Thomas Excerpts: ‘I’d Rather Die’ Than Withdraw My Bid

Here are excerpts from Clarence Thomas’ testimony Saturday before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

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

Leahy: Prof. Hill said the two of you went out to dinner as she was leaving (the EEOC). Prof. Hill, of course, further alleges, and this would be a major and explosive matter, that you said something to her to the effect: “If you ever tell about this, it will damage or destroy my career.” Now, that was her statement. I want you to have a chance to give yours. Am I correct in understanding your testimony now that, one, you have no recollection of ever having such a conversation at any time?

Thomas: No, I have no recollection of having dinner with her as she left. . . . I would categorically deny that under any circumstances, whether it’s breakfast, lunch, or dinner, that I made those statements.

Leahy: Now, Judge, . . . since you’ve been in the work force about 20 years since leaving law school, have you ever witnessed sexual harassment first hand?

Thomas: Senator, I have witnessed incidents that I would consider sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. And as chairman of EEOC, particularly, in the work force there, I was adamant that this conduct would not take place.

Leahy: And in--in that being adamant, how did you translate that to staff or the people who worked for you, in statements, speeches, memos, personal--I mean, how would you do it, Judge?

Thomas: If you engage in it, you will be fired. Simple.

Leahy: Now, back on the charges that Prof. Hill made yesterday, one was of discussion of pornographic films with her. She stated this happened on a number of occasions and that she had found it uncomfortable and asked you not to. Let me ask you . . . Did you ever have a discussion of pornographic films with Prof. Hill?

Thomas: Absolutely not.

Leahy: Ever had with any other women?

Thomas: Senator, I will not get into any discussions that I might have about my personal life or my sex life with any person outside of the work place.

Leahy: You never had such discussions within the work place with any other women?

Thomas: That’s right.

‘A Special Responsibility’

Thomas: In Professor Hill’s case--and it’s important to me that this be understood. I believe that when I have assistants or interns that I have a personal responsibility for them as teacher, adviser--not employer. I am the employer, also.

But they are my personal charges for whom I have responsibility.

Anita Hill came to me through one of my dearest, dearest friends. . . . And when he brought her to my attention it was a special responsibility that he asked me to take on. And I felt very strongly that I could discharge that in the way that I did, and that was to be careful about her career; to make sure she had opportunities; to be there to offer advice and counsels. And that’s something that I continued with my other special assistants. They are family. My clerks are my family. They’re my friends.

Leahy: Well, then, having done all this for Prof. Hill and knowing now what she has said here and what you’ve read and hearing her statement under oath, explicit as it was, the statement that you’ve categorically denied, to use your term, why would she do this?

Thomas: Senator, you know, I’ve asked myself that question, as I told you. I haven’t slept very much in the last two and a half weeks. I’ve thought unceasingly about this. And my wife simply said, “Stop torturing yourself.”

‘I Did Not Ask Her Out’

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

Hatch: There was an implication that you not only repeatedly asked her (Hill) for dates (but that) you wanted more than dates.

Thomas: Senator, I did not ask her out. . . . One of the things that has tormented me over the last 2 1/2 weeks has been how do I defend myself against this kind of language and these kinds of charges, how do I defend myself? That’s what I asked the FBI agent, I believe, the first time. It’s what I’ve asked myself. How do I defend myself? If I used that kind of grotesque language with one person, it would seem to me that there would be traces of it throughout the employees who worked closely with me, or the other individuals who heard bits and pieces of it or various levels of it.

Hatch: No way, Judge, probably before the weekend’s out they’ll find somebody who’ll say . . .

Thomas: Well, the difficulty also was that, from my standpoint, is that in this country when it comes to sexual conduct we still have underlying racial attitudes about black men and their views of sex. And once you pin that on me I can’t get it off. That is why I’m so adamant in this committee about what has been done to me. I made a point at EEOC and at Education not to play into those stereotypes. At all. I made it a point to have the people at those agencies, the black men, the black women, conduct themselves in a way that was not consistent with those stereotypes. And I did the same thing myself.

Hatch: You said some of this language is stereotype language. What does that mean? I don’t understand.

