Excerpts: ‘It’s Decision-Making Time and We Can’t Punt’

Here are excerpts from the Senate debate Tuesday preceding the vote to confirm Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.): The issue before us is the fate of the Supreme Court and the Constitution now and for decades to come. It is no secret that I oppose Judge Thomas’ nomination. The extreme views he expressed before his confirmation hearings demonstrate that he lacks a deep commitment to the fundamental constitutional values at the core of our democracy.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for supporters of Judge Thomas to bitterly criticize the conduct of certain advocacy groups in the controversy over the charges by Prof. Hill when it is clear that Judge Thomas was nominated precisely to advance the agenda of the right wing. I oppose any effort by this Administration to pack the Supreme Court with justices who will turn back the clock on issues of vital importance for the future of our nation and for the kind of country we want America to be.

But over the past nine days, the debate on this nomination has been transformed and the nation has been transfixed by the charges of sexual harassment made by Prof. Anita Hill and by the Judiciary Committee’s hearings. . . . The most distressing aspect of the hearings was the eagerness with which many of Judge Thomas’ supporters resorted to innuendo and scurrilous attacks on Prof. Hill . . . . They have charged that Prof. Hill’s allegations were an effort to play on racial fears and racial stereotypes. But the issue here is sexual oppression, not racial oppression . . . . The treatment of Anita Hill is what every woman fears who thinks of lifting the veil and revealing her sexual harassment. . . . The way Prof. Hill was treated was shameful.

‘Women . . . Should Not Listen’

Sen Arlen Specter (R-Pa.): We do not need characterizations like “shame” in this chamber from the senator from Massachusetts. The women of America should not listen to the senator from Massachusetts, who is trying to arouse passions on the generalized subjects of sexual harassment.

In my judgment, Mr. President, the weight of the evidence supports Judge Thomas, and I say that because of the underlying evidence that Prof. Hill moved with Judge Thomas from the Department of Education to the EEOC after he had made these statements to her, after he had stated what is sexual harassment as she viewed the statements. It seems to me that one might have expected her not to go to another job when that had occurred. . . .

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del): There’s only one thing that I find reprehensible, and it’s going on in some quarters now. Because both witnesses came across as credible, very credible, because Prof. Hill came across as so credible, people were left with only one of two choices. She’s credible, therefore believe her. Or she’s not credible, therefore, say she’s crazy.

There is absolutely not one shred of evidence to suggest that Prof. Hill is fantasizing; not one shred of evidence to suggest that Prof. Hill isn’t and has not been in total control of all her faculties. There is no shred of evidence for the garbage that I hear . . . that somehow she really is telling, that she thinks she’s telling the truth . . . . I hear and read and remember vividly the phrase that what this is all about is the lynching of an uppity black man, and this is a stereotypical attack on a black man. Well, I think that’s preposterous.

But if that’s true, Mr. President, what are we saying about a black woman who is as well educated as the black man in question, who has a better grounding in the law as a tenured professor of the law? What are we saying to her when we all acknowledge he sounds incredibly credible?

If that is not stereotypical lynching of a black woman, what is?

Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.): . . . when the President named Clarence Thomas to be his nominee for the Supreme Court, he described the nominee to be the best person in the United States for the job. Many people poked fun at that description, but this senator believes that the description was well founded. I believe that Clarence Thomas is what America is all about. He captures in himself the American spirit, the tradition of being able to make the most of your life and apply yourself and to contribute something with your life.

. . . I believed on July 1st that he was an outstanding choice, and I believe that even more today . . . . The business of interest groups fanning out through the country digging up dirt on a nominee, the business of leaks, of confidential documents put out to members of the press, the idea that absolutely anything goes, if necessary, to stop a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. This whole process must be ended.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.): Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Thomas. When I announced earlier this year that I would support the nomination of Judge Thomas, I did so because I was convinced that he met the tests of intellect, integrity, and open-mindedness. Now, we are faced with a different set of circumstances, an allegation that we all are very familiar with, having watched the proceeding. . . . I would like to say that I believe the weight of the evidence supports Judge Thomas’ denial.

Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.): The last week has been a kind of national tragedy. But if the result is that the country becomes more sensitive to sexual harassment, then the dark clouds will have had a valuable silver lining. . . . I think we have to fall back on our legal system and its presumption of innocence for those accused. Under our system, the burden falls on those making allegations. Under our system, the person being accused gets the benefit of the doubt.

. . . In this case, Mr. President, that means that Judge Thomas is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Since the Judiciary Committee hearing did not overcome that presumption, that means Prof. Hill’s allegations cannot be used to justify a vote against Judge Thomas.

‘Offended by Stonewalling’

Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.): Aside from believing Anita Hill, I was offended by Judge Thomas’ stonewalling the committee. He said he wanted to come back before the committee and clear his name. That’s what I heard. He wanted to clear his name. He was given the opportunity to clear his name. But he didn’t even listen to the principal witness, the only witness against him. He said he couldn’t listen to it. He was tired of lies. What kind of judicial temperament does that demonstrate? . . .

