Clarence Thomas -vs- Anita Hill: 16 Years Later

Clarence Hill

By Patricia Wilson-Smith

I was still a young woman when Anita Hill was forced to make public her accusations that Justice Clarence Thomas  had sexually harassed her while she was in his employ at the US Department of Education and later at the EEOC.

It was 1991. I was 25 years old, still pondering what I would ultimately do with my life (sadly), and barely getting by. As a matter of fact, during those now infamous confirmation hearings, I was unemployed, after having just moved to the Atlanta area with my new husband, and I dare say, I spent more time riveted to the television set watching the drama of those hearings unfold than I should admit.

Clarence Thomas was almost assured of winning the nomination that would make him only the second African-American to ever serve on the Supreme Court when a leaked FBI report caused the Judiciary Committee to delay a final vote on his confirmation in order to get to the bottom of the allegations that had been reported. What ensued was days of smarmy testimony from Justice Thomas and Anita Hill that at once captivate and divided the nation, with its graphic details of remarks allegedly made by Justice Thomas. Ultimately of course, Thomas was confirmed by a historically narrow margin, and Ms. Hill’s brave appearance before the Judiciary Committee faded into history.

I can remember feeling a distinct sense of shame back then over watching two otherwise prominent black professionals air their laundry in front of that congressional panel, none of whom were black, and none of whom were women. It just didn’t seem right, though it was certainly historic on many fronts. The Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill saga brought the issue of sexual harrassment to the forefront of the national consciousness with a vengeance -I’m certain that no professional male since has been quite as careless in their remarks to a female subordinate.

This week, Justice Clarence Thomas released a new book, entitled “My Grandfather’s Son”, in which he recounts his life and the events of the 103 days leading up to his Supreme Court confirmation. He also uses the work to continue to besmirch the character of Anita Hill, which is a real shame. With the release of Justice Thomas’ book, Ms. Hill (now a professor of Policy and Law at Brandeis University) has had to yet again go on the defensive after all these years. Way back then, most Americans watched the proceedings, and decided that she was some sort of paid Democratic operative, or even worse – a desperate, confused liar. That’s most Americans. But not me.

I can distinctly remember asking myself even then, “Why would a woman, any woman, subject herself to such unyielding personal scrutiny, such out right attacks, just to gain notariety or financial gain?” It just didn’t add up. Those who labeled Anita Hill a liar insisted that her continued professional relationship with Clarence Thomas was evidence that she clearly had not been harassed. Further, Justice Thomas himself went to great pains to paint her as a neurotic woman, who was mediocre in her work performance and prone to mental instability, though he has somehow gotten away with never explaining why he hired her not once, but twice to work for him.

For me, it boils down to this:

Anita Hill was approached by the FBI during the confirmation hearings after they learned that she had mentioned allegations of impropriety on the part of Justice Thomas to a colleague. She did not seek them out. She was approached about those conversations, and consented to recount them on the record only under the condition that the information never become public knowledge. This fact is a matter of public record. With that being the case, it perplexes me that anyone would think that she set out to smear the man.

Again – the Senate Judiciary Committee was at the point of sending Justice Thomas’ nomination to the Senate for final confirmation when a pair of journalists found out about Ms. Hill’s secret testimony and leaked the information to the news media. There were plenty of accusations leveled, and much speculation about who actually leaked the information – whether it was a Democratic hatchet job, or some other blatant attempt to derail the Justice’s nomination, but the fact that there might have been an ulterior motive on the part of the leaker, didn’t change the fact that Anita Hill was a reluctant participant. Much later in the proceedings, when it was much too late to matter, at least one other woman came forward and admitted that she had endured the same kind of unprofessional behavior at the hands of Justice Thomas.

Further, Clarence Thomas’ defense of himself never rang true to me, not then and not now. In remarks he delivered to the Judiciary Committee, he denied ever attempting to have anything more than a cordial, platonic relationship with Anita Hill, and claimed to have “wracked his brain” trying to think of what he could have said that would have caused Ms. Hill to make such charges. There was just way too much righteous indignation in his testimony. A “high-tech lynching?” To compare what he endured at the hands of the Judiciary Committee to the misery that black men who were literally lynched suffered at the hands of the evil, murderous racists in this country made me nasueous, and was remarkably self-serving. He played the ultimate race card, in a situation where there was no evidence of racial bias. Maybe political bias, but not racial.

The other striking thing for me was the detailed way in which Ms. Hill described the interactions between she and Justice Thomas. It was chilling, and just way too weird to be fabricated.  I mean, she could have gone for the typical, “he grabbed my ass”, or, “he threatened to fire me if I didn’t sleep with him”, but the stories she recounted sounded much more like a long-term professional relationship that at least one party thought was familiar enough that they could say pretty much anything they wanted – for laughs, for shock value, for whatever reason. Pubic hairs on Coke cans? Who would make something like that up as an accusation? It just doesn’t make sense.

Then, there’s Anita Hill herself. A professional law graduate, anxious to make her mark in the legal field – she must have gotten pretty tired of hearing it. “Well, if that all really happened, then why did you stay?”, and, “No way that happened – wouldn’t someone else have come forward?”, or my favorite, “She was paid off by the Democratic party to ruin the man’s life – she should be ashamed of herself!”

I can remember thinking to myself then, and I’m even more sure now that there is an easy explanation for it all, an explanation that in today’s social and political climate makes all the sense in the world. Here’s my theory.

