TLIAW: The Confirmation

The Confirmation.

how_we_know_clarence_thomas_did_it.jpg
 
TESTIMONY OF ANITA F. HILL, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, NORMAN, OK


The following abbreviated transcript is all per OTL. Its purpose is two-fold: First, it is the beginning of the testimony in this ATL as well. Second, the selections included serve to highlight the important details of the testimony of Anita F. Hill in order to remind those who lived during this time and to inform those who did not of the facts of the allegations of Anita F. Hill against Clarence Thomas, nominee for Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Chairman: Professor Hill, please make whatever statement you would wish to make to the committee.

Ms. Hill: Mr. Chairman -

The Chairman: Excuse me. I instruct the officers not to let anyone in or out of that door while Professor Hill is making her statement.

Ms. Hill: Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee, my name is Anita F. Hill, and I am a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma. I was born on a farm in Okmulgee County, OK, in 1956. I am the youngest of 13 children. I had my early education in Okmulgee County. My father, Albert Hill, is a farmer in that area. My mother's name is Erma Hill. She is also a farmer and a housewife. My childhood was one of a lot of hard work and not much money, but it was one of solid family affection as represented by my parents. I was reared in a religious atmosphere in the Baptist faith, and I have been a member of the Antioch Baptist Church, in Tulsa, OK, since 1983. It is a very warm part of my life at the present time. For my undergraduate work, I went to Oklahoma State University, and graduated from there in 1977. I am attaching to the statement a copy of my resume for further details of my education.

The Chairman: It will be included in the record.

Ms. Hill: Thank you.

I graduated from the university with academic honors and proceeded to the Yale Law School, where I received my J.D. degree in 1980.

Upon graduation from law school, I became a practicing lawyer with the Washington, DC, firm of Wald, Harkrader & Ross. In 1981, I was introduced to now Judge Thomas by a mutual friend. Judge Thomas told me that he was anticipating a political appointment and asked if I would be interested in working with him. He was, in fact, appointed as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights. After he had taken that post, he asked if I would become his assistant, and I accepted that position.

In my early period there, I had two major projects. First was an article I wrote for Judge Thomas' signature on the education of minority students. The second was the organization of a seminar on high-risk students, which was abandoned, because Judge Thomas transferred to the EEOC, where he became the Chairman of that office.

During this period at the Department of Education, my working relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I had a good deal of responsibility and independence. I thought he respected my work and that he trusted my judgment.

After approximately 3 months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him. What happened next and telling the world about it are the two most difficult things, experiences of my life. It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and a number of sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends.

I declined the invitation to go out socially with him, and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize what at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside of the office. I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so.

I thought that by saying "no" and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks he continued to ask me out on several occasions. He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying "no" to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations which would not have been overheard by anyone else.

My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions, he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects or he might suggest that because of the time pressures of his schedule, we go to lunch to a government cafeteria. After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid.

He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals, and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises, or large breasts involved in various sex acts.

On several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about these subjects. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs. My efforts to change the subject were rarely successful.

Throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time to time asked me for social engagements. My reactions to these conversations was to avoid them by limiting opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations. This was difficult because at the time, I was his only assistant at the Office of Education or Office for Civil Rights.

During the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures and any conversation of his offensive behavior ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial, and professional one.

When Judge Thomas was made chair of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with him. I was asked to do so and I did. The work, itself, was interesting, and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures, which had so troubled me, had ended.

I also faced the realistic fact that I had no alternative job. While I might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm, or at another, I was dedicated to civil rights work and my first choice was to be in that field. Moreover, at that time the Department of Education, itself, was a dubious venture. President Reagan was seeking to abolish the entire department.

For my first months at the EEOC, where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random, and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him, to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember him saying that "some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn't go out with him."

He began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanor in his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC.

One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table, at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

On other occasions he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex. At this point, late 1982, I began to feel severe stress on the job. I began to be concerned that Clarence Thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me.

