Excerpts: ‘I Still Believe She Was Telling the Truth’

Here are excerpts from Sunday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and Anita Faye Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment . (Ellen Wells, project manager, American Public Welfare Assn.)

In the fall of 1982, Prof. Hill shared with me in confidence the fact that she considered Judge Thomas’ behavior toward her in the office to be inappropriate.

Prof. Hill did not at that time, nor in subsequent conversations provide exact details about the action she found inappropriate conduct. She did tell me they were sexual in nature.

I believed the statements made by my friend, Prof. Hill. As she told me of this situation, she appeared to be deeply troubled and very depressed. And later, I remember talking to her by telephone while she was in the hospital, and she explained to me that what she was suffering from appeared to be job related--job stress related.

Senators, I would like to say that I am not a party to any effort to derail Judge Thomas’ confirmation to the Supreme Court by any interest group or by individuals who may not agree with his political philosophy.

I am here as an individual simply as a matter of conscience to tell you what I was told by Anita Hill.

(John William Carr, New York attorney)

During one of these telephone conversations, Anita Hill revealed to me that her supervisor was sexually harassing her. I recall that she did not initially volunteer this information. Rather, during the telephone conversation it quickly became clear to me that she was troubled and upset.

I knew that Anita Hill worked for Clarence Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In this telephone conversation, it was immediately clear to me that she was referring to Judge Thomas.

I asked her to tell me what he had done. It is my recollection that she told me that Clarence Thomas had asked her out on dates and showed an unwanted sexual interest in her. She was very uncomfortable talking about these events and said that she did not want to go into any detail about the actions that had so upset her.

(Susan Hoerchner, workers’ compensation judge from California)

It’s not just a question of my never having known her to lie, I have never known Anita even to exaggerate. I have never known her to express anger. I have never known her to condemn a person rather than particular behavior. I have never known her to use profane or offensive language.

I remember in particular one telephone conversation I had with Anita. . . . She told me that she was being subjected to sexual harassment, to whom she referred by name. That boss was Clarence Thomas.

Anita said that Clarence Thomas had repeatedly asked her out. She told me that she had, of course, refused, but that he wouldn’t seem to take no for an answer. He kept pressing her and repeating things like, “I’m your type,” and “You know I’m your kind of man but you refuse to admit it.”

One thing Anita told me that struck me particularly and that I remember almost verbatim was that Mr. Thomas had said to her, “You know, if you had witnesses, you’d have a perfect case against me.”

(Joel Paul, associate law professor, American University)

. . . Over lunch in the university cafeteria, I asked Prof. Hill why she had left the EEOC. This was a logical question to ask in the course of discussing with her her employment history.

Prof. Hill responded, reluctantly and with obvious emotion and embarrassment, that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor at the EEOC. I was shocked and astonished by her statement, which is why I remember the incident so vividly.

I do not recall whether she went on to say the name “Clarence Thomas,” but if she had said it, the name would not have meant anything to me at that time because I had no idea who Judge Thomas was.

I asked Prof. Hill if she had sought any recourse for her situation, and she said no. When I asked her why not, she said that she felt she had no effective recourse in that situation.

I believe that Prof. Hill’s statement to me was truthful. Prof. Hill at that time had no reason to claim sexual harassment as an explanation for leaving the EEOC. Many people leave government jobs for teaching positions.

Thus, I concluded then and I still believe that she was telling the truth.

Moreover, I cannot believe that she could be politically motivated. I know from numerous conversations with her that she served faithfully in the Reagan Administration.

. . . Indeed, when Judge Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in the summer of 1987, I remember vividly that Prof. Hill supported his nomination and told me that she held him in extremely high esteem as a former teacher of hers at Yale.

‘Said Her Stomach Turned’

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

Biden: Now, you (Hoerchner) said in your testimony that you knew the problem continued after that (initial) conversation (with Hill). How did you know that the problem continued. . . ?

Hoerchner: In telephone conversations I asked, and she led me to understand that it was happening and often would say she didn’t want to talk about it at that time.

Biden: Did it surprise you (Wells) that she stayed (as Thomas’ employee)?

