The Daily - Revisiting What Happened to Anita Hill

Episode Date: September 26, 2018

Twenty-seven years ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Anita F. Hill, a law professor, and Judge Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court nominee she accused of sexual harassment. We look at how those events are shaping the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. Guest: Kate Zernike, who covers politics for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. 27 years ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee interrogated Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. How what happened then is shaping what happens tomorrow. It's Wednesday, September 26th. Justice Marshall, can you tell us a little bit more about what went into your decision to resign at this time and what the motivations were.

You mentioned your doctor and your wife. Well, I looked at the facts and the law and put them together and came out with an opinion. Justice Marshall, would you share with us some of the medical facts? What's wrong with you, sir? What's wrong with me? I'm old. What's wrong with me? I'm old. The story of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill confrontation starts in July of 1991 when Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall announced his retirement. I have followed this man's career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted.

President George H.W. Bush, the first Bush, nominated Clarence Thomas, a conservative judge, to replace him. And I trust that the Senate will confirm this able man promptly. Keith Zernike covers politics for The Times. The hearings start in September. The hearing will come to order. There are questions about Clarence Thomas' fairly conservative legal record,

but that's not a surprise to the senators who are asking questions. So it looks as if this is probably going to be a fairly straightforward confirmation. But meanwhile, there's a parallel story developing. There are these rumors out there that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed women in the workplace. So Senate staffers are sort of looking behind the scenes, trying to figure out who this is. And they get a lead on one woman, and her name is Anita Hill. So right before the hearings start, the Democrats call Anita Hill. And Anita Hill is willing to tell her story, but she's not sure that she wants to use her name or come forward publicly.

The Democrats tell her she has to give her name at least to the Senate Judiciary Committee members, and the nominee, Clarence Thomas, has to know her name. Anita Hill agrees that her name can be passed on to the Judiciary Committee and to the nominee, Clarence Thomas. She writes a sworn affidavit about her allegations, and the White House was willing to investigate this. The White House was willing to say, OK, we'll look into this. I think they understood that they could not just brush this woman away. The White House looks it over, decides pretty quickly there's nothing here. This is unfounded. They pass it along to Thomas.

Thomas writes a statement saying this is completely false. But keep in mind, this is all happening behind the scenes. This is the White House, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas. The public has no idea this is happening. Thank you all very, very much. I appreciate it. So at this point, Clarence Thomas's hearings are over, and it looks like the nomination is going to sail through. I hope I get to see you next August, but I hope it's not one of these hearings. But the full Senate has yet to take a vote on its nomination. This is Weekend Edition. I'm Leanne Hansen. Then the story leaks.

A woman who served as personal assistant to Clarence Thomas for over two years has accused him of sexually harassing her. On October 6th, NPR and Newsday break the story. According to Hill's affidavit, Thomas, after a brief work discussion, would, quote, turn conversation to discussions about his sexual interests. So suddenly Anita Hill's name is public. There's much demand to hear more from Anita Hill. The first point that I want to address with you is the idea that this is somehow a political ploy that I am involved in.

After the story breaks, she gives a press conference. Nothing could be further from the truth. Senate Judiciary Committee realizes it's got a problem. We ought to take another day or two to look at this thing and make sure we're doing the right thing. thing and make sure we're doing the right thing. It hardly is asking too much that we delay a brief time to more thoroughly investigate this. They delay the vote of the full Senate, they reopen the hearings, and Anita Hill is going to tell her story under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee the next week. A majority of Americans in a poll released today

say that they are not inclined to believe the charges against Clarence Thomas. The first reaction is that there's a lot of doubt about Anita Hill's story. Professor Hill's allegations and credibility are the topic of much debate throughout. People wondered why she hadn't come forward sooner. They wondered why she'd followed him from one job to another if he was really sexually harassing her. And the whole concept of sexual harassment in the workplace, the country hadn't struggled with this. We hadn't figured out what it looked like. And I think a lot of people thought it was kind of a bogus thing. It didn't really happen. And to have a 10-year-old allegation come in here now and try to blow him out of the water on the weekend before the final vote, in an October last-ditch, last-second political surprise,

I think is reprehensible. He should be confined. And he should be confined tomorrow afternoon. From CBS News headquarters in New York, here is Dan Rather. Good morning. Drama and history on Capitol Hill. The United States Senate Judiciary Committee is about to begin an unprecedented hearing. The hearing day comes. It's October 11th.

