PERSPECTIVE ON CLARENCE THOMAS : Shackled to a Shadow of Doubt : The allegations of sexual harassment must be settled; otherwise, who can have faith in this judge, or in justice?

The Senate should not vote on a nomination as important as the Clarence Thomas one without investigating thoroughly Anita F. Hill’s allegations that she was sexually harassed by Thomas. Hill, a black woman and a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, says that he used the power of his office to make what can only be described as lewd and lascivious inquiries of her when she was his young legal aide. This allegedly took place while Thomas was serving in the Department of Education and then at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as the nation’s top enforcer of the laws forbidding discrimination in the workplace against women and minorities.

It is shocking that the Senate Judiciary Committee, which had some inkling of these charges as early as Sept. 12, did not explore them in depth before voting the nomination out of committee. The charges are far too grave for the full Senate to take a similarly cavalier attitude.

The issue of a woman’s physical and mental security in the workplace is of utmost importance to most American women and is at the center of black women’s history in this country. When I testified last month before the Judiciary Committee in opposition to this nomination, I discussed my distress over what appeared from Thomas’ record to be a real insensitivity to the condition of black women. If Hill’s allegations prove to be true, they would confirm my darkest fears about Thomas and, in my judgment, clearly render him unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

There is almost no issue closer to the heart of black women’s lives than oppression in the workplace. From the beginning of slavery, black women have been workers and, in large measure, have occupied positions of relative powerlessness. The sexual abuse of black women was a hallmark of American slavery. Though white women have moved into the work force in large numbers only in recent decades, black women remained in the workplace in force after slavery because their men were locked out of jobs, earned too little to support the family alone or simply were absent. Black women’s vulnerability to male power has been a central element in their lives.

In my testimony, I expressed distress at what I deemed to be Thomas’ abuse of male power in his unfair public castigation of his sister and his mischaracterization of the circumstances of her life. His sister and his mother did the kind of bottom-of-the-economy, hardscrabble, catch-as-catch-can work that has held millions of black families together. But it seemed to me that Thomas did not understand them. I said:

“In his oft-repeated recitation of his personal history, little space or respect is given to the intense struggle of these women. Yet stories like these are at the heart of the heroic rise of our people, and Judge Thomas’ insensitivity to that aspect of his personal and our communal life is deeply troubling.”

Now we have Hill’s allegations, which underline and deepen those fears. If true, Thomas’ posture toward constitutional interpretation is irrelevant. It won’t matter whether his approach is through natural law, original intent or evolving national needs and standards. His personal value system would be so antithetical to such a large segment of the American population that he would not be suited to serve on the court.

That then brings us back to the role of the Senate. The Judiciary Committee chairman, Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.), has called for review of the confirmation process before the next nomination. One does not need to wait for a full-scale review to see that this committee, composed entirely of white males, did not review Hill’s allegations with sufficient care. Hill says that she contacted committee aides as early as Sept. 12. The committee did not vote until Sept. 27. All the while there was senatorial silence about these allegations.

Not until the charges were publicized did we hear from any member of the panel. Then, to his credit, Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) said he thought the Senate should look carefully into these charges even if it meant postponing the vote on the nomination. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), Thomas’ principal sponsor in the Senate, is attempting to use the hurried, sequestered review of the respected black female professor’s charges by a handful of white men as vindication of the nominee. It is, rather, an indictment of the committee and of the procedures the Senate has followed.

The Senate cannot brush this matter off as the White House and Danforth would have it do. The allegations go to the core of Thomas’ character. They are of utmost importance to black women, to white women and to Americans of both genders and all colors. In rushing by this issue, the Judiciary Committee did itself no honor and the Senate no service. For the full Senate to follow suit would be both unconscionable and unforgivable.