FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1991
(Sounds gavel.) The hearing will come to order.
Let me ask the Capitol Hill police, if there's not absolute order and decorum in here, we will recess the hearing and those who engage in any outbursts at all will be asked to leave the chamber.
Good morning, Judge.
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting to hear evidence on sexual harassment charges that have been made against Judge Clarence Thomas, who has been nominated to be an Associate Judge of the Supreme Court.
I want to speak very briefly about the circumstances that have caused us to convene these hearings. We are here today to hold open hearings on Professor Anita Hill's allegations concerning Judge Thomas. This committee's handling of her charges has been criticized. Professor Hill has made two requests. First, she has asked us to investigate her charges against Judge Thomas. And second, she had asked that these charges remain confidential, that they not be made public, and not shared with anyone beyond this committee. I believe that we have honored both her requests.
Some have asked, how could you have the United States vote on Judge Thomas's nomination and leave senators in the dark about Professor Hill's charges? To this I answer, how can you expect us to have forced Professor Hill, against her will, into the blinding light which you see here today? But I'm deeply sorry that our actions in this respect have been seen by many across this country as a sign that this committee does not take the charge of sexual harassment seriously. We emphatically do.
I hope we all learn from the events of the past week. As one person who has spent the past two years attempting to combat violence of all kinds against women through legislative efforts, I can assure you that I take the charge of sexual harassment seriously.
The committee's ability to investigate and hold hearings on Professor Hill's charges has now dramatically changed. By the events which forced Professor Hill, against her wishes, to publicly discuss these charges, the landscape has changed. We are thus here today free from the restrictions which had previously limited our work.
Sexual harassment is a serious matter, and in my view, any person guilty of this offense is unsuited to serve not only on the nation's highest court but any position of responsibility, of high responsibility in or out of government.
Sexual harassment of working women is an issue of national concern, but that said, let me make clear that this is not -- I emphasize this is not a hearing about the extent and nature of sexual harassment in America. That question is for a different sort of meeting of this or any other committee. This is a hearing convened for a specific purpose: to air specific allegations against one specific individual, allegations which may be true or may not be true.
Whichever may be the case, this hearing has not been convened to investigate the widespread problem -- and it is indisputably widespread -- the widespread problem of sexual harassment in this country. Those watching these proceedings will see witnesses being sworn and testifying pursuant to a subpoena. But I want to emphasize that this is not a trial, this is not a courtroom. And at the end of our proceedings there will be no formal verdict of guilt or innocence, nor any finding of civil liability. Because this is not a trial, the proceedings will not be conducted the way in which a sexual harassment trial would be handled in a court of law. For example, on the advice of the nonpartisan Senate legal counsel, the rules of evidence that apply in courtrooms will not apply here today. Thus, evidence and questions that would not be permitted in a court of law must, under Senate rules, be allowed here.
This is a fact-finding hearing. And our purpose is to help our colleagues in the United States Senate determine whether Judge Thomas should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. We are not here, or at least I am not here, to be an advocate for one side or the other with respect to the specific allegations which we will review. And it is my hope and belief that my colleagues here today share that view.
Achieving fairness, in the atmosphere in which these hearings are being held, may be the most difficult task at least I have ever undertaken in my close to 19 years in the United States Senate. Each of us in this committee has already stated how he will vote on Judge Thomas' nomination. The committee, as the Senate rules require, has already voted in this committee on whether or not Judge Thomas should be on the Court. Each of us has already said whether we think Judge Thomas should or should not be a Supreme Court justice for reasons related to or unrelated to charges we will listen to today.
And, in this setting, it will be easy and perhaps understandable for the witnesses to fear unfair treatment, but it is my job as Chairman to ensure as best as I possibly can fair treatment. And that is what I intend to do. So, let me make three ground rules clear for all of my colleagues.
First, while legal counsel, who is sitting behind me, has advised that the rules of evidence do not apply here, counsel has also advised the Chair that the Chair does have the power to rule out of order questions that are not relevant to our proceedings. Certain subjects are simply irrelevant to the issue of harassment; namely, the private conduct, out of the workplace relationships, and intimate lives and practices of Judge Thomas, Professor Hill, and any other witness that comes before us. Thus, as Chairman, I will not allow questions on matters totally irrelevant to our investigation of the professional relationship of Judge Thomas and any woman who has been employed by him.