Wells: No, it did not, because I think that is something that a woman in that situation would do. I know in my situation, when confronted with something not quite as of a long-term nature as Prof. Hill’s experience, I stayed.

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

Specter: Judge Hoerchner . . . you called Prof. Hill the day of the appointment of Judge Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States, is that correct?

Hoerchner: Yes, I did.

Specter: And what was the purpose of that call?

Hoerchner: I called to ask her whether she had heard about the nomination, and she said she had been contacted by telephone by the press and she heard about it that way, and that her stomach turned. I asked her whether she was going to say anything. She did not give me a direct answer.

Specter: Why did you ask her whether she was going to say anything? Was there some thought in your mind that she should come forward?

Hoerchner: I had no thought of should or shouldn’t. I wanted to see what she was going to do.

Specter: And what was her response to you at that time?

Hoerchner: She replied that she was appalled at the treatment of . . . Bork in his confirmation hearing, and from that I concluded that she did not intend to step forward.

Specter: And did she tell you at that time that she thought that both Judge Bork and Judge Thomas should stand or fall on their ideas?

Hoerchner: I believe she did.

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

Hoerchner: (Reading from her statement to the FBI) “I remember in particular one statement that I’m remembering almost verbatim, but not completely verbatim. That was that he said to her, ‘You know, if we had any witnesses you would have a perfect case against me.’ ”

Leahy: Now, who was it who had made that statement to you, and who was that person talking about?

Hoerchner: Anita Hill was quoting to me what her boss Clarence had said to her.

Leahy: And by “Clarence” did you understand Clarence Thomas?

Hoerchner: I understood Clarence Thomas.

Leahy: I’ll just ask you one more question about Prof. Hill. Is she, in your estimation, a woman that suffers from fantasies in any way, or is she pretty levelheaded?

Hoerchner: She is one of the most levelheaded people I have ever known. Her feet are firmly on the ground. She has never conveyed any fantasy to me whatsoever.

Leahy: You (Wells) said you weren’t surprised that she (Hill) stayed (at her job with Thomas). Ms. Wells--I’m sorry to delve into your privacy and everybody else’s--tell us why do you say that?

Wells: Well, when you’re confronted with something like that, you feel powerless and vulnerable, and unless you have a private income, you have no recourse. And since this is generally done in privacy, there are no witnesses, and so it’s your word, an underling, against that of a superior, someone who is obviously thought well of or they would not have risen to the position that they hold. And so if you hope to go forward and, by going forward, move out from under their power and control, you sometimes have to put up with things that no one should be expected to put up with.

Leahy: Ms. Wells, sitting here today, do you feel that this is what Anita Hill experienced?

Wells: Yes, I do, Senator.

Was She Zealous?

(Questioning by Specter)

Specter: Let me turn now, Judge Hoerchner, to the question about a couple of the job changes. And you had commented in your deposition . . . “She was going to leave because of that, . . . whether or not she had another job.” And that was in response to the question of her reasons for leaving her job at EEOC. Were you aware of the fact that she did not leave her job at EEOC or that the circumstances as represented to you did not cause her to leave the job at EEOC without finding another job first?

Hoerchner: I believe after she left she told me. I met her at a professional conference, and it was clear that she did have another job. In that conversation, she did not say that she was going to leave her job and refused to get another job. She just said that would give herself some time and then she would leave, no matter what.

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

Heflin: Was she, in your (Hoerchner’s) observation of her, a zealous cause person, whether it be in civil rights, the feminist movement or whatever? Did she ever indicate to you that she was a zealous cause person who was willing to do great things, move forward, take drastic steps in order to advance whatever her cause would be?

Hoerchner: Most definitely not, Senator. I know that she worked under the Reagan Administration. To this day I have no idea how she votes. I have very little sense of where she would fit on a political spectrum. And further, due to the quiet and gentle strength of her nature, she is not someone who seeks a public forum.

Maintaining Contact

(Questioning by Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.)

Simpson: She is alleging behavior. We are here today because of behavior. If we are here today because of behavior, may I please have a summary from you; what does this say about her behavior?