In January 1983, I began looking for another job. I was handicapped because I feared that if he found out he might make it difficult for me to find other employment, and I might be dismissed from the job I had.

Another factor that made my search more difficult was that this was during a period of a hiring freeze in the Government. In February 1983, I was hospitalized for 5 days on an emergency basis for acute stomach pain which I attributed to stress on the job. Once out of the hospital. I became more committed to find other employment and sought further to minimize my contact with Thomas.

This became easier when Allyson Duncan became office director because most of my work was then funneled through her and I had contact with Clarence Thomas mostly in staff meetings.

In the spring of 1983, an opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts University opened up. I participated in a seminar, taught an afternoon session in a seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether I would be interested in pursuing a career in teaching, beginning at Oral Roberts University. I agreed to take the job, in large part, because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at the EEOC due to Judge Thomas.

When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now, I would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him. I told him that I still preferred not to do so. At some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of the term. When I declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation but only if it was at the very end of a working day.

On, as I recall, the last day of my employment at the EEOC in the summer of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas. We went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. We talked about the work that I had done both at Education and at the EEOC. He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that I had done for him while we were at the Office for Civil Rights. Finally he made a comment that I will vividly remember. He said, that if I ever told anyone of his behavior that it would ruin his career. This was not an apology, nor was it an explanation. That was his last remark about the possibility of our going out, or reference to his behavior.

In July 1983, I left the Washington, DC, area and have had minimal contacts with Judge Clarence Thomas since. I am, of course, aware from the press that some questions have been raised about conversations I had with Judge Clarence Thomas after I left the EEOC.

From 1983 until today I have seen Judge Thomas only twice. On one occasion I needed to get a reference from him and on another, he made a public appearance at Tulsa. On one occasion he called me at home and we had an inconsequential conversation. On one occasion he called me without reaching me and I returned the call without reaching him and nothing came of it. I have, at least on three occasions been asked to act as a conduit to him for others.

I knew his secretary, Diane Holt. We had worked together both at EEOC and Education. There were occasions on which I spoke to her and on some of these occasions, undoubtedly, I passed on some casual comment to then, Chairman Thomas. There were a series of calls in the first 3 months of 1985, occasioned by a group in Tulsa which wished to have a civil rights conference. They wanted Judge Thomas to be the speaker and enlisted my assistance for this purpose.

I did call in January and February to no effect and finally suggested to the person directly involved, Susan Cahall, that she put the matter into her own hands and call directly. She did so in March 1985.

In connection with that March invitation, Ms. Cahall wanted conference materials for the seminar, and some research was needed. I was asked to try and get the information and did attempt to do so. There was another call about another possible conference in July 1985.

In August 1987, I was in Washington, DC, and I did call Diane Holt. In the course of this conversation she asked me how long I was going to be in town and I told her. It is recorded in the messages as August 15, it was, in fact, August 20. She told me about Judge Thomas' marriage and I did say, congratulations.

It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone, except my closest friends as I have said before. These last few days have been very trying and very hard for me, and it hasn't just been the last few days this week. It has actually been over a month now that I have been under the strain of this issue. Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life, but it is very close to have to live through the experience that occasioned this meeting. I may have used poor judgment early on in my relationship with this issue. I was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely affect my future career. And I did not want, early on, to build all the bridges to the EEOC.

As I said, I may have used poor judgment. Perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I was in the agency or after I had left it, but I must confess to the world that the course that I took seemed the better, as well as the easier approach.

I declined any comment to newspapers, but later when Senate staff asked me about these matters, I felt that I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.

It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. It took no initiative to inform anyone. I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I was asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent.

...​

The Chairman: Now, I have to ask you where each of these events occurred? If you can, to the best of your ability, I would like you to recount for us where each of the incidents that you have mentioned in your opening statement occurred, physically where they occurred.

