A Smear--or Serious Problem? : Harassment charge against Thomas merits a further look by Senate

The timing is certainly suspicious, and the details known about a series of incidents that allegedly occurred a decade ago are murky. The sexual harassment allegations made against Supreme Court nominee Judge Clarence Thomas rest not on concrete evidence but on something more elusive--a person’s word. Even so, the charges are troubling.

Suggestions of sexual harassment are serious--to the accused, and to the accuser, in this case a law professor who risks much personal capital in coming forward with the charge.

It’s precisely because of this allegation’s seriousness that it needs to be considered more fully before the Senate votes on confirmation.

For although a vote is scheduled today, delaying it for a few days would be a small price to pay for a clearer understanding of what did and did not happen. Anita Hill worked for Thomas at the Department of Education in 1981, where she says the harassment began, and then she worked with him again at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982, where she says it continued.

Hill, 35, a tenured University of Oklahoma law professor, alleged in a sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Thomas made sexually inappropriate remarks to her over the two-year period that she worked for him. The remarks, she said, included Thomas talking to her in “vivid” terms about sexual matters, including pornographic films.

Through senators with whom he has spoken and through the White House, Thomas denies the allegation.

Hill never used the term “sexual harassment” in her sworn statement. But Monday Hill said that though she was not alleging that Thomas broke the law, she felt that his actions created a “hostile environment” in the workplace--a guideline often used in sexual harassment cases.

It is in the nature of allegations of sexual harassment that it’s often one person’s word against another’s. But that doesn’t mean such allegations should be scoffed at. The burden of proof is properly always on the accuser. But a question of character has been raised about a person nominated to serve, for life, on the highest court in the land. Why rush?