|
ANITA HILL MAKES HER OPENING
STATEMENT 1991
I Could Not Keep Silent
It follows the full text transcript of
Anita Hill's Opening Statement of her Testimony, delivered at
the Russell Senate Office Building before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Washington D.C. —
October 11, 1991.
 |
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 1982,1
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 1983,1 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.
More History
|