And it is a Washington spectacle. It is a national spectacle. It's crowded with photographers, television cameras. There are lights on the nominee. The panel of senators all take their place. Joe Biden, who's the committee's chairman and a Democrat. The hearing will come to order. Gavels open the hearing. Achieving fairness in the atmosphere in which these hearings are being held. And makes a statement talking about what a difficult day it is.

Maybe the most difficult task at least I have ever undertaken in my close to 19 years in the United States Senate. And then they turn the microphone over to the nominee, to Clarence Thomas. You have an opening statement. Please proceed. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurman, members of the committee. Clarence Thomas makes a very brief opening statement. As excruciatingly difficult as the last two weeks have been, I welcome the opportunity to clear my name today.

And in that statement, he all but denies knowing Anita Hill. Contrary to some press reports, I categorically denied all of the allegations and denied that I ever attempted to date Anita Hill. He talks about how he can't sleep. He just wants to clear his name. Yesterday, I called my mother. She was confined to her bed, unable to work, and unable to stop crying. His wife, Ginny, is sitting behind him.

Her chin is quivering. And the picture that everyone at home watching on their television and the picture that the senators see is these allegations have undone Clarence Thomas. And there's this initial sense, at least, that this is unfair to Clarence Thomas, that this good man is being taken down.

Enough is enough. The Senate's in recess. The hearing is in recess for five minutes. And then Clarence Thomas gets up and leaves the room. I'm told security is clearing the hall. She's in the hall so that she can come down. Then Anita Hill comes in the room. Welcome, Professor Hill.

She's wearing this electric blue suit. She looks very much a professional woman of that era. And I think that image of her really sticks with people, particularly with working women who might have experienced something like what she's talking about in their own workplaces. Professor Hill, please make whatever statement you would wish to make to the committee. So here she is, seated at this table, a black professional woman. And she looks up and what she sees is an all-male, all-white panel of Senate Judiciary Committee members. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurman, members of the committee, my name is Anita F. Hill, and I am a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma.

She gives a brief opening statement. She's very careful she sticks to what she's reading in front of her. After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. She details the allegations. 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.

Thank you very much. The microphone goes back to the senators and they begin grilling her. And what was that incident again? The incident with regard to the Coke can that spelled out in my statement. Once again for me, please. Incident with regard to the Coke can that spelled out in my statement. Would you describe it once again for me, please? The incident involved his going to his desk, getting up from a work table, going to his desk, looking at this can and saying, who put pubic hair on my Coke?

Was anyone else in his office at the time? No. It's almost like the more composed Anita Hill remains, the more these senators come after her. 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's a word we use all the time. No, the most embarrassing aspect was his description of the acts of these individuals. And they want her to go over these graphic details again and again. these individuals. And they want her to go over these graphic details again and again. Well, in your statement to the FBI, you did refer to the films, but there's no reference to the physical characteristic you described. I don't want to attach too much weight to it,

but I had thought you said that the aspect of the large breasts was the aspect that concerned you, and that was missing from the statement to the FBI. Then I have been misunderstood. It's clear, as this hearing goes on, that the senators see Clarence Thomas as this man of rectitude whose reputation is being ruined. They're not really sure about Anita Hill, and in fact, they probably don't believe her. Now, in trying to determine whether you are telling falsehoods or not,

I've got to determine what your motivation might be. Finally, the senders are done with Anita Hill. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. She gets up. She leaves. Followed by this swarm of cameras that's been trained on her all day. But the room is still in chaos.