Ms. Hill: Well, I remember two occasions these incidents occurred at lunch in the cafeteria.

The Chairman: Do you remember which of those two incidents were at lunch, professor?

Ms. Hill: The -

The Chairman: Let me ask this, as an antecedent question: Were you always alone when the alleged conversations would begin or the alleged statements by Judge Thomas would begin?

Ms. Hill: Well, when the incidents occurred in the cafeteria, we were not alone. There were other people in the cafeteria, but because the way the tables were, there were few individuals who were within the immediate area of the conversation.

The Chairman: Of those incidents that occurred in places other than in the cafeteria, which ones occurred in his office?

Ms. Hill: Well, I recall specifically that the incident about the Coke can occurred in his office at the EEOC.

The Chairman: And what was that incident again?

Ms. Hill: The incident with regard to the Coke can, that statement?

The Chairman: Once again for me, please?

Ms. Hill: The incident involved his going to his desk, getting up from a worktable, going to his desk, looking at this can and saying, "Who put pubic hair on my Coke?"

The Chairman: Was anyone else in his office at the time?

Ms. Hill: No.

The Chairman: Was the door closed?

Ms. Hill: I don't recall.

The Chairman: Are there any other incidents that occurred in
his office?

Ms. Hill: I recall at least one instance in his office at the EEOC where he discussed some pornographic material and he brought up the substance or the content of pornographic material.

The Chairman: Again, it is difficult, but for the record, what substance did he bring up in this instance at EEOC in his office? What was the content of what he said?

Ms. Hill: This was a reference to an individual who had a very large penis and he used the name that he had referred to in the pornographic material

The Chairman: Do you recall what it was?

Ms. Hill: Yes; I do. The name that was referred to was Long John Silver.
 
"October 11, 1991, was the most frustrating day of my entire life. I say that with absolutely no hesitation. I watched the other Senators on the Committee - all men - tear apart a woman who was frightened and yet determined. Anita Hill appeared before the Senate to discuss events that had happened to her - events that had threatened her. It seemed to me, however, that none of the men on that Committee were particularly concerned with the allegations being leveraged by Ms. Hill.

"In fact, I remember - as Senator Biden questioned Ms. Hill for specifics about comments Clarence Thomas had made about penis length - looking down the table at the Chairman and seeing Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, seated on Biden's immediate right, fidget in his seat as if he were entirely uncomfortable with the entire line of questioning. Of course, Senator Kennedy was not alone: it has since come out that Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina - the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee - had an African-American daughter out of wedlock. I was sitting on the panel with men of questionable morality in the realm of sexuality. How could they be expected to be a fair jury for Ms. Hill?" - Excerpt from A Washington Life: My Work Challenging the Men's Club by Senator Geraldine A. Ferraro; published by Simon & Schuster in 2011

# # #

TESTIMONY OF ANITA F. HILL, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, NORMAN, OK

The Chairman: Thank you. My time is up, under our agreement. By the way, I might state once again that we have agreed to go back and forth in half-hour conversation on each side; when the principals have finished asking questions, those members who have not been designated to ask questions, since all have been keenly involved and interested in this on both sides, will have an opportunity to ask questions for 5 minutes. But let me now yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter.

Senator Ferraro: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, may I please interrupt briefly?

Senator Specter: Ms. Ferraro, the-

Senator Ferraro: Senator Ferraro. I am as equal a member of this body as your are, Senator.

The Chairman: Senator Ferraro, what is it?

Senator Specter: Mr. Chairman-

The Chairman: Please, Senator. Senator Ferraro?

Senator Ferraro: Mr. Chairman, I might ask if it would be possible to amend the rules so as to allow for complete questioning from all members of the Committee. I hope that my opportunity to ask a question of the witness will not be limited in such a manner.

The Chairman: We'll come back to that at a later point. Senator Specter, you have the floor.

Senator Ferraro: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman-

The Chairman: The Senator from New York will yield. Senator Specter.

