‘No Regrets’ Over Thomas Case, Hill Says

Anita Faye Hill said Friday that she is “shocked and angry” at the way she was assailed during the recent congressional hearings but that she has “no regrets” about publicly leveling sexual harassment charges against new Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“I’m glad I did it. I have no regrets,” Hill said.

The University of Oklahoma law professor also expressed determination to go on with her “isolated” life--sustained by the hope that--despite her recent ordeal--more women now will openly combat harassment.

“I think we’ve all learned something. I’ve learned something. Before, I thought it was just my situation. And now I realize it is a phenomenon, and it’s pervasive,” she added.

During an hourlong interview, Hill spoke at times animatedly and at other times almost in a whisper, saying that her experience has left her with both optimism and anger.

Hill also ruefully conceded that the whole truth may never be known. “There are so many pieces that are missing and maybe they’ll always be missing,” she said. “And I haven’t resolved myself to that.”

Several times, she laughed heartily at what she regarded as the disparity in resources when “a private individual” goes up against the full powers of the federal government. Contrary to some perceptions, Hill said, she in fact had very little time or help in preparing for her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which reopened hearings on the Thomas nomination after her allegations became public.

Hill, a Thomas aide during the early 1980s, declined to talk more specifically about how she regards her treatment in Washington or about her charges against Thomas.

“It’s too soon to do that,” she said. “And I’m not trying to stir up or redo this thing.” Hill said that she is still trying to sort out her thoughts by talking into a tape recorder. “But don’t worry, I’m not writing a book,” she added with a laugh.

“I’ve had the whole range of emotions. Of course you’re angry. You sit there but you’re so shocked that this could be happening, when your life two, three years ago was pretty simple,” she said.

“I began this summer teaching school, enjoying my classes. When the nomination was made, this issue came back to me. And I sit here now and ask myself how did I get from there to here?”

Sipping from a cup of black coffee, Hill was interviewed in a sun-drenched faculty lounge at the law center. She had no classes to teach Friday but had spent most of the day preparing for two commercial-law seminars early next week.

Hill repeatedly declined to characterize the behavior of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but did say: “I thought the hearings did not fulfill the purposes of a fact-finding hearing. They didn’t seem very useful to me and I really think it was not useful to the public.”

But some of her colleagues and friends here expressed their disappointment that Hill did not have an aggressive advocate among the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee as Thomas did among the GOP members.

“We thought all she had to do was go up there and tell the truth,” said Prof. Shirley A. Wiegand, a close Hill friend. “That’s how naive we were.”

The process, Hill said, left her angry. “In all honesty, if you have confidence in the integrity of your position and you allow your position to stand, you do not resort to dirty tricks to distract from the other person’s point of view.”

Hill said that she hopes her experience will encourage women to fight sexual harassment despite the harsh interrogation she endured at the hands of some Republican committee members, who questioned her delay in making the allegations against Thomas.

“You can’t condemn people because they don’t feel they can come forward because of their particular situation,” Hill said.

“But one of the things that I can say to them (victims of harassment) is that they should find somebody to talk to. Somebody will listen. . . . There is support out there.”

Hill also corrected one perception left by American University law professor Joel Paul, who was among four persons to testify that Hill had told them of being allegedly harassed by Thomas years earlier.

Paul had said that Hill once argued over a 1987 lunch in favor of then-Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork. In fact, Hill said Friday, she was only criticizing the gloves-off confirmation process that Bork was enduring.

“Maybe I went too far in trying to stake out a position. But I wasn’t supporting him ideologically,” Hill said. Bork had been her professor at the Yale Law School.

At one point, Hill laughed when asked about the “team” of lawyers who advised her. In fact, she said, she had no advisers until 24 hours before she was to testify.

“They (Thomas backers) had all these people working behind the scenes. We didn’t have all these people. It was a clear disparity,” Hill said.

“What it means is that, in terms of the hearings, this was not just a women’s issue. It’s an issue involving private citizens who have limited resources who come before a body like the Senate and get it all clouded in speculation and innuendo and conjecture. . . .”

Hill specifically decried the statements made by Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) that he had anti-Hill letters “hanging out of my pockets,” which the senator failed to produce. “Who would have anticipated that? I wouldn’t have,” Hill said angrily. “Even if you had anticipated it, how could you combat it?”

Referring to the testimony of John N. Doggett III, who told the committee that Hill was a frustrated woman who had fantasized about having a romantic relationship with him, Hill said:

“When I heard him, I thought, ‘My goodness, I’m going to have to respond to every guy who ever ran in front of my house.’ To me, it was that nebulous a connection. It seemed like anybody out of the past could come out, send in an affidavit, say anything and they would use it.”

Except for when she herself testified before the committee, Hill watched the proceedings from a Washington hotel.

At points during the three-day hearing, Hill said, she found herself asking: “What are we here for? Everybody now knows these awful details of my life and yet this man (Thomas) sits there and says I refuse” to take questions about my private life.

“How can this be a fact-finding hearing when you allow that to happen?” Hill said. “And then for some of the senators to conclude, ‘Well, I believe him.’ ” Her voice trailed off.

“There are two things that keep me hopeful,” Hill said. “The first and foremost is that I’ve been receiving letters and messages from people who say: ‘I have been able to talk about this, now that you’ve talked about it. You’ve broken the silence, and it’s not taboo anymore.’ ”

Moreover, Hill added: “I’ve received letters from men who say, ‘Look, I’ve made these comments before in complete ignorance and my consciousness now has been raised.’

“And so maybe this dialogue that’s been created will at least raise consciousness,” Hill concluded.

“I’m doing OK. I’m just overwhelmed with all these things I have to pick up,” she said. “I also have this burning desire to read my mail. And I’ve got this burning desire to read more about this issue.”