ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I stand by my testimony.
Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.
In the portion of his book that addresses my role in the Senate hearings into his nomination, Justice Thomas offers a litany of unsubstantiated representations and outright smears that Republican senators made about me when I testified before the Judiciary Committee — that I was a “combative left-winger” who was “touchy” and prone to overreacting to “slights.” A number of independent authors have shown those attacks to be baseless. What’s more, their reports draw on the experiences of others who were familiar with Mr. Thomas’s behavior, and who came forward after the hearings. It’s no longer my word against his.
Justice Thomas’s characterization of me is also hobbled by blatant inconsistencies. He claims, for instance, that I was a mediocre employee who had a job in the federal government only because he had “given it” to me. He ignores the reality: I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale Law School (his alma mater, which he calls one of the finest in the country), and passed the District of Columbia Bar exam, one of the toughest in the nation.
In 1981, when Mr. Thomas approached me about working for him, I was an associate in good standing at a Washington law firm. In 1991, the partner in charge of associate development informed Mr. Thomas’s mentor, Senator John Danforth of Missouri, that any assertions to the contrary were untrue. Yet, Mr. Thomas insists that I was “asked to leave” the firm.
It’s worth noting, too, that Mr. Thomas hired me not once, but twice while he was in the Reagan administration — first at the Department of Education and then at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After two years of working directly for him, I left Washington and returned home to Oklahoma to begin my teaching career.
In a particularly nasty blow, Justice Thomas attacked my religious conviction, telling “60 Minutes” this weekend, “She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed.” Perhaps he conveniently forgot that he wrote a letter of recommendation for me to work at the law school at Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa. I remained at that evangelical Christian university for three years, until the law school was sold to Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Va., another Christian college. Along with other faculty members, I was asked to consider a position there, but I decided to remain near my family in Oklahoma.
Regrettably, since 1991, I have repeatedly seen this kind of character attack on women and men who complain of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In efforts to assail their accusers’ credibility, detractors routinely diminish people’s professional contributions. Often the accused is a supervisor, in a position to describe the complaining employee’s work as “mediocre” or the employee as incompetent. Those accused of inappropriate behavior also often portray the individuals who complain as bizarre caricatures of themselves — oversensitive, even fanatical, and often immoral — even though they enjoy good and productive working relationships with their colleagues.
Finally, when attacks on the accusers’ credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers’ versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or “slights” that should be dismissed without discussion.
Fortunately, we have made progress since 1991. Today, when employees complain of abuse in the workplace, investigators and judges are more likely to examine all the evidence and less likely to simply accept as true the word of those in power. But that could change. Our legal system will suffer if a sitting justice’s vitriolic pursuit of personal vindication discourages others from standing up for their rights.
The question of whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the Supreme Court is no longer on the table — it was settled by the Senate back in 1991. But questions remain about how we will resolve the kinds of issues my testimony exposed. My belief is that in the past 16 years we have come closer to making the resolution of these issues an honest search for the truth, which, after all, is at the core of all legal inquiry. My hope is that Justice Thomas’s latest fusillade will not divert us from that path.

Anita Hill, a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University, is a visiting scholar at the Newhouse Center for the Humanities at Wellesley College.

Comment by Veritas — September 30, 2007 @ 9:39 am

Does this apply to everyone, or just those with whom you disagree. ;)

What makes them worse than their conservative counterparts?

Oh, I see: better education.

Thanks.

This will be an interesting Movie of a Black man who sold out his race and now is trying to explain it before he has to tell it to God. As for his friends in the GOP I only need him to remember Gonzales who was used and kicked out after he wasn’t needed anymore. When Thomas does pass the law to dismantle the Civil Rights Act look for the GOP to tell Clarence to resign so he can spend more time with his family.

Just who do you think will be first to participate along with you in acts of civil disobedience, being doused by fire hoses, arrested and beaten by police officers, and worse — George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? Scalia? Gonzo?

Well, who?

The deaths of those who risked their lives and were maimed/killed during the Civil War fighting (at least in part) to emancipate the slaves in this country, the unwavering perserverence of those who were staunch abolitionists at the time (sometimes at great cost to themselves), and again later in history, the incredible courage of the civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., freedom riders, marchers, those who participated in sit ins and many others) seems to have all been wasted, at least in Clarence Thomas’ twisted mind.

Given the circumstances, it is indeed difficult to think of another public official in this country who has sunk to greater depths.

May he undergo a revelatory experience not unlike that of Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’ Christmas Carol.

But then again, the KKK would probably roll out the red carpet for him since he seems more than willing to do their bidding. Anyone anticipate a David Duke/Clarence Thomas presidential ticket in 2008 or 2012?

A poll of African-Americans in this country would be timely. His views are likely at extreme odds with the large majority of other members of his race.

Maybe you are just an A-hole.

I agree with a previous commenter that wondered if we should make it easier to remove crazies like good old Clarence. HERE HERE!

Except of course when it is Clarence Thomas who is being criticized, then it is an example of egregious racism.

Clarence Thomas, the most angry and bitter man in America.

-GSD

When I was much younger, I honestly thought Clarence Thomas was being harshly treated during his nomination hearings. I had no idea he was this crazy.

Yes, Clarence throughout history, black Americans have had more to fear from “sanctimonious liberals” than right-wing racists burning a cross in some unfortunate person’s yard. Obviously you, like Bush, are not a student of history.

i’d take a tsk, tsk from a sanctimonious liberal over a lynching any day, Clarence. Anyone else, who’d prefer a visit from the Klan vs. Bill Maher?

Marlow, you are being sarcastic about the left-wing zealots blowing up the Murra building, right?