Senator Specter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Hill, I have been asked to question you by Senator Thurmond, the ranking Republican, but I do not regard this as an adversary proceeding.

Ms. Hill: Thank you.

Senator Specter: My duties run to the people of Pennsylvania, who have elected me, and in the broader sense, as a U.S. Senator to constitutional government and the Constitution. My purpose, as is the purpose of the hearing, generally, is to find out what happened.

Ms. Hill: Certainly.

Senator Specter: We obviously have a matter of enormous importance from a lot of points of view. The integrity of the Court is very important. It is very important that the Supreme Court not have any member who is tainted or have a cloud. In our society we can accept unfavorable decisions from the Court if we think they are fairly arrived at.

The Chairman: Senator, excuse me for interrupting but some of our colleagues on this end, cannot hear you. Can you pull that closer? I know that makes it cumbersome.

Senator Specter: I have tried carefully to avoid that.

The Chairman: Well, it worked.

Senator Specter: You can hear me all right, can you not, ProfessorHill?

Ms. Hill: Yes, I can.

# # #​

"Senator Specter honed in on an assault on Ms. Hill's credibility as a witness. I was at the end of the table - at first struggling to hear the Senator - as he began what can only be described as an assault on Anita Hill's character. Of course, we needed - as a Committee - to resolve whether or not these allegations were true, but there is no doubt in my mind that Senator Specter took this too far as a way of appealing the Bush Administration who wanted as easy a confirmation as they could receive for their nominee. I was appalled. I sat on the end shaking my head and angrily clicking my pen. I was in absolute dismay at what I was witnessing." - Excerpt from A Washington Life: My Work Challenging the Men's Club by Senator Geraldine A. Ferraro; published by Simon & Schuster in 2011

# # #

TESTIMONY OF ANITA F. HILL, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, NORMAN, OK

Senator Specter: Let me pick up on Senator Biden's line of questioning. You referred to the "oddest episode I remember" then talked the Coke incident. When you made your statement to the FBI, why was it that that was omitted if it were so strong in your mind and such an odd incident?

Ms. Hill: I spoke to the FBI agent and I told them the nature of comments, and did not tell them more specifics. I referred to the specific comments that were in my statement.

Senator Specter: Well, when you talked to the FBI agents, you did make specific allegations about specific sexual statements made by Judge Thomas.

Ms. Hill: Yes.

Senator Specter: So that your statement to the FBI did have specifics.

Ms. Hill: Yes.

Senator Specter: And my question to you, why, if this was such an odd episode, was it not included when you talked to the FBI?

Ms. Hill: I do not know.

Senator Specter: I would like you to take a look, if you would, at your own statement in the first full paragraph of page 5, on the last line and ask you why that was not included in your statement to the FBI?

Ms. Hill: Excuse me, my copy is not—would you refer to that passage again?

Senator Specter: Yes, of course. Referring to page 5 of the statement which you provided to the committee, there is a strong allegation in the last sentence. My question to you is, why did you not tell that to the FBI?

Ms. Hill: When the FBI investigation took place I tried to answer their questions as directly as I recall. I was very uncomfortable talking to the agent about that, these incidents, I am very uncomfortable now, but I feel that it is necessary. The FBI agent told me that it was regular procedure to come back and ask for more specifics if it was necessary. And so, at that time, I did not provide all of the specifics that I could have.

Senator Specter: Professor Hill, I can understand that it is uncomfortable and I don't want to add to that. If any of it—if there is something you want to pause about, please do. You testified this morning, in response to Senator Biden, that the most embarrassing question involved—this is not too bad— women's large breasts. That is a word we use all the time. That was the most embarrassing aspect of what Judge Thomas had said to you.

Ms. Hill: No. The most embarrassing aspect was his description of the acts of these individuals, these women, the acts that those particular people would engage in. It wasn't just the breasts; it was the continuation of his story about what happened in those films with the people with this characteristic, physical characteristic.