Thomas: . . . language throughout the history of this country and certainly throughout my life, language about the sexual prowess of black men, language about the sex organs of black men and the sizes, et cetera, that kind of language has been used about black men as long as I’ve been on the face of this Earth, and these are charges that play into racist, bigoted, stereotypes, and these are the kind of charges that are impossible to wash off. . . .

I attempted to move away from and to convince people that we should conduct ourselves in a way that defies these stereotypes. But when you play into a stereotype, it says though you’re skiing downhill, there’s no way to stop it, and this plays into the most bigoted, racist stereotypes that any black man will face.

Hatch: I find it highly ironic . . . that you’ve testified here today, that used against you by one who taught civil rights, who came from one of the five best law schools in the country, who is an intelligent and apparently decent African-American, used against you a bunch of black stereotype accusations. What do you think about that?

Thomas: Senator, as I’ve indicated before, and I will continue to say this and believe this--I have been harmed. I have been harmed, my family has been harmed, I’ve been harmed worse than I’ve ever been harmed in my life. I wasn’t harmed by the Klan. I wasn’t harmed by the Knights of Camellia. I wasn’t harmed by the Aryan race. I wasn’t harmed by a racist group. I was harmed by this process. This process, which accommodated these attacks on me.

If someone wanted to block me from the Supreme Court of the United States because of my views on the Constitution, that’s fine. If someone wanted to block me because they felt I wasn’t qualified, that’s fine. If someone wanted to block me because they don’t like the composition of the court, that’s fine. But to destroy me--Senator, I would have preferred an assassin’s bullet to this kind of living hell that they have put me and my family through.

Hatch: Now, the memo that you issued to the EEOC on sexual harassment . . . stated in unequivocal terms that sexual harassment is illegal.

The final paragraph of the memo which was signed by you, reads as follows: “I expect every commission employee to personally ensure that their own conduct does not sexually harass other employees, applicants or any other individual in the work place.

Managers are to take the strongest disciplinary measure against those employees found guilty of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment will not be tolerated at the agency,” underlined.

Now, Judge Thomas, did this memo reflect a major policy commitment of yours?

Thomas: It expresses my strong attitude and my adamant attitude that sex harassment was not to take place at EEOC.

Hatch: Judge Thomas, I also have a copy of an EEOC plan for the prevention of sexual harassment, issued in 1987, while you were chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which clearly states that sexual harassment includes, quote, “unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions,” unquote.

Now, is this consistent with the views that you personally have believed in and abided by during your lifetime?

Thomas: Yes. . . .

I attempted to conduct myself in a way with my staff so that there were no jokes that I would listen to or tell to men that I could not listen to or tell to women. There were no jokes that I found acceptable that I could not listen to or tell to any ethnic group. . . .

My staffers were almost invariably predominantly women. The senior person on my staff was a woman. I could not tolerate individuals making that environment uncomfortable or hostile. I could not tolerate individuals who had to segregate their language or conduct in order to get along. The conduct had to be purged of offensive attitudes. And I made that a constant effort. And that’s something that I was proud of, and it was something that I’m sure the people who worked with me felt comfortable with and understood.

‘I’ve Given All I Can’

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

Specter: Judge Thomas, did you tell her that you could not assure her of a position at Education when you made the move to EEOC?

Thomas: Senator, I do not recall that conversation. And as I reflect back, there would be no reason for me to tell her that.

Anita Hill was a graduate of Yale Law School, was performing well and was a career employee. She was . . . not a political employee. So she could remain in the department in other capacities.

Specter: Judge Thomas, I was a little disappointed that . . . you didn’t watch the proceedings yesterday in terms of seeing precisely what Prof. Hill had to say, both from a point of view of wanting to know what it was and from a point of view of being in a better position to defend yourself, why didn’t you watch those hearings?

Thomas: Senator, the last 2 1/2 weeks have been living hell and there is only so much a human being can take, and as far as I was concerned, the statements that she sent to this committee and her statements to the FBI were lies and they were untrue and I didn’t see any reason to suffer through more lies about me. This is not an easy experience. . . . Senator, I wish there was more of me to give, but I’ve given all I can.