By refusing to watch her testimony, he put up a wall between himself and the committee. How could the committee question him? How could the committee learn the truth if the accused refused even to hear the charges? What does this say about the conduct of a judge? . . . A man whose primary function in his professional life is to listen to the evidence, to listen to both sides, whether plaintiff or defendant in a civil case, or prosecutor and the accused in a criminal case.

I have substantial doubts after this episode about the judicial temperament of Judge Thomas, doubts that I did not have prior to this weekend’s hearing. How can we have confidence, if he is confirmed, that he will be an objective judge, willing to decide cases based on the evidence presented, if the one case that has mattered most to him in his lifetime, he shut his eyes and closed his ears and closed his mind and didn’t even bother to watch the sworn testimony of Anita Hill? . . .

Another reason why I shall vote against Judge Thomas . . . He mounted his own defense by charging that the committee proceedings were “high-tech lynching” of “uppity blacks.” Now, Mr. President, in my judgment, that was an attempt to shift the ground. That was an attempt to fire the prejudices of race hatred, shift it to a matter involving race.

And I, frankly, was offended by his injection of racism into these hearings. It was a diversionary tactic intended to divert both the committee’s and the American public’s attention away from the issue at hand, the issue being which one is telling the truth.

I was offended by that. I thought we were past that stage. . . .

A black American woman was making the charge against a black American male. Where is the racism? Nonsense. Nonsense.

‘Strip Away the Hysteria’

Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.): Waves of base sensationalism, prurience, and vicious political mudslinging have eaten away at the very foundation of the Senate and the confirmation process. I am outraged and ashamed by the perversion of the process which has occurred, and I am profoundly saddened by the damage that has been done to a man of impeccable character, immense courage, and deep compassion, a man many of us have come to respect and admire. If we are to salvage our constitutional role in this instance, Mr. President, we must strip away the hysteria which has surrounded this whole affair and return to the facts.

. . . her testimony provided us with many more questions than answers. If this behavior did take place, why did she wait 10 years--I repeat, 10 long years--to bring this charge? Why did not she not bring it up to investigators or even to the media during Judge Thomas’ four previous confirmation hearings.

If she was being harassed while working for Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, why did she follow him--I repeat--follow him to the EEOC? Why would she continue to subject herself to these unwelcome advances? Not one of desperation for a job. For contrary to what she told this committee, she could have easily kept her job at the Department of Education.

In addition, Prof. Hill was and is an attorney. She must have been well aware there was legal redress available to her if she was being harassed. Especially as an employee of the agency responsible for enforcing civil rights protection, Prof. Hill must have been aware of the procedures for bringing such a charge and for keeping contemporaneous records of such treatment. Why did she not bring charges against this man if he was harassing her?

After leaving the Washington area, why did Prof. Hill maintain a cordial relationship with a man who treated her so badly that she had to be hospitalized for stress? Why would she telephone Clarence Thomas just to say hello? Or even more bizarre, to congratulate him on his marriage?

Prof. Hill’s statement and actions are not congruent. The Judiciary Committee is not capable of discerning a clear motive for Prof. Hill to tell an untruth, but I believe that is what has occurred. . . . I do not believe Judge Thomas is capable of the kind of behavior Prof. Hill described to this committee, and I do not believe that Prof. Hill is telling the truth.

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.): The same people who gave us the worst of racial stereotypes in political campaigns--the Willie Horton ad--have now smeared Anita Hill. Much is said about ruined reputations, but what about Anita Hill? At age 35, a professor of law, a Yale graduate, goes back to what? There is much said about her mental health, that she was delusioned, had fantasies. Maybe she was deluded into the fact that if she came forth and was a good citizen, she would be protected. Maybe she had fantasies about the fairness of a process she thought she would get in the United States Senate.

. . . (Thomas’) handlers and front people kept the true nature of the man from me and my colleagues. That was their strategy in the first set of hearings.

But in the second set of hearings, they adopted the strategy of smash and smear to obscure the facts and attack a woman who came forward.

That strategy victimized not only Anita Hill, but victimized the confirmation process, black Americans everywhere, and even those wonderful black Americans who came forward to even testify, regardless of who they were advocating. What distinguished people they were. And it also victimized the women of this country. . . .

The message is, don’t accuse anyone no matter what he does, or you, yourself, will become the accused. The message to women is, your courage in coming forward will be met with suspicion and scorn, with unproven, unsupported charges about you being mentally balanced, about you being an opportunist. . . .

Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-Kan.): Three weeks ago I spoke in support of Judge Thomas’ confirmation. In all that has come to light since then, I find no compelling basis to overturn that judgment. In fact, I believe it would be manifestly unfair for the Senate to destroy a Supreme Court nominee on the basis of evidence that finally boils down to the testimony of one person, however creditable, against his flat, unequivocal, and equally creditable denial.

Throughout my years here I have taken pride in the fact that I am a U.S. senator, not a woman senator. . . . On the question before us, some women suggest that I should judge this nomination not as a senator but as a woman, one of only two in the Senate. I reject that suggestion.

The issue before me is whether, with all of the ambiguity surrounding this matter, the allegation by Prof. Hill was substantiated to the point that I should change my previous view.

