Thomas Excerpts: ‘This Today Is a Travesty. I Think That It Is Disgusting’

Here are excerpts from Clarence Thomas’ statement Friday evening before the Senate Judiciary Committee following Anita Faye Hill’s testimony and excerpts from his questioning by committee members:

Thomas: I would like to start by saying unequivocally, uncategorically, that I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.

A second, and I think more important point, I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. . . . This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace.

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, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

Didn’t Listen to Hill

(Questioning by Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.)

Heflin: Now, you, I suppose, have heard . . . Anita F. Hill testify today.

Thomas: No, I haven’t.

Heflin: You didn’t listen to her testimony at all?

Thomas: No, I didn’t. I’ve heard enough lies. Today is not a day that in my opinion is high among the days in our country.

This is a travesty. You spent the entire day destroying what it has taken me 43 years to build, and providing a forum for that.

Heflin: Well, Judge Thomas, you know, we have a responsibility, too. And as far as I’m involved, I had nothing to do with Anita Hill coming here and testifying. We’re trying to get to the bottom of this, and if she is lying, then I think you can help us prove that she was lying.

Thomas: Senator, I am incapable of proving the negative. It did not occur.

‘This Is All New to Me’

(Questioning by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)

Hatch: Judge Thomas, I’ve sat here and I’ve listened all day long, and Anita Hill was very impressive. She is an impressive law professor. She is a Yale law graduate. And when she met with the FBI, she said that you told her about your sexual experiences and preferences. . . .

She said to the FBI that you told her about your sexual experiences and preferences, that you asked her what she liked, or if she had ever done the same thing, that you discussed oral sex between men and women, that you discussed viewing films of people having sex with each other and with animals, and that you told her that she should see such films, and that you liked to discuss specific sex acts and the frequency of sex. What about that?

Thomas: Senator, I would not want to--except being required to here--to dignify those allegations with a response.

As I have said before, I categorically deny them. To me, I have been pilloried with scurrilous allegations of this nature, I have denied them earlier, and I deny them tonight.

Hatch: . . . At any time, did you say to Prof. Hill that she could ruin your career if she talked about sexual comments you allegedly made to her?

Thomas: No.

Hatch: Did you say to her in words or substance that you could ruin her career?

Thomas: No.

Hatch: Should she ever have been afraid of you . . . (or) any kind of vindictiveness to ruin her career?

Thomas: Senator, I have made it my business to help my special assistants. I recommended Ms. Hill for her position at Oral Roberts University. I’ve always spoken highly of her. I had no reason prior to the FBI visiting me a little more than two weeks ago to know that she harbored any ill feelings toward me or any discomfort with me. This is all new to me.

Hatch: It’s new to me, too, because I read the FBI report at least 10 or 15 times. And I didn’t see any of these allegations I’m about to go into, including that one. But she seemed to sure have a recollection here today.

Now, did you ever say to Prof. Hill in words or substance--and this is embarrassing for me to say in public--but it has to be done, and I’m sure it’s not pleasing to you--did you ever say in words or substance something like there is a pubic hair in my Coke?

Thomas: No, Senator.

Hatch: Did you ever refer to your private parts in conversations with Prof. Hill?

Thomas: Absolutely not, Senator.

Hatch: Did you ever brag to Prof. Hill about your sexual prowess?

Thomas: No, Senator.

Hatch: Did you ever use the term Long Dong Silver in conversation with Prof. Hill?

Thomas: No, Senator.

Talk of Sex?

Hatch: Did you ever have lunch with Prof. Hill at which you talked about sex or pressured her to go out with you?

Thomas: Absolutely not.

Hatch: Did you ever. . .

Thomas: I have had no such discussions nor have I ever pressured or asked her to go out with me beyond her work environment.

Hatch: Did you ever tell Prof. Hill that she should see pornographic films?

Thomas: Absolutely not.

Hatch: Did you ever talk about pornography with Prof. Hill?

Thomas: I did not discuss any pornographic material or pornographic preferences or pornographic films with Prof. Hill.

Hatch: So you never even talked or described pornographic materials with her?

Thomas: Absolutely not.

Hatch: See, one of the problems that has bothered me from the front of this thing is these are gross. Accumulated, I don’t know why anybody would put up with them or why anybody would respect or work with another person who would do that. And if you did that, I don’t know why anybody would work with you.

