hill
In the Senate hearings for ClarenceThomas' nomination to the Supreme Court, the Democrat Party failed to capitalize on Thomas' lack of qualifications. The leaders sensed they could not prevent him from becoming a Supreme Court Associate Justice and tried to derail Thomas' nomination by exposing questionable moral lapses on his part.
Anita Hill became a catalyst for the Democrat attack on Thomas. To those allied with feminist causes, Anita Hill emerged as a heroine. To those who wanted racism and sexism to be approached with an eye to solutions rather than an ear for entertainment, and also found it reprehensible that two African American personalities were pitted against one another in a political game, Anita Hill's testimony and actions resulted in a loss of conviction and respect for the liberal wing of the Democrat party.
A short review of the hearings
President George Bush tried to change the 1991 Supreme Court appearance by nominating Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court Justice seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall. Whereas, Marshall had been a black leader who championed causes that promoted the interests of African-Americans, Clarence Thomas was a black leader who opposed affirmative action and other civil rights causes. Bush stated that he nominated Thomas on his merits and not because he was an African-American. He intended to intimidate liberals into supporting a black judge who opposed black leaders' agenda.The Democrat party and liberal establishment anguished at the thought that someone with an extreme right wing philosophy would be making judicial decisions on laws that determined social progress, even if he was black. They were determined to block Thomas' nomination.
After the Senate Committee that reviewed Thomas' nomination voted 7-7, a neutral-recommendation, the Democrats felt they needed more ammunition to prevent the nomination. The sudden awareness that critical information concerning the character of the nominee had been bypassed by the FBI and was now available to the committee alerted the Democrats to postpone the vote. Realizing that written comments were not sufficient and only a witness could provide legal evidence, those against Judge Thomas' appointment managed to pressure a reluctant Professor Anita Hill to come forward in person and present her testimony regarding Thomas' character. She had been told that Judge Thomas would withdraw his nomination after he would learn she was prepared to testify. Professor Hill was led to believe that she could stop the nomination without going public. But this was not to be the case.
And what was this testimony? Although highlighted as a case of sexual harassment, Anita Hill intended her revelations to examine Judge Thomas' character. In an interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span's Booknotes, November 23, 1998, author Hill stated:"..when I went to Washington, what I thought I was doing was providing information about the character and fitness of the individual. I did not see my role as going to Washington, DC, to file a complaint about sexual harassment. And I think the-- tables were turned on me and it became, `Unless she can support her claim of sexual harassment, then we cannot recognize what she has to say,' and it put a--really an improper burden on me. And the standard really should have been whether or not I had credible evidence that went to the character and fitness of this particular nominee. And really as--when I provided that credible evidence, as long as it went to the character and fitness and long as it was relevant, I maintained that whether it came to the level of a complaint--a legal complaint for sexual harassment--really was not the issue. The issue was the character and fitness of this individual for this particular office."
Professor Hill alleged Clarence Thomas had invited her to go out with him socially and had discussed sex with her in a vivid manner. He had not used his superior position to gain advantage over her. He embarrassed and disturbed her and showed a weakness for pornography.
Considering (1) that the suggested behavior occurred almost 10 years before the Hearing, (2) that the Committee had no evidence to show a consistent repeat behavior (one witness, Ms. Angela Wright stated she had also received similar remarks from Thomas, but was not called by the Committee), (3) that Anita Hill had no witnesses to any of the conversations, and (4) that the Committee knew fellow workers in Judge Thomas' office would testify on his behalf and refute Anita Hill's testimony ( As one of many examples, Diane Holt, Judge Thomas' secretary during Anita Hill's employment testified: "At no time did Professor Hill intimate, not even in the most subtle of ways, that Judge Thomas was asking her out or subjecting her to the crude, abusive conversations that have been described. Nor did I ever discern any discomfort, when professor Hill was in Judge Thomas' presence.), how could the committee hope to prove her charges? And if they couldn't prove her charges, why did they engage in this type of strategy to defeat the nomination?
The evidence available to the Committee for proving the charges were only Anita Hill's credibility, and three persons, all of whom were notoriously against Thomas, and who claimed Anita Hill had mentioned the charges to them. Although her testimony appeared to be trustworthy, it was reduced to a "he said/she said" confrontation and had obvious failures.
(1) Despite his alleged behavior, Professor Hill followed Clarence Thomas from the U.S. Department of Education to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EOEC) . She claimed she believed she would lose her position at the Department of Education. She was a career employee and had more security than the EOEC job.
(2) She continued working with Judge Thomas rather than obtaining another position.
(3) She offered privacy as the reason no one else was party to his behavior. He only spoke in a lewd manner behind closed doors. Other office workers testified that Clarence Thomas never closed his doors and always made certain that the door was open when he was with someone.