The Committee is not here to put Judge Thomas or Professor Hill on trial. I hope my colleagues will bear in mind that the best way to do our job is to ask questions that are nonjudgmental and open-ended and attempt to avoid questions that badger and harass any witness.
Second, while I have less discretion than a judge in a trial to bar inappropriate or embarrassing questions, all of the witnesses should know that they have a right under Senate Rule 26.5 to ask that the Committee go into closed session if a question requires an answer that is, quote, "a clear invasion of their right to privacy," end of quote. The Committee will take very seriously the request of any witness to answer particularly embarrassing questions, as they view it whether or not it's embarrassing, to answer those questions in private.
Third, the order of questioning: Because this is an extraordinary hearing, Democrats and Republicans have each taken the step of designating a limited number of Senators to question for the Committee. On the Democratic side, our questioners will be Senators Heflin, Leahy, and myself. As I understand it, on the Republican side, the questioners will be the ranking member, Senator Hatch, and Senator Specter. That means making sure that we do not in any way mislead anyone as to the nature of the proceeding and how it will proceed.
In closing, I want to reiterate my view that the primary responsibility of this Committee is fairness. That means making sure that we do not victimize any witness who appears here and that we treat every witness with respect. And without making any judgment about the specific witnesses we will hear from today, fairness means understanding what a victim of sexual harassment goes through, why victims often do not report such crimes, why they often believe that they should not or cannot leave their jobs. Perhaps 14 men sitting here today cannot understand these things fully. I know there are many people watching today who suspect we never will understand. But fairness means doing our best to understand, no matter what we do or do no believe about the specific charges, that we are going to listen as closely as we can at these hearings.
Fairness also means that Judge Thomas must be given a full and fair opportunity to confront these charges against him, to respond fully, to tell us his side of the story, and to be given the benefit of the doubt. In the end, this hearing may resolve much or it may resolve little. But there are two things that cannot remain in doubt after this hearing is over: first, that the members of this committee are fair and have been fair to all witnesses, and second, that we take sexual harassment as a very serious concern in this hearing, and overall. So, let us perform our duties with a full understanding of what I have said and of our responsibilities to the Senate, to the nation, and to the truth.
I yield now to my colleague from South Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, we have taken the unusual step of reconvening this committee in order to consider further testimony regarding the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
We're here this morning to attempt to discern the truth in some rather extraordinary allegations made against this nominee, and because Judge Thomas has requested an opportunity to refute these allegations and restore his good name.
Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I want to emphasize that the charge of sexual harassment is a grave one and one that each senator on this committee takes with the utmost seriousness. This is an issue of great sensitivity and there is no doubt in my mind that this is difficult for everyone involved. Both Judge Thomas and Professor Hill find themselves in the unenviable position of having to discuss very personal matters in a very public forum. I want to assure them at the outset that they will be dealt with fairly. This will be an exceedingly uncomfortable process for us all, but a great deal hangs in the balance and our duty is clear. We must find the truth.
I would like to commend Chairman Biden, who worked with me to ensure that this hearing would be conducted fairly. After consulting with each member on my side, I have decided that Senator Hatch will conduct the questioning of Judge Thomas. I have also decided, after consultation, that Senator Specter will undertake the questioning of Professor Hill and the other witnesses. I reserve the privilege of propounding questions myself.
I want to make it clear that every Republican member of this committee has been deeply involved in this process from the day Judge Thomas was nominated by President Bush. However, in the interest of time and fairness to all the witnesses, I believe the procedures that have been outlined will work best for everyone involved.
Over 100 days ago when President Bush nominated Judge Thomas, this committee undertook a thorough and far-reaching investigation of his background. That investigation turned up nothing questionable about the Judge but rather showed him to be an individual of great character and accomplishment.
During the original confirmation hearings, this committee heard testimony from over 100 witnesses, both for and against the nomination. Not one of these witnesses, even those most bitterly opposed to this nomination, had one disparaging comment to make about Clarence Thomas's moral character. On the contrary, witness after witness spoke of the impeccable character, abiding honesty, and consummate professionalism which Judge Thomas has shown throughout his career.
