Hill Excerpts: He Didn’t Take Seriously My Decision to Say No

Here are excerpts from testimony Friday by Anita Faye Hill before the Senate Judiciary Committee on allegations that she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas:

(Hill, under questioning fro m Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), describing behavior that Thomas allegedly engaged in while Hill’s boss.)

Hill: I recall at least one instance in his office at the EEOC where he discussed some pornographic material.

Biden: Again, it’s difficult, but for the record, what substance did he bring up in this instance at EEOC in his office? What was the content of what he said?

Hill: This was a reference to an individual who had a very large penis and he used the name that he had been referred to in the pornographic material.

Biden: Do you recall what it was?

Hill: Yes, I do. The name that was referred to was Long Dong Silver.

‘I Was Surprised’

Biden: Let’s go back to the first time that you alleged Judge Thomas indicated he had more than a professional interest in you. Do you recall what the first time was and, with as much precision as you can, what he said to you?

Hill: As I recall, it either happened at lunch or it happened in his office when he said to me very casually, “You ought to go out with me some time.”

Biden: Can you describe for the committee how you felt at that time when he asked you out?

Hill: Well, my reaction at that time was a little surprised because I had not indicated to him in any way that I knew that I was interested in dating him. We had developed a good working relationship, it was cordial, it was very comfortable, so I was surprised that he was interested in something else.

Biden: With regard to the other incidences . . . can you tell us how you felt at the time? Were you uncomfortable, were you embarrassed, did it not concern you? How did you feel about it?

Hill: The pressure to go out with him I felt embarrassed about because I didn’t--I had given him an explanation that I thought it was not good for me as an employee working directly for him to go out. I thought he didn’t take seriously my decision to say no and that he did not respect my having said no to him.

I--the conversations about sex I was much more embarrassed and humiliated by. The two combined really made me feel sort of helpless in a job situation because I really wanted to do the work that I was doing. I enjoyed that work, but I felt that that was being put in jeopardy by the other things that were going on in the office and so I was really, really very troubled by it and distressed over it.

Biden: Can you tell the committee what was the most embarrassing of all the incidences that you have alleged?

Hill: I think the one that was the most embarrassing was his discussion of pornography involving these women with large breasts and engaged in a variety of sex with different people or animals. That was the thing that embarrassed me the most and made me feel the most humiliated.

Biden: If you can, in his words, not yours, in his words can you tell us what on that occasion he said to you?

Hill: I really cannot quote him verbatim. I can remember something like: “You really ought to see these films that I’ve seen or this material I’ve seen. This woman has this kind of breasts that measure this size and they’ve got her in there with all kinds of things. She’s doing all kinds of different sex acts . . .”

Biden: Why did you think he was saying these things to you?

Hill: Well, coupled with the pressure about going out with him, I felt that implicit in this discussion about sex was the offer to have sex with him, not just to go out with him. There was never any explicit thing about going out to dinner or going to a particular concert or movie. It was, “We ought to go out,” and given these other conversations, I took that to mean “We ought to have sex, or we ought to look at these pornographic movies together.”

Biden: Now again, for the record, did he just say “I have great physical capability and attributes,” or was he more graphic?

Hill: He was much more graphic.

Biden: Can you tell us what he said?

Hill: Well, I can tell you that he compared his penis size, he measured his penis in terms of length, those kinds of comments.

Inference About Films

(Questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

Specter: Professor Hill, you testified that you drew an inference that Judge Thomas might want you to look at pornographic films, but you told the FBI specifically that he never asked you to watch the films; is that correct?

Hill: He never said: Let’s go to my apartment and watch films, or go to my house and watch films. He did say: You ought to see this material.

Specter: . . . But the fact is, flatly, he never asked you to look at pornographic movies with him?

Hill: With him? No, he did not.

Specter: Professor Hill, you said that you took it to mean that Judge Thomas wanted to have sex with you, but in fact he never did ask you to have sex, correct?

Hill: No, he did not ask me to have sex. He did continually pressure me to go out with him, continually, and he would not accept my explanation as one as--being valid.

Specter: So that when you said you took it to mean we ought to have sex that that was an inference that you drew?