The committee will please come to order. And into that chaos walks Clarence Thomas. Judge, tough day and tough night for you, I know. And Biden asks Thomas if he'd like to say anything. Do you have anything you'd like to say? Camera swing back to Thomas, and you can just see he is seething. He is so angry. It's like he's sweating anger. This today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. And he lays into the Senate panel. And he lays into the Senate panel. And how many members of this committee would like to have the same scurrilous, uncorroborated allegations made about him?

If up until now, this whole hearing has been about sex. And from my standpoint, as a Black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. Now, Clarence Thomas is making this about race. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree. If it was uncomfortable in the room for Anita Hill, it is incredibly tense and uncomfortable now, maybe for Clarence Thomas, but definitely for this, again, this panel of all white senators. They're shrinking in their seats. They're cringing. They are so shamed. They're so chastised about this. And if they were inclined to push back on him, he's just delegitimized that whole thing. I look forward to questioning again tomorrow.

And we wish you a good night's rest and we look forward to seeing you. So the first day of hearings wraps up. You come back the next day and the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin questioning Clarence Thomas. And as the questions begin, it's pretty clear that the senators are going to defer to Clarence Thomas. And again, I go back to the point that you've made time and again and admirably, that you had not second-guessed the professor's credibility until now. It came as a shock to you as you stated. At one point, Senator Orrin Hatch, who's a Republican from Utah, holds up a copy of The Exorcist.

Ever read this book? No. The Exorcist? No, Senator. And says, isn't it possible that Anita Hill got the story of the pubic hair from The Exorcist? In The Exorcist, there's a pubic hair in a gin glass. It's not in a Coke can. Alien pubic hair floating around in my gin. But of course the implication is that she's piped this whole thing

and that for whatever reason, and we don't get to that reason, she's just making all this up and she's come forward to tear down this tremendously honorable man who's now speaking before these senators. She would have us believe that you were saying these things because you wanted to date her? It's pretty clear that this has become a he-said-she-said situation and that the senators at least believe

that Clarence Thomas has the stronger story. Isn't a woman alive that would take the questions you've had to take, be just repelled by it. That's where the watershed is here. It is a good thing that this awareness goes up. It is a terrible, tragic thing that it should bruise you. Judge Thomas, I went through that in some detail because it is my legal judgment that the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat-out perjury. And then... So we will reconvene tomorrow.

There's a third day of hearings. They call some other witnesses. One of them talks about Anita Hill has a condition. This is erotomania on her part. My instant reaction was that just unbelievable, preposterous. And then I said, it must be a product of fantasy. If you just knew these people and knew Clarence Thomas, you would know that that couldn't possibly have been true. Hill's lawyers introduced that she's taken a polygraph test.

She's passed it. Meanwhile, it comes out that there are other women who can make similar allegations against Clarence Thomas about sexual harassment in the workplace. These women are waiting in the wings, ready to tell their stories. But Joe Biden, the chairman, basically says, we've run out of time. This entire proceeding is ended. And he gavels it to a close. Good work, Joe. Outside the hearing room, away from Washington, the whole country is watching this on their TV screens. Will sexual harassment charges derail the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination?

And it's dividing the country. I think the American taxpayer is damn sick and tired of this kind of a nomination process. Well, I think they're very tired of listening to the nominee do absolutely nothing but questions. It's artful. It's black versus white. It's men versus women. It's men versus women.

It's a younger generation of women versus an older generation of women. There are all these dynamics of race and sex swirling. It's not as if I'm accusing you of robbing my house where I can show you evidence of wrongdoing. And that's part of the problem with the whole area of sexual harassment law, which I think, frankly, is pure mush. There's a lot of debate and certainly a lot of people on her side. But I think in the end, there was a sense that public opinion had shut Anita Hill out in the cold. And after the hearings with the Judiciary Committee, the full Senate reconvenes to vote on Clarence Thomas.

Mr. Cochran. Aye. Mr. Cohen. Aye. It's a very tight vote. It's the tightest vote it's ever been. It's 52-48. But Clarence Thomas is confirmed

as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, where he still sits 27 years later. It's 27 years later. During his time on the court, we rarely hear from Clarence Thomas. Really long periods of years go by where Clarence Thomas does not ask a single question. He rarely writes opinions. But he has remained a very stalwart member of the court's conservative bloc. We don't hear a lot from Anita Hill either in the next couple of years, but we do hear from American women.