In conclusion, I want to comment briefly about the allegations that have been raised by Professor Hill. The alleged harassment she describes took place some 10 years ago. During that time, she continued to initiate contact with Judge Thomas in an apparently friendly manner. In addition, Professor Hill chose to publicize her allegations the day before the full Senate would have voted to confirm Judge Thomas. While I fully intend to maintain an open mind during today's testimony, I must say that the timing of these statements raises a tremendous number of questions which must be dealt with, and I can assure all the witnesses that we shall be unstinting in our effort to ascertain the truth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Now before I swear Judge Thomas, I ask the police officer to go to the front of that door. While Judge Thomas is speaking do not let anyone in or anyone out. He is entitled to absolute quiet in this room, no matter who it is that comes in.
Judge, would you stand to be sworn?
(Judge Thomas is sworn.)
Judge, you have an opening statement, please proceed.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee. As excruciatingly difficult as the last two weeks have been, I welcome the opportunity to clear my name today. No one other than my wife and Senator Danforth, to whom I read this statement at 6:30 a.m. has seen or heard this statement. No handlers, no advisors.
The first I learned of the allegations by Professor Anita Hill was on September 25, 1991, when the FBI came to my home to investigate her allegations. When informed by the FBI agent of the nature of the allegations and the person making them, I was shocked, surprised, hurt and enormously saddened. I have not been the same since that day.
For almost a decade my responsibilities included enforcing the rights of victims of sexual harassment. As a boss, as a friend, and as a human being I was proud that I had never had such an allegation leveled against me, even as I sought to promote women and minorities into non-traditional jobs.
In addition, several of my friends who are women have confided in me about the horror of harassment on the job or elsewhere. I thought I really understood the anguish, the fears, the doubts, the seriousness of the matter. But since September 25th, I have suffered immensely as these very serious charges were leveled against me. I have been racking my brains and eating my insides out trying to think of what I could have said or done to Anita Hill to lead her to allege that I was interested in her in more than a professional way and that I talked with her about pornographic or X-rated films.
Contrary to some press reports, I categorically denied all of the allegations and denied that I ever attempted to date Anita Hill when first interviewed by the FBI. I strongly reaffirm that denial.
Let me describe my relationship with Anita Hill. In 1981, after I went to the Department of Education as an assistant secretary in the office of civil rights, one of my closest friends from both college and law school, Gil Hardy (sp), brought Anita Hill to my attention. As I remember, he indicated that she was dissatisfied with her law firm and wanted to work in government. Based primarily if not solely on Gil's recommendation, I hired Anita Hill.
During my tenure at the Department of Education, Anita Hill was an attorney advisor who worked directly with me. She worked on special projects, as well as day-to-day matters. As I recall, she was one of two professionals working directly with me at the time. As a result, we worked closely on numerous matters. I recall being pleased with her work product and the professional but cordial relationship which we enjoyed at work. I also recall engaging in discussions about politics and current events.
Upon my nomination to become chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Anita Hill, to the best of my recollection, assisted me in the nomination and confirmation process. After my confirmation, she and Diane Holt, then my secretary, joined me at EEOC. I do not recall that there was any question or doubt that she would become a special assistant to me at EEOC, although as a career employee she retained the option of remaining at the Department of Education.
At EEOC, our relationship was more distant and our contacts less frequent as a result of the increased size of my personal staff and the dramatic increase and diversity of my day-to-day responsibilities. Upon reflection, I recall that she seemed to have had some difficulty adjusting to this change in her role. In any case, our relationship remained both cordial and professional.
At no time did I become aware, either directly or indirectly, that she felt I had said or done anything to change the cordial nature of our relationship. I detected nothing from her or from my staff, or from Gil Hardy (sp), our mutual friend, with whom I maintained regular contact. I am certain that had any statement or conduct on my part been brought to my attention I would remember it clearly because of the nature and seriousness of such conduct, as well as my adamant opposition to sex discrimination and sexual harassment. But there were no such statements.
In the spring of 1983, Mr. Charles Kothe contacted me to speak at the Law School at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Anita Hill, who is from Oklahoma, accompanied me on that trip. It was not unusual that individuals on my staff would travel with me occasionally. Anita Hill accompanied me on that trip primarily because this was an opportunity to combine business and a visit to her home.
