Remembering Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, 20 Years Later

October 31, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Thunder, lightning, and rain came from Sens. Alan Simpson, Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter—and oh, what a specter it was 20 Octobers ago when Clarence Thomas was not facing the nation as the Judiciary Committee weighed his Supreme Court nomination. Instead, he was hiding, refusing to listen to Anita Hill, a lawyer who worked for him at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, give specific example after specific example of his sexual harassment and pornographic references on the job. If her allegations were true (and they rang true to us out on the West Coast) then supposedly he would be out of the plum treat of a court seat.

You could hear Washington's sound shake all the way to San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, where I huddled with my soccer teammates by the sidelines, listening to the hearings on the radio every chance we had during a tournament. The three senators resembling the MacBeth witches tried so hard to shake Hill's composure and tear apart her stories. Didn't happen. Hill kept her dignity for hours, days of excruciating testimony. You must remember this: "sexual harassment" was new to the legal lexicon, but practically unheard of in everyday American usage. Essentially, the committee put Hill on a witch trial when the focus belonged on Thomas. The question they considered: was a well-spoken young law professor a troubled or "scorned woman?" It's all written on my heart's memory: every character, every line, the heroine, hero, and the villain of the set piece. All they were missing was a duck pond.

[See the month's best political cartoons.]

Meanwhile, the lead character in this chilling drama remained off-stage, acting above it all. He had snapped at one senator, Howard Metzenbaum, for presuming to "judge" him, as if that weren't the whole point of the proceeding. When Hill finished testifying, Thomas swept into the grand room in extraordinary high dudgeon, acting as if Thurgood Marshall's Supreme Court belonged to him by his birthright in Pin Point, Georgia. But he was a stranger, barely known to jurisprudence. At 40, he had only been a judge for a year or two, but somehow he was "the best man for the job," just because the feckless one-term president, George H.W. Bush, said so.

Yes, Thomas acted as if he owed the committee and the American people no explanation whatsoever for Hill's testimony. His costume had no scarlet letter of shame;rather, he wore a robe of injured innocence on the verge of fury.

Then and there Thomas played the biggest trick in modern political history: he turned on the panel and called the marathon hearing "a high-tech lynching." We could feel the air rush out of the room all the way to San Francisco. A moment most foul, an accusation so false, but it drew blood. The all-white committee didn't have the fight or nerve to stand up to that absurd but loaded statement. Sexism is one thing, but racism is another.

The chairman, one Sen. Joseph Biden, aided Thomas's ploy because he repeated over and over: "You have the benefit of the doubt, Judge. "No, that was the figment of Biden's imagination, not any legal doctrine. Biden was just making it up, that a Supreme Court Justice nominee deserved the common criminal standard of justice for the highest court in the land. In a committee completely made up of men—some aggressive, some bemused, one silenced by his past (Sen. Edward M. Kennedy)—the genial Biden failed to act the part of a stern Puritan judge. He also failed to admit other witnesses and evidence of Thomas's use of pornography and inappropriate workplace behavior toward women. Biden realizes he bungled his role in this tragic story, for what it's worth: in a twist, the nice guy turned out to be the villain of the piece.

[See a photo gallery of Ted Kennedy.]

There's one senator that deserves special mention for his partisan wrongdoing: the Rev. Jack Danforth, a Missouri Republican, championed his political protégé, Thomas, so blindly he admitted it didn't matter if Hill's story was true. For me, that's when the whole thing became a tale told by an idiot—signifying everything about our government and the ties that bind male loyalty. Time was coming for me to leave San Francisco.

There's another senator, no longer living, who championed Anita Hill and declared he believed she was telling the truth. Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a Ku Klux Klan member once long ago, triumphed over his own past and became the only senator out of one hundred to take Hill's side wholeheartedly. We heard his resounding voice on the Senate floor all the way out in San Francisco. Four years later, while interviewing Byrd on his love for Roman history, the senator showed me the legal pad on which he wrote that speech in his flowing hand.

