Pro-Hill Excerpts: ‘Wouldn’t Take No for an Answer’

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.

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.

I thought it was outrageous and, in a perverse sort of way, ironic that the person in charge of fighting discrimination in the workplace could harass an employee in this way.

(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 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.

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

Hoerchner: She replied that she was appalled at the treatment of . . . (her ex-Yale professor Judge Robert) Bork in his confirmation hearing, and from that I concluded that she did not intend to step forward.

(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?

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.

Was She Zealous?

(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.

(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: 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.