As I recall, during our visit at Oral Roberts University, Mr. Kothe mentioned to me the possibility of approaching Anita Hill to join the faculty at Oral Roberts University Law School. I encouraged him to do so and noted to him, as I recall, that Anita Hill would do well in teaching. I recommended her highly and she eventually was offered a teaching position.
Although I did not see Anita Hill often after she left EEOC, I did see her on one or two subsequent visits to Tulsa, Oklahoma. And on one visit I believe she drove me to the airport. I also occasionally received telephone calls from her. She would speak directly with me or with my secretary, Diane Holt. Since Anita Hill and Diane Holt had been with me at the Department of Education, they were fairly close personally and I believe they occasionally socialized together. I would also hear about her through Linda Jackson, then Linda Lambert (sp), whom both Anita Hill and I met at the Department of Education, and I would hear of her from my friend, Gil (sp).
Throughout the time that Anita Hill worked with me I treated her as I treated my other special assistants. I tried to treat them all cordially, professionally, and respectfully and I tried to support them in their endeavors and be interested in and supportive of their success. I had no reason or basis to believe my relationship with Anita Hill was anything but this way until the FBI visited me a little more than two weeks ago.
I find it particularly troubling that she never raised any hint that she was uncomfortable with me. She did not raise or mention it when considering moving with me to EEOC from the Department of Education, and she'd never raised it with me when she left EEOC and was moving on in her life. And, to my fullest knowledge, she did not speak to any other women working with or around me who would feel comfortable enough to raise it with me, especially Diane Holt, to whom she seemed closest on my personal staff. Nor did she raise it with mutual friends such as Linda Jackson and Gil Hardy (sp).
This is a person I have helped at every turn in the road since we met. She seemed to appreciate the continued cordial relationship we had since day one. She sought my advice and counsel, as did virtually all of the members of my personal staff.
During my tenure in the executive branch as a manager, as a policymaker, and as a person, I have adamantly condemned sex harassment. There is no member of this Committee or this Senate who feels stronger about sex harassment than I do. As a manager, I made every effort to take swift and decisive action when sex harassment raised or reared its ugly head. The fact that I feel so very strongly about sex harassment and spoke loudly at EEOC has made these allegations doubly hard on me. I cannot imagine anything that I said or did to Anita Hill that could have been mistaken for sexual harassment.
But with that said, if there is anything that I have said that has been misconstrued by Anita Hill or anyone else to be sexual harassment, then I can say that I am so very sorry and I wish I had known. If I did know, I would have stopped immediately and I would not, as I've done over the past two weeks, have to tear away at myself, trying to think of what I could possibly have done. But I have not said or done the things that Anita Hill has alleged. God has gotten me through the days since September 25th, and he is my judge.
Mr. Chairman, something has happened to me in the dark days that have followed since the FBI agents informed me about these allegations. And the days have grown darker as this very serious, very explosive, and very sensitive allegation -- or these sensitive allegations were selectively leaked in a distorted way to the media over the past weekend. As if the confidential allegations themselves were not enough, this apparently calculated public disclosure has caused me, my family, and my friends enormous pain and great harm. I have never in all my life felt such hurt, such pain, such agony. My family and I have been done a grave and irreparable injustice.
During the past two weeks, I lost the belief that if I did my best all would work out. I called upon the strength that helped me get here from Pin Point, and it was all sapped out of me. It was sapped out of me because Anita Hill was a person I considered a friend whom I admired and thought I had treated fairly and with the utmost respect. Perhaps I could have been -- better weathered this if it was from someone else. But here was someone I truly felt I had done my best with. Though I am by no means a perfect person, no means, I have not done what she has alleged, and I still don't know what I could possibly have done to cause her to make these allegations.
When I stood next to the President in Kennebunkport being nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, that was a high honor; but as I sit here before you 103 days later, that honor has been crushed. From the very beginning, charges were leveled against me from the shadows, charges of drug abuse, antisemitism, wife beating, drug use by family members, that I was a quota appointment, confirmation conversion, and much, much more. And now, this.
I have complied with the rules. I responded to a document request that produced over 30,000 pages of documents, and I have testified for five full days under oath. I have endured this ordeal for 103 days. Reporters sneaking into my garage to examine books I read. Reporters and interest groups swarming over divorce papers looking for dirt. Unnamed people starting preposterous and damaging rumors. Calls all over the country specifically requesting dirt.