The message is simple. We want action now. And the fact is, women have the power. Women have the votes. Women's ballots can make a fundamental change in this country and mobilize together determined women will do it. The next year is a presidential year. Bill Clinton's running for president, but it's also congressional elections. The events leading to Justice Thomas's confirmation, particularly Anita Hill's alleged harsh treatment by the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee, ignited what some pundits have dubbed the year of the woman. And when November 1992 comes and the results are in, the number of women in Congress has doubled.

We'll be right back. So, Kate, here we are again. Very similar circumstances 27 years later. And I think now the question is, how much has actually changed? And if we get the same end result as last time, which was the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice accused of sexual misconduct. Does that mean that not much has changed at all or not? So let's start by talking about what's similar. So the most striking thing that's similar is who's on the committee now.

On the Republican side, we have two of the same men who were there in 1991 with Nia Hill, and it's all white guys. It's all still all men, all white. That's a very visual reminder of how much has not changed. And as in 1991, it's come down to a he said, she said situation. Once again, we have a credible woman making a credible charge, and we have a respected jurist who's saying, really outraged, this is not something I would do. This is not something I have ever done in my life. So it's basically the same central dynamic. She says it happened. She is 100 percent positive it did. The accused, the nominee, is saying categorically it did not. Absolutely. And she has been doubted a lot by the same Republicans who doubted Anita Hill.

So, for instance, you have Senator Hatch. Who was also Senator Hatch on the Judiciary Committee in 1991. Same Senator Hatch, he's just now, he's in his mid-80s.

And he's saying, well, she seems to be mixed up, she seems to be mistaken. How much of what's different about this hearing, do you think, is because of an effort to make sure that this hearing, do you think, is because of an effort to make sure that this

moment, the Kavanaugh-Blasey Ford confrontation, appears different or actually is different than the Hill-Thomas confrontation in 91? In 1991, the senators on that panel had no idea this political wave that was going to move over them in next year's congressional elections, the year of the woman. Now everyone is aware of those consequences. They are very aware that the American public is watching this. And that if they do it wrong, there will be an electoral and a political and a social response to it. Absolutely. And it will be very quick and it will be very angry because women are already angry.

Women burned after Anita Hill. Right now they're already burning. So again, to look at what's different, just look at that room. The Republicans have said they're not going to ask questions. They're going to have an outside person, a woman, come in and ask questions. Dr. Blasey Ford has said she doesn't want an outside questioner. She wants those senators. And Republicans said, well, you just want to do it so you'll have those same senators. You know, that's just political posturing. Well, in some ways, the Republicans could also be accused of political posturing because they, too, do not want it seen that they have the same guys still sitting there. Fascinating. So senators may say that this is a positive sign of this being different and that these times being different, that they're using an outsider. Right. we aren't going to try to handle a sensitive interrogation like this on our own

we're bringing in an expert and a woman but of course the cynical interpretation of doing that is that they have eliminated the optics which they know look bad they've ensured the visual appearance of things is different but perhaps not the more meaningful elements, the perspectives of the senators involved, and perhaps not the end result of it. Right. What they're saying is we are doing this to be sensitive. We understand so much how difficult it is to come forward. We want to ensure that we are sensitive in our questioning. But of course, the response is, well, if anything has really changed, you would know how to be sensitive in your own questioning without having to outsource this.

So, Kate, let's talk about how this might end in the next couple of days or weeks and the significance of that. Obviously, it goes one of two ways. Either Kavanaugh becomes a Supreme Court justice or he doesn't. And it reminds me actually of the 2016 election and the intense symbolism of those outcomes for a lot of Americans. Hillary Clinton wins, and we are one version of this country. Donald Trump wins, and we're a very different version of this country.