Senator Specter: With the physical characteristic of -

Ms. Hill: The large breasts.

Senator Specter: Well, in your statement to the FBI you did refer to the films but there is no reference to the physical characteristic you describe. I don't want to attach too much weight to it, but I had thought you said that the aspect of large breasts was the aspect that concerned you, and that was missing from the statement to the FBI.

Ms. Hill: I have been misunderstood. It wasn't the physical characteristic of having large breasts. It was the description of the acts that this person with this characteristic would do, the act that they would engage in, group acts with animals, things of that nature involving women.

...​

The Chairman: While we have this momentary break, the Senator has 10 or more minutes remaining, and at the conclusion of his questioning we will recess for lunch for an hour and then begin with Senator Leahy.

Senator Leahy: At what time?

The Chairman: Whatever, an hour from the time we end.

Senator Leahy: I see. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that part. Thank you.
 
Author's Note​

As you can tell, much of the opening of this TLIAW will be centered on testimony, much of it as per OTL, and some of it altered. The more nuanced story will come in after the hearing progresses. The transcript I am using can be found here.
 
"After Senator Biden gaveled the session to a close for the afternoon recess, I quickly took off my glasses and gathered my papers so that I could quickly talk to Senator Leahy before he left for lunch. 'Senator,' I said, grabbing his arm, 'I need to ask a favor.' He just looked at me. I went on to explain that I was hoping he would yield his half-hour questioning time to me, promising him that my former experience as a prosecutor meant I was well-equipped at handling the witness, but also that after Senator Specter's effort to delegitimize the witness, she needed someone to give her a fairer opportunity. Leahy said he'd needed to think about it, but that he wasn't willing to give Anita Hill a free ride. I was appalled by his suggestion - that as a woman I would simply rush to Anita's defense. That wasn't my motivation at all, I wanted to make sure she'd have a fair shake at the hearings. Senator Leahy left for lunch and I didn't hear anything from him by the time Senator Biden gaveled the session back to order." - Excerpt from A Washington Life: My Work Challenging the Men's Club by Senator Geraldine A. Ferraro; published by Simon & Schuster in 2011

# # #

TESTIMONY OF ANITA F. HILL, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, NORMAN, OK

The Chairman: The committee will come to order. Welcome back, Professor Hill. The Chair now yields to the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, who will question for one-half hour, and then we will go back to Senator Specter.

Senator Leahy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good aft- [pause]

The Chairman: Senator Leahy?

Senator Leahy: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to yield my time to the Senator from New York?

The Chairman: As in Senator Ferraro?

Senator Leahy: Yes. Would it be possible to yield my time to Senator Ferraro of New York?

The Chairman: I suppose so. Senator Ferraro, you have one-half hour.

Senator Ferraro: I thank the Chairman, and I thank Senator Leahy for his generosity with his time. Good afternoon, Professor Hill.

Ms. Hill: Good afternoon, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: Professor Hill, my first question is about the larger work environment you were a part of at the time of these incidents. How much sexual harassment education did you participate in when you took the job at the Department of Education?

Ms. Hill: I can't say there was much - if any. I don't exactly recall, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: That's okay. How frequently was sexual harassment discussed in your workplace? Was there someone else in the office you could report the alleged advances by Mr. Thomas to?

Ms. Hill: To be honest, Senator, no. I would have likely been reporting the actions to Mr. Thomas himself.

Senator Ferraro: Because he was your direct boss?

Ms. Hill: Yes. I would imagine I would have needed to report it to him.

Senator Ferraro: Did you report Mr. Thomas' advances and comments to anyone?

Ms. Hill: Formally report? No, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: Did you mention them to anyone?

Ms. Hill: I have talked about Mr. Thomas' actions with several people, yes.

Senator Ferraro: Were any of these people a superior of Mr. Thomas?

Ms. Hill: No, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: Institutionally, were you aware of how to handle this incident? That is to say, did you feel you had someone you could go to within your workplace to address these incidents?