Judge Clarence Thomas received Senate approval to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by the slim vote of 52-48. Senators Chuck Robb, Alan Dixon, David Boren, and Richard Shelby, who became a Republican, were the only Democrats who voted for the nomination. A careless mistake the Democrats made in their last-minute attempt to derail the nomination was their lack of scrutiny of Anita Hill's credentials.
Who is Anita Hill?
Efforts had been made to portrayAnita Hill as a liberal thinking, civil rights activist concerned with feminist issues. At the time of the hearings, this characterization did not appear to be accurate. Not until after the 1991 hearings, and after receiving support from feminist groups, did Professor Hill become involved in feminist issues and activist causes.
After graduating from Yale University in 1980, Anita Hill went to work for the law firm of Ward, Hardraker, and Ross. Although employment records have not been examined, associates at the firm indicated she had been requested to leave after 11 months. She then joined the ultra-conservative, affirmative action denying, Judge Clarence Thomas, Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, at the Department of Education. She followed him to the EOEC. In the spring of 1983, an opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts University opened up. In Professor Hill's words: "I participated in a seminar -- taught an afternoon session and seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether I would be interested in further pursuing a career in teaching, beginning at Oral Roberts University." Although claiming she wanted to pursue Civil Rights law, she taught at a well-known Evangelist university, that had association with religious right causes and issues. In 1987, she joined the faculty at Oklahoma University, teaching commercial law. On March 9, 1995, Ms. Hill announced her resignation from the university. However, after taking an unpaid leave during which she co-authored a book, she resumed her teaching post in September of the same year. Race, Gender, and Power in America, co-edited by Hill and Emma Coleman Jordan, was published in 1995.
Professor Hill again left the University of Oklahoma at the end of the fall 1996 semester, making it permanent in 1997. She remained in Norman, Oklahoma except for temporary positions at the University of California-Berkeley and Brandeis, stints on Court TV and paid public speaking appearances. In 1998 her account of the events before, during, and after the Thomas hearing, Speaking Truth to Power, was published.
Anita Hill is now a professor of law, social policy and women's studies at Brandeis University.
Professor Anita Hill has undoubtedly changed her social philosophy and viewpoints over the years. However, in 1991, her career direction was sketchy, her viewpoints not well known, and her persona undefined.
The Legacy of Anita Hill
Women rallied to Anita Hill and considered her willingness to express herself openly on delicate issues as a courageous effort. According to California Senator Dianne Feinstein, Hill's experience galvanized a record number of women (170) to run for Congress in the 1992 elections, resulting in four new women being elected to the U.S. Senate and a 68 percent increase - from 28 to 47 - in women in the House of Representatives. Her appearance before the Committee placed sexual harassment on the national agenda. The EOEC reported that 10,522 people filed sexual harassment complaints in 1992, 50% more than in 1991. In addition, following the Hill-Thomas hearings, the Senate enacted into law a previously vetoed civil rights bill that allows sexual harassment victims to "sue for damages in the amount of up to $300,000 per complaint."The immediate benefits of Professor Hill's testimony before the Senate Hearing committee have dissipated. The intensive focus on workplace harassment displaced other feminist causes and became irritating rather than liberating. Scandal, overreaching puritanism and excessive lawyer fees reflect the present attitudes on workplace harassment. The sexual politics that emanated from the hearings divided male and female citizens rather than uniting them in a common battle against racism and sexism.
The Senate Committee's failure to gather all the facts and hold closed hearings before going public angered many people. The losing Democrat strategy made a spectacle of the Senate and uselessly defamed the characters of both Judge Thomas and Professor Hill. Instead of successfully attacking Thomas' lack of qualifications; the fact that he had never argued a case in court and promoted a biased and reactionary social agenda, the Democrats focused on whether he had engaged in pornography and made vulgar remarks. A proper strategy that attacked Thomas' qualifications might have defeated him. Instead, his record became superfluous and his moral character became all important. Committee Chairman, Democrat Biden, verified the over-riding importance of Thomas' moral character in the confirmation, when he stated; "Any doubt (of Hill's testimony) should be resolved in favor of Judge Thomas."
The puritanical, hypocritical and counterproductive strategy of the liberal element of the Democrat Party disturbed many of those camped on the political edge of the liberal wing. Although not proven to be due to the hearings, just as the elections of women have not been proven to be due to the hearings, the post-hearing political climate noted an enhanced drift towards the political center, skepticism of liberal efforts, and the feeling that women's causes have become insular and one-sided. These are the principal legacies of Professor Anita Hill's testimony at the Senate hearings for Judge Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court.
alternativeinsight
august 1, 2001HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE 
alternativeinsight@earthlink.net