Thomas: I agree. . . . If you really want an idea of how I treated women, then ask the majority of the women who worked for me. They’re out here. Give her--give them as much time as you have given one person, the only person who has been on my staff who has ever made these sorts of allegations about me. . . . Senator, I have worked with hundreds of women in different capacities. I have promoted and mentored dozens. I will put my record against any member of this committee in promoting . . . and mentoring women. And I think that if you want to really be fair, you parade every single one before you and you ask them in their relationships with me whether or not any of this nonsense, this garbage, trash that you’ve siphoned out of the sewers against me, whether any of it is true. Ask them. They’ve worked with me. Ask my chief of staff, my former chief of staff. She worked shoulder to shoulder with me.

Hatch: At any time in your tenure in the Department of Education, did Prof. Hill ever express any concern about or discomfort with your conduct towards her?

Thomas: No.

Hatch: All right. Now, Judge Thomas, I understand that on occasion, and you correct me if this is wrong, but I’ve been led to believe that on occasion Prof. Hill would ask you to drive her home, and that on those occasions she would sometimes invite you into her home to continue a discussion, but you never thought of any . . . of any of this as anything but a more than normal friendly or professional conversation with a colleague.

Thomas: It was not unusual to me, senator. As I remember it, I lived in Southwest Washington and would . . . she lived some place on Capitol Hill, and I would drive her home and sometimes stop in and have a Coke or a beer or something and continue arguing about politics for maybe 45 minutes to an hour. But I never thought anything of it.

Hatch: . . . Did she treat you as though you were a mentor at the time?

Thomas: She certainly sought counsel and advice from me.

Hatch: Now, at any time during your tenure at the EEOC did you ever discuss sexual matters with Prof. Hill?

Thomas: Absolutely not, senator.

Hatch: At any time during your tenure at the EEOC did Prof. Hill ever express discomfort or concern about your conduct towards her?

Thomas: No, Senator.

Hatch: Well, before you first heard of Prof. Hill’s allegations during this confirmation process, did you have any reason to believe that she was unhappy with you?

Thomas: Senator, on Tuesday, on Sept. 24th, the day before I heard from the FBI, I would have told you if you asked me that my relationship with Anita Hill was cordial, professional, and that I was very proud of her for all she’d done with her life and the things that she had accomplished.

Initial Reaction

Hatch: What was your reaction when you first heard of these allegations against you?

Thomas: Senator, when the FBI informed me of the allegation, the person first, there was shock, dismay, hurt, pain and when he informed me of the nature of the allegations I was surprised, disbelief, and again hurt and I have reached a point over the last two weeks plus--I have reached a point where I can’t go over each and every one of these allegations again. As I said in my statement this morning, that when you have allegations of this nature by someone that you think--have thought the world of and felt that you have done the best for, it is an enormously painful experience and it is one, when you ask yourself, you rip at yourself what could you have done and why could this happen, or why would it happen?

Hatch: How do you feel right now, Judge, after what you have been through?

Thomas: Senator, as I indicated this morning, it just isn’t worth it. The nomination isn’t worth it, being on the Supreme Court isn’t worth it. There is no amount of money that’s worth it. There is no amount of money that can restore my name. Being an associate justice of the Supreme Court will never replace what I have been robbed of. I wouldn’t recommend that anyone go through it. This has been an enormously difficult experience, but I don’t think that that’s the worst of it.

I’m 43 years old, and if I’m not confirmed, I’m still the youngest member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I’ll go on. I’ll go back to my life of talking to my neighbors, and cutting my grass, and getting a Big Mac at MacDonald’s, and driving my car, seeing my kid play football. I’ll live. I’ll have my life back. And all this hurt has brought my family and I closer--my wife and I, my mother. But that isn’t--so there’s no pity for me.

I think the country has been hurt by this process. I think . . . it’s a sad day when the U.S. Senate can be used by interest groups and hatemongers and people who are interested in digging up dirt to destroy other people, and who will stop at no tactics when they can use our great institutions for their own political ends. We are gone far beyond McCarthyism. This is far more dangerous than McCarthyism. At least McCarthy was elected.

(Questioning by Sen. Heflin)

Heflin: If we are still faced with the fact, if she’s telling a falsehood, what is the motivation? Now, we’ve watched her testify today, and she’s a meek woman.

Thomas: That is not as I remember Anita. Anita is--I can say that, and you can ask others who visit here. Anita would not be considered a meek woman. She was an aggressive debater. She stood her ground. When she got her dander up she would storm off. I would say that she was a bright person, a capable person. Meek is not something--a characterization I would remember.

Heflin: . . . Well, was she a vindictive woman?

Thomas: When--I think, Senator, that she argued forcefully for her position, and I took it as a sign of immaturity, perhaps, that when she didn’t get her way that she would tend to get--reinforce her position and get a bit angry. I did not see that as a character flaw--or vindictiveness.