Ms. Hill: No, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: Do you believe Mr. Thomas broke the law when during these aforementioned instances?

Ms. Hill: I'm not sure.

Senator Ferraro: So you did not report Mr. Thomas to someone else in the office because you were not sure on the procedure regarding that and you did not report him to law enforcement because you were not sure if he broke the law, is that correct?

Ms. Hill: Yes, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: But this is not the first time you've talked about these incidents?

Ms. Hill: No, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: To whom did you mention these allegations before?

Ms. Hill: John W. Carr, Susan Hoerchner, Joel Paul, Ellen Wells, Angela Wright. I'm not sure that's a complete list-

Senator Ferraro: That's alright, Professor Hill. Now, I'd like to ask a few questions from the FBI report here. On page 3 of your report, you see the paragraph which begins—I think it is four or five paragraphs down, "Hill stated that when she left EEOC, Thomas took her out to eat."

Ms. Hill: Yes.

Senator Ferraro: Would you read the rest of that sentence, please?

Ms. Hill: "Took her out to eat and told her that if she ever told anyone about their conversation, he would ruin her career."

Senator Ferraro: Professor Hill, do you believe that is precisely the way it is in your statement?

Ms. Hill: That is not precisely the way it is in my statement. That is not what I told the FBI agents.

Senator Ferraro: What, then, did you tell the FBI agents?

Ms. Hill: I told the FBI agent that he said that it would ruin his career.

Senator Ferraro: Was the implication then that you should conceal your conversation for the preservation of his career?

Ms. Hill: I believe so, Senator, but I can't speculate as to-

Senator Ferraro: Of course not, no. Thank you. I want to return to my earlier line of questioning. You stated that you did not know how or who to report these incidents to. What, then, is your motivation for coming forward now?

Ms. Hill: I believe this information is important in the context of these hearings as they speak to Mr. Thomas' integrity.

Senator Ferraro: So when Senator Specter questioned you earlier about your motivation for coming forward now, it is not because you want Mr. Thomas to withdraw his name?

Ms. Hill: Senator, I am coming forward now because I believe the United States Senate should consider the facts as I've presented them in regards to the integrity of the nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Senator Ferraro: Do you have a personal agenda against Mr. Thomas?

Ms. Hill: I have a personal agenda against sexual harassment, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: As do I, Professor. What do you think would have happened had you come forward with these allegations sooner?

Ms. Hill: Well, I can speculate that it might have been difficult—I can speculate that, had I come forward immediately after I left the EEOC, I can speculate that I would have lost my job at Oral Roberts.

Senator Ferraro: Did this speculation of yours - do you think it is fair to assume that it played into your decision to remain quiet.

Ms. Hill: Sure.

Senator Ferraro: So is it fair for someone to interpret your previous silence as meaning- Just because you were silent before does not mean you are lying now, would you agree?

Ms. Hill: I am telling the truth now. My prior silence should not be interpreted as the incidents not happening and I've just now decided to fabricate them. I have no personal agenda against Mr. Thomas. I am participating in this hearing because I believe it the honest and right thing to do.

Senator Ferraro: So my colleagues who believe you are just now creating this story are wrong?

Ms. Hill: I am not now creating this story. The statement I presented and the answers I've given have been the truth.

Senator Ferraro: And let me be perfectly clear: You chose to remain silent because you feared you would be threatened?

Ms. Hill: Yes. I thought I would lose my job.

Senator Ferraro: Since coming forward have you been subject to threats?

Ms. Hill: Absolutely.

Senator Ferraro: What kinds of threats?

Ms. Hill: I've been told by people they want to kill me. I've received bomb threats against my home. I-

Senator Ferraro: So it is fair to say that not all of the attention you've received from this hearing has been positive?

Ms. Hill: Very little of the attention I've received from this hearing has been positive, Senator.