Carr: Neither am I an expert in sexual harassment, or, for that matter, the behavioral sciences. However, I do know that in looking forward as a young professional at my career, I am concerned that I will be on good terms with people who have a say or impact or are in a position to judge my career. And I would be extremely hesitant to say or do anything to offend or cut them off for fear that in the future they might adversely impact my career. I may need them for a reference; anything of that sort. And it may well be that Anita Hill--and I’m just telling you this is my own view on the way people--the way people act, it may well be that a good portion of Anita Hill’s, so to speak, professional claim to fame, was due to her experiences with Clarence Thomas. And it may well be that to categorically cut off that relationship would have been detrimental to her career going forward.

(Questioning by Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio)

Metzenbaum: I just want to ask you . . . if you can maybe explain to us 14 men, and the balance of our colleagues in the Senate, and maybe the rest of the country, what it is to experience sexual harassment, or how a woman feels, and the repression that she places upon herself not to talk about it or do anything about it or to sever the relationship with the person who has harassed her.

Wells: I think the--one of the first things you would ask yourself is, “What did I do?” You blame yourself. You say, “Mmm, is it something I’m wearing?” I have had--been in this sort of situation. OK, perhaps it’s the perfume I have on. I went to Catholic school, and the nuns certainly taught me to be careful in my dress. . . . But you do ask yourself, what did I do? And so you try to change your behavior because it must be me, I must be the wrong party here. And then I think you perhaps start to get angry and frustrated. But there’s always that sense of being powerless. And you’re also ashamed. And so you keep it in; you don’t say anything.

(Questioning by Sen. Specter)

Specter: Ms. Wells, let me pick up with your statement, as I wrote it down, when you heard the details as to what Prof. Hill had said that Judge Thomas said to her, that, quote, “so outraged you’d have to do something.” . . . Knowing Prof. Hill as you do, and in the light of your statement, “so outraged have to do something,” what would that something have been? Would it have been to follow him from one job to another, to call him up, to drive him to the airport, or would it at least have been not to maintain that kind of an association?

Wells: Well, Senator, as I believe I indicated earlier, one of the reasons that I would be hesitant to offer advice on this kind of issue is because of the ramifications, and it’s such a personal thing. So, yes, if she had said something like that, sitting outside of the situation, I would have said, “Oh, this is terrible. Yes, you must do something.” But what could I actually expect her to do? When I told a close friend about my occurrence, in terms of being touched, I was told immediately, “Oh, you should file a suit.” I wasn’t going to do that. I couldn’t do that. First of all, who saw it? Nobody. But I tell you this, I didn’t need to write it down because I remember the places on my body that he touched, just as she did not need to write down the words he used, because they are burned indelibly into her brain. And so, yes, it may seem strange that you maintain contact, but I think it’s something that you just school yourself to do. . . .

Talking About Thomas

Specter: Your (Paul’s) testimony was that she said she had been sexually harassed by a supervisor. I’m advised . . . reliably that she had two supervisors besides Judge Thomas, who was her ultimate supervisor as the chairman of the EEOC. Would the statement she made to you about a supervisor comprehend as well a supervisor other than the chairman of the EEOC?

Paul: Well, Senator, she said that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor. From what I know of Prof. Hill, it’s not conceivable to me that she would now be blaming Judge Thomas for the actions of another man, so I would have to conclude that, no, Senator, I believe that she was talking about Judge Thomas.

(Questioning by Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.)

Kohl: Now, Judge Hoerchner, I’d like to ask you a question inasmuch as you are a judge, and I’m interested in your opinion on--in contrast to Anita who we have discussed today, and the pain and the suffering that she’s endured, from your vantage point as a judge, do you have any comment to make on the pain and the suffering that has been endured by Judge Thomas’ family here? Can you give us some insight, offer some words?

Hoerchner: Yesterday, Judge Thomas spoke here very eloquently about the pain that he has experienced. There is only person to blame for that pain. I know no one who takes any joy in his suffering. His suffering is very apparent. There is, however, only one person to blame. It is not the press, it is not the person or persons who leaked the information. It is not Anita Hill. He is suffering as a result of his own actions. And there’s another person who has been suffering much, much longer. She’s suffering now, she was suffering 10 years ago, and she is not suffering as a result of her actions, and that person is Anita Hill.