This is not American; this is Kafkaesque. It has got to stop. It must stop for the benefit of future nominees and our country. Enough is enough.
I'm not going to allow myself to be further humiliated in order to be confirmed. I am here specifically to respond to allegations of sex harassment in the workplace. I am not here to be further humiliated by this committee or anyone else, or to put my private life on display for prurient interests or other reasons. I will not allow this committee or anyone else to probe into my private life. This is not what America is all about. To ask me to do that would be to ask me to go beyond fundamental fairness.
Yesterday I called my mother. She was confined to her bed, unable to work and unable to stop crying. Enough is enough.
Mr. Chairman, in my 43 years on this earth I have been able with the help of others and with the help of God to defy poverty, avoid prison, overcome segregation, bigotry, racism and obtain one of the finest educations available in this country, but I have not been able to overcome this process. This is worse that any obstacle or anything that I have ever faced.
Throughout my life I have been energized by the expectation and the hope that in this country I would be treated fairly in all endeavors. When there was segregation I hoped there would be fairness one day or some day. When there was bigotry and prejudice, I hope that there would be tolerance and understanding some day.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of my life, proud of what I have done and what I have accomplished, proud of my family and this process, this process is trying to destroy it all. No job is worth what I have been through, no job. No horror in my life has been so debilitating. Confirm me if you want. Don't confirm me if you are so led, but let this process end. Let me and my family regain our lives.
I never asked to be nominated. It was an honor. Little did I know the price, but it is too high.
I enjoy and appreciate my current position and I am comfortable with the prospect of returning to my work as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and to my friends there. Each of these positions is public service and I have given at the office. I want my life and my family's life back, and I want them returned expeditiously.
I have experienced the exhilaration of new heights from the moment I was called to Kennebunkport by the President to have lunch and he nominated me. That was the high point. At that time, I was told eye-to-eye that, "Clarence, you made it this far on merit. The rest is going to be politics." And it surely has been.
There have been other highs. The outpouring of support from my friends of long standing; a bonding like I have never experienced with my old boss, Senator Danforth; the wonderful support of those who have worked with me. There have been prayers said for my family and me by people I know and people I will never meet, prayers that were heard and that sustained not only me, but also my wife and my entire family.
Instead of understanding and appreciating the great honor bestowed upon me, I find myself here today defending my name, my integrity, because somehow select portions of confidential documents dealing with this matter were leaked to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I am a victim of this process. My name has been harmed. My integrity has been harmed. My character has been harmed. My family has been harmed. My friends have been harmed. There is nothing this committee, this body, or this country can do to give me my good name back. Nothing.
I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for further humiliation. I am not going to engage in discussions nor will I submit to roving questions of what goes on in the most intimate parts of my private life or the sanctity of my bedroom. These are the most intimate parts of my privacy, and they will remain just that, private.
Thank you, Judge. You will not be asked to.
Before I begin my questioning of Judge Thomas, I would remind the committee and the nominee that with respect to one set of allegations, those pertaining to Professor Anita Hill, we are somewhat limited at this stage as to permissible questions. Professor Hill, as recently as late last night, continues to ask us to maintain the confidentiality of her statement to the committee.
So, Judge Thomas, at this stage of the hearings without having heard Professor Hill's testimony and without using her statement, our questioning to you may not be complete. We may have to discuss some aspects of the allegations with you at the end of these hearings.
I would also note for the record that the choice of the order of these hearings was left to you. I asked whether or not you wished to go first or second, first and last, and you chose as is your right, to speak first and then if you so chose, speak last.
Therefore, with respect to Professor Hill, I intend to focus on the general nature of your relationship with her, her responsibilities in your office, and the environment in which she worked.
Judge, you have spoken to some of these issues in your opening statement, but let me ask you.
Mr. Chairman?
Yes.
I just want to say something for the record here. This is not the appointment of a Justice of the Peace. This is the nomination process of a man to become Supreme Court Justice of the United States and he has been badly maligned. And I might add that I have a lot of sympathy for Professor Hill, too, and I am not going to sit here and tolerate her attorneys telling you, or me, or anybody else that now that she's made these statements in writing with what is, if the Judge is telling the truth and I believe he is, scurrilous allegations, that that statement can't be used, especially in this proceeding. It's a matter of fairness and I might add that I have been informed that the reporter who broke this story has her statement, read it to her, before she would even talk to her.