Senator Ferraro: Well, I admire your bravery, Professor Hill; as a victim of sexual harassment in my own current place of employment, I certainly understand where you're coming from. I wan-

The Chairman: Senator Ferraro, I-

Senator Ferraro: Yes, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Please keep your commentary to a minimum and ask the witness questions.

Senator Ferraro: I was simply informing those in the room that there is more than one victim of sexual harassment in this room, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.

Senator Thurmond: Mr. Chairman, this is ridiculous!

Senator Specter: Mr. Chairman, I ask that you return the time to-

Senator Ferraro: Excuse me. Excuse me, Senator Specter, but I have the floor.

The Chairman: Senator Ferraro, please resume your questioning, but keep your presumptions to yourself.

Senator Ferraro: Let's return to the FBI report, shall we?

...​

Senator Specter: Well, in the context of the Federal law limiting a sexual harassment claim to 6 months because of the grave difficulty of someone defending themselves in this context, what is your view of the fairness of asking Judge Thomas to reply 8, 9, 10 years after the fact?

Senator Ferraro: Has not the witness already explained why she waited so long to come forward?

Senator Specter: Mr. Chairman, the Senator from New York is out of line.

The Chairman: Senator Ferraro, do not interrupt Senator Specter.

Senator Ferraro: My apologies, Mr. Chairman, but I don't recall any of the men on this committee having an issue when Senators Thurmond and Specter interrupted me.

Senator Specter: Professor Hill, answer my question.

Ms. Hill: Would you please repeat it?

Senator Specter: Certainly. Do you think it is fair for you to come forward 10 years later to make these allegations because the statute of limitations for sexual harassment is six months?

Ms. Hill: I don't believe it is unfair. I believe Senator Ferraro is correct when she says I've explained why I waited. I feared retaliation. It was unclear who-

Senator Specter: Are you not afraid of retaliation now? What is different? I don't understand.

Ms. Hill: With all due respect, Senator, you are not the one facing death threats when you leave this room today. I have quite literally put my life on the line to make this testimony because Mr. Thomas is now a candidate for the highest court in our land and I believe that the members of the United States Senate should have all of the facts concerning Mr. Thomas' integrity before making their vote.

Senator Specter: You did not answer my question. Are you not afraid of retaliation now?

Ms. Hill: I certainly am.

Senator Specter: What is the difference?

Ms. Hill: Pardon me?

Senator Specter: Why come forward now, Pr-

Senator Ferraro: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite sorry, but has not this question been asked and answered?

The Chairman: The Senator from New York will stop interrupting the questioning of Senator Specter. Senator, please continue.

Senator Specter: I was asking: Professor Hill, why come forward now? You are subject to retaliation now just as before - more likely on a wider scale. Why come forward?

Ms. Hill: I think it would be wrong for the Senate to vote on Mr. Thomas' nomination without all of the evidence of his integrity.
 
I am thoroughly enjoying this. I haven't seen this being the context of a TL before, but I like it. Did Ferraro become Senator in 86?

I think that makes the most sense; I know it isn't the most plausible, but... The point of the timeline is to show how unfair the treatment of Hill was without a female presence on the Committee. I could have put Mikulski on the Judiciary Committee, but I felt more comfortable with Ferraro and she would definitely have been placed on the Committee given her extensive experience in the realm.
 
I think that makes the most sense; I know it isn't the most plausible, but... The point of the timeline is to show how unfair the treatment of Hill was without a female presence on the Committee. I could have put Mikulski on the Judiciary Committee, but I felt more comfortable with Ferraro and she would definitely have been placed on the Committee given her extensive experience in the realm.

So, maybe the POD is slightly prior to the Senate campaign: she never gets selected as Mondale's VP (perhaps he chooses San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein instead), hence none of the issues involving her family's finances come to light, and she beats Al D'Amato? Could that be it?
 