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

Heflin: Ms. Hill said . . . you made a statement to her, “You know, if you had any witnesses, you’d have a good case against me.” Well, did any such thing like that ever occur?

Thomas: That’s nonsense, Senator. I never made any statement like that. I never made these--I never made the statements that she’s alleged.

Unexpected Attack

(Questioning by Sen. Hatch.)

Hatch: Now, Judge, when the President asked you at Kennebunkport whether you and your family could take what would follow in the process, did you have any idea what you were going to have to, quote, “take,” unquote? Could you have guessed? That some people, including people on this committee, people in the media and others would dredge up stories about drug use, wife beating, advocating Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, lying about your neutrality in Roe vs. Wade, sexual harassment, maybe even implications of other things.

Thomas: Senator, I expected it to be bad. And I expected the awful treatment throughout the process. I expected to be a sitting duck for the interest groups. I expected them to attempt to kill me. And yes, I even expected personally attempts on my life. That’s just how much I expected.

I did not expect this circus. I did not expect this charge against my name. I expected people to do anything but not this.

And if by going through this, another nominee in the future or another American won’t have to go through it, then so be it. But I did not expect this treatment and I did not expect to lose my name, my reputation, my integrity, to do public service.

Again, I did not ask to be nominated. I did not lobby for it.

I did not beg for it. I did not aspire to it. I was perfectly happy on the U.S. Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit, which is a lifetime appointment. I did not expect to lose my life in the process. . . . I think I’ve died 1,000 deaths. What it means is living on one hour a night’s sleep. It means losing 15 pounds in two weeks. It means being unable to eat, unable to drink, unable to think about anything but this and wondering why, how. It means wanting to give up. It means losing the belief in our system, in this system, in this process, losing a belief in a sense of fairness and honesty and decency. That’s what it’s meant to me. . . .

The person who appeared here for the real confirmation hearings believed that it was OK to be nominated to the Supreme Court and have a tough confirmation hearing. This person, if asked by George Bush today would he want to be nominated, would refuse flatly and would advise any friend of his to refuse. It’s just not worth it.

Hatch: Judge, you’re here, though. Some people have been spreading the rumor that perhaps you’re going to withdraw. What’s Clarence Thomas going to do?

Thomas: I’d rather die than withdraw. If they’re gonna kill me they’re gonna kill me.

Hatch: So you’d still like to serve on the Supreme Court?

Thomas: I’d rather die than withdraw from the process. Not for the purpose of serving on the Supreme Court, but for the purpose of not being driven out of this process. I will not be scared. I don’t like bullies. I’ve never run from bullies. I never cry uncle and I’m not going cry uncle today, whether I want to be on the Supreme Court or not.

‘Yes, I Can Heal’

(Questioning by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.)

Biden: Judge, let me make sure I understand one thing. Do you believe that interest groups went out and got Prof. Hill to make up a story, or do you believe Prof. Hill had a story, untrue from your perspective, that, as referred to here, groups went out and found? Which do you believe?

Thomas: Senator, I believe that someone, some interest group, I don’t care who it is, in combination, came up with this story and used this process to destroy me.

(Questioning by Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.)

DeConcini: I don’t think Prof. Hill will ever fully recover from what she’s gone through, regardless of what happens to you. . . . My question to you is do you think you can recover from dying 1,000 deaths, having your name and your reputation ripped from you through this process, can you recover as an individual and serve on the Supreme Court?

Thomas: During this process, the last 105 days and the last 2 1/2 weeks especially, I have never had such outpouring of love and affection and friendship. And people who know me, not people making these scurrilous assertions, but people who know me, supporting me and caring for me, helping me to recover from it, and survive it. . . .

Yes, I can heal. As I said in my opening remarks, I will simply walk down the Hill--if I’m not confirmed, so be it--and continue my job as a court of appeals judge, and hopefully live a long life, enjoy my neighbors and my friends, my son, cut my grass, go to McDonald’s, drive my car, and just be a good citizen, and a good judge, and a good father, and a good husband. Yeah, I’ll survive. My question was, will the country survive. And hopefully it will.