Mr. President, I have reached the conclusion that it has not and I therefore will vote to confirm Judge Thomas.

Sen. J. James Exon (D-Neb.): I intend to vote for confirmation but without enthusiasm. It’s decision-making time and we can’t punt.

‘Clear and Convincing Testimony’

Sen. William S. Cohen (R-Me.): If in fact Judge Thomas engaged in the lewd and disgusting behavior that was alleged, it would seem to me more likely to indicate a chronic character flaw and not an aberrant episode of obscene behavior. And if that’s true it seems improbable to me that his sexual aggressiveness would not have been displayed toward other women in the work environment and his behavior would not have been reported or at least noted by others. But the overwhelming volume of testimony of those who work most closely with him, most of whom were women, was clear and convincing on this issue. He behaved with courtesy, kindness, generosity, and complete professionalism at all times with them. . . .

Now, it’s been argued by some, principally by Judge Thomas’ opponents, that as long as a shadow of doubt falls across a Supreme Court nominee’s integrity, that nominee must be rejected. But if we allow doubt itself to be sown by a single individual to be a reason for rejecting a nominee, then I think we’ve set in motion a process which holds the potential for undermining or destroying any nominee for any public office. And I cannot bring myself to be a party to that.

Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.): Had we not had the delay and had we had the vote last Tuesday, in my view, he would have been defeated, his nomination would have been defeated. It seems to me now that there’s been hardly any defections.

. . . We are back now where we were a week ago when a majority of us, Republicans and Democrats, were prepared to say that Judge Thomas was qualified to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. I guess the one question that I have is how much of a burden (have) we placed on Clarence Thomas? How much of a burden will he carry for the next six months, or year, six weeks, who knows how long, with last-minute allegations fully aired to millions and millions and millions of Americans? And will it have a lasting impact when he reviews various kinds of cases, including cases of sexual harassment?

In my view this will make Judge Thomas even a better judge, a stronger judge, than earlier indicated. Having gone through another test of his strength and his character, in my view he is in a stronger position.

‘Without Absolute Certainty’

Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.): Those senators who announced their opposition to Clarence Thomas before these allegations were made had determined to vote against him on other grounds. They need not now decide whether the allegations are true in order to vote against Judge Thomas. But those of us who announced our support for Judge Thomas before these allegations became known must now pass judgment on Ms. Hill’s charges. The plain truth is that we must make this judgment without the absolute certainty that our judgment is correct. . . .

What actually happened? With the possible exception of the two principals, I doubt that any of us will ever know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But there is a wide range of possibilities. It is certainly possible that Prof. Hill has described what took place precisely and accurately and that Judge Thomas has perjured himself in order to avoid rejection and humiliation. It is also clearly possible that Judge Thomas has told the complete and absolute truth and that Prof. Hill, as a result of real or imagined slights, determined to do what she could to undercut his reputation and then took advantage of an opportunity presented to her by certain Senate staffers promising anonymity to destroy a Supreme Court nomination.

It may be, however, that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. It is certainly conceivable that Clarence Thomas made comments that were taken as offensive by Prof. Hill, but reaching this conclusion does not constitute proof that the specific remarks alleged by Prof. Hill were made. In the ultimate analysis, Mr. President, I prefer to believe that both witnesses have told the truth as they perceive it. I cannot, of course, be certain of this conclusion, but as is the case with each of my colleagues, I must act with full knowledge only that I can never be entirely certain that I am correct.

Because I believe it is more likely than not that the description of Judge Thomas’ Department of Education and EEOC presented by those who knew the two parties best falls closer to the truth than does the picture painted by Prof. Hill, and because Judge Thomas otherwise (appears) to be well qualified for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States, and because I cannot deny him that position on suspicion alone, no matter how troubling.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (D-Ala.): I have been troubled by the allegations. But ultimately you have to make a decision and I made a decision this morning to support Judge Thomas, to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah): If she was uncertain about her ability to stay at the Department of Education, why didn’t she make any inquiry with the designated replacement of Thomas, who came on board while she was still there? That would be a natural thing anybody would do. . . . If she didn’t want to talk to that designated replacement, then why didn’t she call anyone in the personnel office or anywhere else or anyone else to find out what her rights were at the Department of Education?

. . . If she left the Department of Education in 1982 because she feared the Department was going to be, quote, “abolished,” unquote, why did she leave a lucrative private sector job just a year earlier to go to work in the same department? To the extent there was any risk that the Department of Education was going to . . . be abolished, that risk was greater in 1981 than it was when she left, than in 1982. . . .

Why would Judge Thomas, as an African-American male who was acutely sensitive to black issues use those anti-black stereotypes, racial stereotypes? To me that was a dramatic part of his testimony, and he testified honestly. If you read that record and watched him, you knew he did. Why would anybody of his sophistication, his intelligence, and his experience even use that type of language? . . . I don’t think anyone can ignore these questions. I just don’t think they can. Some may come up with certain explanations to respond to one or some of these questions, but all of them cannot be satisfactorily answered, and, cumulatively, they raise very grave doubts about her story.