So, maybe the POD is slightly prior to the Senate campaign: she never gets selected as Mondale's VP (perhaps he chooses San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein instead), hence none of the issues involving her family's finances come to light, and she beats Al D'Amato? Could that be it?

Not sure- I think it's ultimately irrelevant to the broader story. In a wider timeline with less of a specific focus, I think it would be more important. Perhaps D'Amato gets appointed to the cabinet and Cuomo appoints Ferraro - not really sure.
 
I guess I didn't realize this isn't exactly suited for a timeline. Here's the conclusion post. This would have been much better, I suppose, as a story within a larger timeline, but unfortunately I did not have that luxury. Here's how it ends:

Senator Geraldine Anne Ferraro successfully demonstrated the vulnerabilities of Ms. Anita Hill. Rather than allowing Senator Specter (and to some extent, Senator Biden) portray Ms. Hill as a calculating woman seeking the public headlines, Senator Ferraro was able to portray Anita Hill as a victim. Subsequently, when Clarnece Thomas tried to portray the hearing as the modern-day lynching of a black man, Ferraro sassily retorted that Anita Hill herself was black and that it was ludicrous to try and claim her testimony was rooted in racism. She further responded to Thomas, "I have a problem with sexual harassment. Period. I don't care if the perpetrator is white or black. This is not an issue of race, nor even one of gender. This is an issue of decency."

When the Senate debated the nomination of Clarence Thomas on the floor, Ferraro delivered one of the most memorable floor speeches in history. She spoke for three-and-a-half hours about the problems with Mr. Thomas' nomination. She further described the stories of other victims of sexual harassment and read back some of the hearing's transcript from earlier in the week. When she left the floor, Ferraro and Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland went to work to stop the nomination of Judge Thomas from passing.

Ferraro was able to guarantee the votes of Senators Alan Dixon and Sam Nunn against the Thomas nomination. With him, Nunn brought along his Georgia colleague, Wyche Fowler. The nomination of Clarence Thomas failed 48-52. It was a major victory for the feminist movement in the United States.

President Bush called the failure of Thomas' nomination a "national tragedy" and expressed regret that Judge Thomas' good reputation was dragged through the mud "on half-reported allegations." He went on to nominate Solicitor General Kenneth Starr who was confirmed to the Court with 79 votes in favor of his nomination. Ferraro voted against Starr as well.

Geraldine Ferraro continued to serve in the Senate until she left office in January 2011 after announcing her retirement the year before. In 2007, after Democrats took control of the U.S. Senate, Ferraro was elected the Senate Majority Leader - the first woman to hold the position in American history. She battled a cancer diagnosis for the final decade of her Senate career. She died just weeks after leaving office.

Clarence Thomas never served on the Supreme Court of the United States. After the failure of his judicial nomination, one of only a handful in American history, Judge Thomas continued to serve on the bench until 1999. In 2000, Thomas ran in a special election for U.S. Senate in his home state of Georgia. He lost to Zell Miller with 46.2% of the vote. A second attempt at the seat in 2004, was similarly unsuccessful, and resulted in the election of Democrat Denise Majette. Thomas died in 2021, having retreated from the public eye. He denied the allegations of Anita Hill until his death.

Finally, Anita Hill went on to teach law at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts from 1993-1999. While there, she began advocating for better policies regarding sexual harassment in the workplace. She left Harvard in 1999, to lobby Congress on behalf of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape victims. In 2000, upon the election of Al Gore to the White House and John Kerry to the vice presidency, a draft effort began for Hill to run for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. She ran in the special election and won against Jane Swift, whom Governor Cellucci had appointed to fill the seat. She served as a Senator until her retirement in 2019. While in the Senate, Anita Hill became a women's rights advocate and was made famous once more for the hearings she led against military sexual assault and the subsequent legislation she was able to pass. She served two years as U.S. Attorney General (2023-2025) in the second term of President Teddy Kennedy, Jr. Anita Hill died on July 31, 2060, at the age of 104.
 
Top