The vote's written in memory: 52 ayes, 48 nos, said the somber sea of 98 ties and 2 skirts. Now it's not the ghost of Clarence Thomas, but the man himself that haunts American jurisprudence every working day between October and June, and then some, with his weird wife Ginny making calls at midnight—one to Anita Hill, asking her to "apologize." That's enough to make you weep. The plum treat of a court seat was plainly not enough.

 

Tags:
Robert Byrd,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
Clarence Thomas

Reader Comments Read all comments (17)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Is Jamie of DC Jamie Stiehm or another Jamie? If it is Jamie Stiehm my head really wants to explode because of your response to me about Bill Clinton in your post about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. I reminded Jamie of an earlier post of how she claimed Joe Lieberman was grandstanding by not being Bill Clinton’s friend about the impeachment hearings after Bill got his rocks off in the oval office with Monica, plus all of the other accusations (rape, exposing himself, other affairs) and how the accusations against Clinton were much worse than the accusations against Thomas. Jamie’s response to me was”Lieberman is a bit of a grandstanding opportunist, and that was a moment when the president really needed his friends. “Even if this is not Jamie Stiehm, if it a Bill Clinton supporter the level of liberal hypocrisy is unbelievable. But Jamie carried on about how Bill Clinton needed his friends during that time, but what is more of a powerful man preying on a woman, than the president of the United States with a 20 year old starry eyed intern? Once again if it is Stiehm, the quote” Powerful men who prey on women and children rely on a code of loyalty and silence to protect them. To be a bystander is unforgivable.” is an unbelievable level of hypocrisy, and verifies a belief that I have held for a long time that liberals lack the chromosome that gives any logical thought. By that quote Lieberman was doing exactly what he should have done, and it sounds like it was Jamie is grandstanding.

kewaal of GA 3:01PM November 12, 2011

I do work and I am working on my master's degree and so when I respond I am usually in the middle of several things. I reread and I see mistakes in my post below correction are in the last part:

One thing I will say about Starr, I am sure he believed the tax evasion accusations, but since he could get not enough proof for a charge (largely thanks to Hillary and others obstructing the investigation) he went after Clinton for charges he could prove. You know like they went after Capone for charges that could be proven.

kewaal of GA 10:44AM November 10, 2011

I was going to respond to your latest post, but since you responded to me here, so will I. You have done it again, stating the president needed his friends. My problem with liberals and Bill Clinton is not just the Monica Lewinsky, but also the accusations from Paula Jones and Juanita Braddwick. NOW jumped all over the Clarence Thomas issue, but when Paula Jones was making her accusations, NOW said they had moved on to other issues. In other words s they would destroy a conservative for accusations of making crude remarks, but would not say anything against a liberal for accusations of exposing himself. Now as far as Lewinsky, you have a starry eyed young intern who is getting attention from the president. That is someone of power taking sexual advantage of another person, even if it was consensual. I still have doubts about Anita Hill, if for no other reason than if Thomas was such a horrible person, why did she follow him to his next job. I think there was revenge for something in her actions.

Now back to the Monica thing, Clinton was not impeached for getting his rocks off in the Oval Office as liberals like to portray it. He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury. That is against the law, do you not believe in the law? Once again you have someone accused of worse acts than Thomas was, with Jones and Juanita Broaddrick and Monica, regardless whether it was consensual or not, he took advantage of a starry eyed kid, and your main complaint is that Clinton needed his friend Lieberman to stand by his side. Maybe Jones needed the help of NOW, even though they say they had moved on to other issues (If it had been a conservative, I think they would have jumped all over it). One thing I will say about Starr, I am sure he believed the tax evasion accusations, but since he could get enough proof for a charge (largely thanks to Hillary and others obstructing the investigation) he went after Clinton for charges he could prove. You like they went after Capone for charges that could be proven.

kewaal of GA 9:26AM November 10, 2011

Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Elizabeth Stiehm is a writer and journalist in Washington. For 10 years, she was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun and, prior to that, the Hill. She is working on a biography of Lucretia Mott.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Get God Out of the Gay Marriage Debate

The government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry, but neither should churches tell the government which marriages it can recognize.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement