“Are you a scorned woman?”
That was the “brilliant” question asked to Prof. Anita Hill by Senator Howell Heflin, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 1991 confirmation hearing (comprised entirely of graying white men) there to determine the fitness of Clarence Thomas for a seat on the U. S. Supreme Court.
After a three second – “are you kidding me” – pause and throat clearing, the good professor calmly answered, “no I’m not senator!”
Now let’s fast forward 35 years later to a recent Sunday night when Prof. Hill sat stoically across the desk from her interviewer, CNN’s Jake Tapper, to recap the experience and her life since then. On full display during that interview was the sempiternal nature of her professional demeanor that’s seemingly unchanged by time, a steadiness Prof. Hill exhibited during eight hours of blistering grilling by senators, some of whom had questionable backgrounds with respect to their treatment of women. Her poise and unflappability during her interview were textbook.
Like millions, I sat glued to the image of Prof. Hill and fixed in my imagination was that hellacious day for her and the irreparable damage it had to her career since then. On TV this Sunday night her once jet-black hair was now tinged gray. And gone from her image were the sky-blue dress and bright red lipstick she donned during her 1991 testimony to a mellow black dress and rouge lipstick on this evening. Clearly what was unchanged was her poise and unflappability during her interview with Tapper. Never once back in 1991 nor now did she lose her composure or explode in anger like Thomas or his Supreme Court ultra conservative bud Bret Kavanaugh.
Let’s pause for a memory refresher.
Then president George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to succeed Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court, not because of his spotty judicial history, but because of their desire at all costs to replace the liberal-leaning Marshall with a Black conservative. And Thomas, forever an opportunist and “DEI” candidate if ever there was one, fitted the bill.
During Thomas’ confirmation hearing, 20 million people watched the eight-hour proceedings. Prof. Hill has long maintained that her appearance before the Committee was against her will.
Of course, we all can recall the faces of uneasiness, incredulity, unseriousness and eye rolling by Committee members anxious to get this behind them and steamroll Thomas onto the court at all costs. It was laughable that some members (Kenndey and Thurmond) were silent, hamstrung by their not-so-sterling past as it relates to the treatment of women.
This “Judiciary” Committee put on a show and gave the appearance of compassion for Professor Hill, while treating Thomas with kid gloves and serving him with softball questions. The silly grandstanding by Senators Alan Simpson and Orin Hatch was particularly loathsome. But when Thomas played his shoot first “high tech lynching” race card with nary a peep from the shocked senators, it was game over. Yes, once again the mere hint of race can result in people ducking for cover and bludgeoned into silence. Some things never seem to change, do they?
On reflection, in a question of what could have been, because of Committee Chairman Joe Biden’s decision (aided and abetted by Thomas’ “high tech lynching” lie) not to call Angela Wright or other women who could have corroborated Hill’s testimony, by the slimmest margin ever Thomas was elevated to the court and began a three-decades long assault on civil and abortion rights, let alone undermining the court’s credibility by accepting lavish gifts from his cigar smoking wealthy bros.
Now as yours truly is wont to do at times for other opinions, I reached out to “Nancy,” “Lew,” and “Elwood,” for their thoughts on the issue, and was not surprised by the unanimity and steadfastness of their opinions about Hill’s innocence and Thomas’ guilt.
“The confirmation of Thomas, after the accusations of Anita Hill, was a travesty of justice and set Women’s voices and rights back many years,” said Nancy. “Hill was not the only complainant, but the voices of those others were never heard. This action and “acceptance” of such behavior seems to have emboldened men such as Trump, Epstein, Prince Andrew and others, to think that women are there for their satisfaction! Is it a coincidence that the women selected to serve in this administration are all very attractive? “
“Yes, I believe that Thomas did sexually harass Anita Hill,” said Elwood. “That said, she was not the person who wanted to come forward. It was the National Organization of Women who leaked her name to the media because they were upset about Thomas’ position on reproductive rights.”
Continued Elwood, “My views of Thomas were never positive. He is the classic hypocrite who has taken advantage of and benefited from every government opportunity available to him, yet he has time and time again elected to deprive such opportunities to others.”
Wrote Lew, “My views have hardened more so on how Thomas lied during the hearing. He is by far the most unqualified Supreme Court Jurist ever and continues to receive monetary kickbacks for his rulings that benefit special interests. Evidently, accusations of sexual harassment by Thomas and later Brett Kavanaugh, does not disqualify one from a seat on the Supreme Court. Anita Hill is the primary reason so many women were elected to both chambers on Capitol Hill and Nancy Pelosi’s elevation to Speaker of the House. There should be a special recognition of Anita Hill annually when women are recognized. “
Now since African American History Month is behind us, it seems that Prof. Hill is never, or rarely, mentioned in celebrations of important contributors in African American or, for that matter, Women’s History Month. So, I’ll close that gap with a few questions about “seat taking.”
Rosa Parks took a seat on that bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 and was arrested. Did Parks’ taking a seat on the bus and subsequent arrest birth a Civil Rights movement that swept the nation?
Anita Hill took a seat before a hostile Judicial Committee and withstood a blistering attack. Did she not have any influence in getting eight women elected to congressional seats, let alone birth a Me-too movement that exposed powerful men (think Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, et al) who had sordid histories of abusing women?
And last, where would we be today with regards to the impact of Supreme Court rulings on reproductive rights and the progress of people of color had Joe Biden allowed Angela Wright to be seated to corroborate Prof. Hill’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee?
In the end, since our chances of ever seeing Prof. Hill’s face etched in stone on Mount Rushmore are as likely as my winning Russia’s next election for president, including her contributions in both African American and Women’s history celebrations should be a no brainer.
Wouldn’t you think?
- Welcome to our Grieving Community – by Terry Howard - April 15, 2025
- Prof. Anita Hill: Significance of Seat-taking – by Terry Howard - March 28, 2025
- A plea for more “Howard (and Harriet) Beales!” – by Terry Howard - March 16, 2025