Hill: Yes, yes.

Dinner Conversation

(Questioning from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)

Leahy: Do you see the paragraph (of the FBI report) which begins . . . “Hill stated that when she left EEOC Thomas took her out to eat.”

Hill: Yes.

Leahy: Would you read the rest of that sentence, please?

Hill: “ . . . took her out to eat and told her that if she ever told anyone about their conversations he would ruin her career.”

Leahy: Now is that precisely the way it is in your statement?

Hill: That is not precisely the way it is in my statement. That is not what I told the FBI agent.

Leahy: And what did you tell the FBI agent?

Hill: I told the FBI agent that he said that it would ruin his career.

Leahy: And what did you say in response (to Thomas’ alleged comments about ruining his career)?

Hill: My response was that I really just wanted to get away from the office and leave that kind of activity behind me.

Leahy: Did he ask you if you intended to ever make this public?

Hill: He did not ask me that.

Leahy: . . . let me read from (Thomas’ statement Friday morning to the committee). He said, “I cannot imagine anything that I said or did to Anita Hill that could have been mistaken for sexual harassment. But with that said, if there is anything that I have said that has been misconstrued by Anita Hill or anyone else to be sexual harassment, then I can say that I’m so very sorry and I wish I had known. If I did know, I would have stopped immediately and I would not, as I have done over the past two weeks, had to tear away at myself trying to think what I could possibly have done.

But I have not said or done the things that Anita Hill has alleged.” And you are aware of that statement by Judge Thomas?

Hill: Yes, I am aware.

Leahy: Do you agree with that?

Hill: No, I do not.

Leahy: Did he ask you--you have said that he asked you for dates many times. By many, what do you mean? Do you--can you give us even a ballpark figure.

Hill: Oh, I would say--over the course of . . .

Leahy: At both the Department of Education and the EEOC.

Hill: Oh, I would say 10 times maybe. I don’t know. Five to 10 times.

Leahy: And you said no each time?

Hill: Yes.

Leahy: You said in your statement that at one point you were hospitalized for five days and did--and am I correct in understanding your statement you felt it was related to this?

Hill: Yes, I do believe that it was related to the stress that I felt because of this.

Leahy: Had you ever had a similar hospitalization?

Hill: I had never had a similar hospitalization.

Leahy: Now when you think back on this--you described how you felt at the time--how do you feel about it today?

Hill: Well, I’m a little farther removed from it in time and--but even today I still feel hurt and maybe today I feel more angry and disgusted. I don’t feel quite as threatened by the situation. I’m removed from it. My career is on solid ground and so (the) threat is not there. But the anger and hurt is there.

(Questioning by Sen. Specter) .

Specter: You do know Dean Kothe and he does know Judge Thomas and this is--his concluding statement: “I find the references to the alleged sexual harassment not only unbelievable but preposterous. I am convinced that such are the product of fantasy.” Would you care to comment on that?

Hill: Well I would only say that I am not given to fantasy. This is not something that I would have come forward with if I were not absolutely sure about what it is I am saying. I weighed this very carefully, I considered it carefully and I made a determination to come forward. I think it’s unfortunate that that comment was made by a man who purports to be someone who says he knows me. And I think it’s just inaccurate.

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

Heflin: You describe . . . the working relationship and the various conversations which you say were very vivid and very graphic pertaining to pornographic materials and films and other statements of that nature. Then you end that paragraph with these words: “However, I sensed that my discomfort with his discussions only urged him on as though my reaction of feeling ill at ease and vulnerable was what he wanted.” In other words, you’re basically stating that that appeared to be his goal rather than trying to obtain an intimate or a sexual relations with you. It may be that you also felt that.

But, though, that raises quite an issue. “However, I sensed that my discomfort with his discussions only urged him on as though my reaction of feeling ill at ease and vulnerable was what he wanted.” What do you mean by that? How do you conclude that?

Hill: Well, it was almost as though he wanted me at a disadvantage--to put me at a disadvantage so that I would have to concede to whatever his wishes were.

Heflin: You think that he got some pleasure out of seeing you ill at ease and vulnerable?

Hill: I think so, yes.