Back in 1991, there was no Oprah Winfrey to stamp a collective national personna on the black woman. There was no Carol Moseley Braun, no Mae Jemison (she would fly her only shuttle mission a year later), heck, there wasn’t even a Cynthia McKinney to give relevence to the political and professional might of black women back then. Anita Hill was a national anamoly, and I would submit, a sad victim of a society that just plain didn’t know what to do with a black female making such accusations. It was much easier for most people to believe that she was some kind of rare nutcase than it was to believe that Clarence Thomas was a typical, dare I say it, black man, prone to bouts of lewdness and off-color commentary in a close-knit work environment. Since that time, I’ve seen it myself – not so much from a subordinate’s point of view, but I know how black men and women can get within the confines of a closed space when they think they can’t be heard.

And that’s the tough part for me, because I really have always felt that what we all witnessed way back then was a dynamic that occurs all too often between black men and women,  being held up to a standard that most other cultures wouldn’t understand. I don’t believe that Justice Thomas thought he was harassing Anita Hill, anymore than I believe that Anita Hill meant to use the information she shared with some colleague in confidence to completely trash her good name trying to go after Justice Thomas. Things took place. Planets aligned. And then it all took on a life of its own.

And though it brought an important issue to the nation’s attention, the unfair light that was cast on Anita Hill was a blow to black women, plain and simple. She should be regarded as a hero for being brave enough to tell her story under such hostile circumstances; instead, she will forever be known by most as the accuser of a ‘great’ man, hell bent on sabotaging the confirmation of a man who was trying to make history by becoming only the second African American Supreme Court Justice. Those of us who believed her then and believe her now know that nothing could be farther from the truth, and that in standing her ground back then, she made a mark that in some ways, was just as important as Justice Thomas’ . One in which a black woman, standing alone and wrongly villified stood up for what’s right no matter what the personal cost to her.

About Patricia Wilson-Smith

Patricia Wilson-Smith is a freelance writer and author of the romantic comedy "Duped By Love". She is a regular contributor to She Unlimited Magazine, and covers special events as a special on-air correspondent.
This entry was posted in Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, Commentary, Did You Know?, Events, Issues, Politics, YouTube and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Clarence Thomas -vs- Anita Hill: 16 Years Later

  1. impeachthem says:

    I was 25 in 91 too, and remember it the same way you do. You are right on…but I would say that at least for me and my friends, we always believed her and thought of her as a strong woman who was wronged. We were pretty disgusted about how it all came down. Around that same time, that year for Halloween we copied a Saturday Night Live skit for our costumes… Kirsti Alley was hosting, and the skit was mocking sexism with “their eyes were on their breasts” in which highly evolved women from outer space had their eyes on their breasts so that men would be forced to look them in the eye when talking to them. anyway, it was a sad time for us and we thought to try and make a point and have fun at the same time. Thanks for your post.
    Peace, Michelle

  2. candice says:

    the founding fathers did not address term limits; they left the decision and the outcome to the democratic process. The idea of term limits came about as a result of FDR serving four consecutive terms. I believe that most people (besides die hard, right wing fundamentalists) would agree that our nation did not suffer any catastrophic consequences as a result of the FDR years. My concern in regards to your comments about Hilary Clinton are this: Although I realize that BlackWomenforObama is obviously dedicated to the candidacy and election of Senator Obama, your most compelling arguments are not about why he should win, but rather why Hilary Clinton shouldn’t. So far the only two things that you have stated to support that assertion is tha t a. “we’ve had twenty some-odd years of Bush/Clinton, and b. some of the scandals that surrounded the Clinton presidency. If I recall correctly, during Clinton’s presidency you agreed that his so-called scandalous behavior was mostly a result of the right-wing spin machine gone out of control, looking for any and every reason to vilify the then-President, and turning the most inocuous things into major political scandals. Mostly it was just ridiculous and would be a footnote in his legacy were it not for the Republican led Congress which pushed for his impeachment. That was the real scandal. But I digress. Exactly why is it that you feel that Hilary doesn’t deserve our vote and if elected would be the next in the line of Bush/Clinton villains? I’m not clear. You’re beginning to sound like Limbaugh and O’Reilly- aware of the issues, certainly, but putting your own spin on them to justify your position. ;More importantly, exactly why does Senator Obama deserve our support? And none of that “fresh perspective” jazz. Give me some concrete, qualitative (and quantitative) reasons, otherwise your blog sounds like politics as usual.

  3. Denise Ferreira Daly says:

    I was brand new immigrant to the U.S. from South America, with a newborn baby girl, and as I worked for American families as a housekeeper, ironing I would watch parts of the trail and my little girl at the same time. My English was jsut fine at the time, but that did not let me see that a woman was being humiliated in court and a powerful man was raising in glory. How long have we been humiliated for many different reason? I don’t know the in [s] and out [s] of the trial but I know that scares me to see how cases like this keep easy happening to women. Most of all I’m profund disappointed how the Catholic Church, and I am a Catholic, has contributed in damaging the potential of many woman’s lives. In my limited English I was surprised that Judge Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court, but I am still surprised that he continues to write about his life, and continues to portrait Ms. Hill as a woman without any dignity. Above all, when after all, he receives a honorary degree from his Alma Mater, but there is no wonder in the case because I’m still trying to see how a woman is portrait at our own religion. Or was Judge Thomas and Ms. Hill playing a role in keeping the woman’s place on our Mother Church and we could not understand it all in full? My little girl was born in 1991, I hope for the sake of women’s dignity Judge Thomas come forward to give Ms. Hill the place she deserves in history. She is not at the Supreme Court of the United States of America, but she is a woman being defamed in our society, and that has to stop. We women, married, single, widow, at any choices one chooses, has the right to a dignified life. We can not let it happen again, we must step forward and say it “I refuse to defame myself or someone else.” Our dignity has no price.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s