That it felt like a referendum on who we are. And it feels to me like that is happening all over again with Kavanaugh and Dr. Vassie Ford. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, regardless of exactly why, the symbolism for many people will be that things have changed since Anita Hill, that things are different. And if Kavanaugh is confirmed, the symbolism is actually things haven't changed as much as we might have thought and as much as many people had hoped. It's almost as if the country is on knife edge with this sort of self-image of ourselves trying to figure out which way it's going to go. I think it's a really scary moment for a lot of people because there's a certain amount of you go into this question cringing. Like you're not quite sure you want to see the outcome.

Like, you're not quite sure you want to see the outcome. You're not quite sure if you are those women who are still really feeling the loss of Hillary Clinton and feeling like that was a rejection of women trying to assert their voice and their authority. You kind of don't want to hear that all over again. Obviously, it's a particular set of women. But I would say that if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, I would say that particular set of women is going to feel aggrieved all over again, but aggrieved is almost too passive a term. I think people are going to be really angry and they're going to see this as women not being taken seriously, women not being heard, like their attempt to speak out has been silenced. It really doesn't seem like there's a middle ground here. If Brett Kavanaugh doesn't get on the court, there are going to be all of his supporters

and other people who think he was treated badly, that this is political correctness run amok, that if someone can destroy a respected jurist like Brett Kavanaugh with an allegation from 36 years ago, that any man can be destroyed. women versus men issue or divide on that knife edge, it's many women, too, who think, oh, if my son were accused of this, or if my husband was, or if my brother was, he was run out because he was a conservative. And someone like that can be taken down. And this is the kind of country we have now. And that's not going to make them happy either. And I guess what's kind of terrifying about this situation is that these are just two people and that their stories and their lives are particular. Right. So it's going to come down to when Christine Blasey Ford comes into that room, what's her bearing at that table?

How strong does her voice sound? Does she seem credible? Does she seem believable? On the other side, Brett Kavanaugh, does he seem defensive? Does he seem too defensive? Does he seem angry? Is anger a good thing?

Does that make him seem more outraged and therefore he's telling the truth? Or does he come off like he's lying? It's all going to come down to these little details, not only from them, but it's also, as much as these might be senators asking questions, they too are ordinary people, and it's going to be how they filter it as ordinary people, what they're seeing. But the symbolism of the end result will probably not account for all of that. No. In the end, it's going to be how much has this country changed and how much have we not. Kate, thank you very much. Thanks, Michael.

On Tuesday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee said they had selected a female lawyer to question Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh at Thursday's hearing. The lawyer will ask questions on behalf of the Republican senators, while Senate Democrats will do their own questioning. In explaining the Republicans' decision, the committee's chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley, who was on the Judiciary Committee in 1991, said, quote,

Later on Tuesday, Grassley announced that the committee had scheduled a vote on Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court for Friday, the morning after the hearing. Here's what else you need to know today. And now a new charge comes up. And she said, well, it might not be him. And there were gaps. And she said she was totally inebriated, and she was all messed up, and she doesn't know it was him, but it might have been him. Oh, gee, let's not make him a Supreme Court judge because of that.

During a news conference at the United Nations, President Trump attacked the second woman to come forward with allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, calling her claims unreliable. The woman, Deborah Ramirez, told The New Yorker that during a night of heavy drinking their freshman year at Yale, Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party. The Democrats are playing a con game, C-O-N, a con game. They know it's a con game. They know he's high quality. And they weaken each other.

They're weakening. They know it's a con game. Go ahead. And. This is a very important day. Judgment Day has come. On Tuesday, Bill Cosby was sentenced to three to ten years in prison for drugging and sexually assaulting a woman

at his Pennsylvania home 14 years ago. Cosby had been convicted in April of assaulting the woman, Andrea Constan, who had thought of him as a mentor, but ended up being one of the dozens of women who have accused him of sexual abuse. Nine of those women, along with Konstant, were in the courthouse when Cosby was sentenced.

And I'm happy that the judge sentenced Bill Cosby accordingly, and I'm grateful to Andrea for standing strong. Moments after the sentencing, Cosby, who was once described as America's dad from his days as Dr. Huxtable on The Cosby Show, was escorted to prison in handcuffs. Mr. Cosby, any comments, sir?

No. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.