Now it would be the greatest travesty I have ever seen in any court of law, let alone an open forum, in the nomination process of a man for justice of the United States Supreme Court to allow her attorneys or her or anybody on this committee or anybody else for that matter to tell us what can or cannot be used now that this man's reputation has been very badly hurt.
Will the Senator yield?
No, I'm not finished. I intend to use that statement because it is fair to use it. I don't want to hurt --
Senator, let me --
Let me finish.
No, I will not. Let me make a point.
Yes, you will. Yes, you will.
Let me just make -- you're entitled to use the statement under the rules. No one -- the Chair cannot stop you from using the statement.
Well, then the statement is going to be admissible to everybody. Everybody in this country is going to see it.
Mr. Chairman, how can she request confidentiality at this point when she said she --
Let me -- I can answer that question. Professor Hill says that she wants to tell her story. She did not release the statement, she says. And she wants her story told by her. Because we have given the opportunity to the Judge to speak first, if he so chose, and he has, that she wants to be able to use her statement in her own words that she has thus far not released and has not spoken to publicly -- she has not spoken to publicly -- when she comes and addresses the committee. Now, why don't we get on with this process?
Mr. Chairman --
I'm not finished.
Mr. Chairman, let me say a -- wait just a minute.
Okay.
Mr. Chairman, she has been on television telling her story. She has made it public. So, therefore, I think the right to use that statement ought to be admitted.
Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman, I didn't relinquish the floor. I yielded to the Chairman because the Chairman -- I haven't finished my comments.
Let the Senator from Massachusetts, then we'll go back to you. Everybody's going to get a chance to say --
Mr. Chairman --
All right. If you'll come back to me, I'd --
-- it seems to me that you outlined a reasonable way of proceeding. I think it's entirely proper that Judge Thomas be able to make what statement that he so desire. And I thought it was a very moving statement, Judge. It might be appropriate, if that is the desire, that at least we work out in terms of the committee and the committee's understanding of the way that we're going to proceed on this.
As I understand, the Professor had indicated a willingness to testify first or go second, and now we're in the situation where Judge Thomas has spoken. And it seems to me that we ought to be able to work out at least the way that we're going to proceed, that is going to be respectful both of Judge Thomas and the witness, without getting into a lot of back-and-forth up here, which is not really the purpose of the hearing. And what I might suggest, at least, is that we have a very brief recess so that we can at least find out a way that we can proceed that is consistent with Judge Thomas, consistent with the others, and satisfactory to the way that the committee --
(Chorus of "Mr. Chairman?"s.)
The senator from Utah.
I object to a recess. The fact of the matter is, last Tuesday a substantial majority of the Senate, frankly, asked us to get to the bottom of this. The public deserves to know now, one way or the other, and the public is going to know, if I have anything to say about it. Our colleagues demanded it. They didn't ask us to just find out so much as the witness will allow us to ask. And I have no intention of pillorying or maligning Professor Hill. I feel sorry for both of these people. Both of them are going to come out of this with less of a reputation. It's pathetic, and it wouldn't have happened --
Mr. Chairman?
Let me finish, if I could -- if somebody on this committee or their staff had had the honesty and the integrity before the vote to raise this issue and to ask for an executive session and say this has to be brought out. Nobody did, and then somebody on this committee or their staff -- and I'm outraged by it -- leaked that report, an FBI report that we all know should never be disclosed to the public because of the materials that generally are in them. They take it down as it's given, it's got raw stuff in it -- and it's been leaked. Half -- the media knows everything in it. And I think the American people are entitled to know if they want to.
And what I'm trying to say is that, to be frank, Mr. Chairman, there are inconsistencies in the statement of Anita Hill to the FBI compared to her other statements. I don't particularly intend to go into that. She's entitled to explain these discrepancies. But Judge Thomas is entitled to point out these inconsistencies for their bearing on the credibility of the accuser in this instance -- nice person though she may be, good law professor though she may be, fellow Yale law graduate though she may be.
Senator -- Mr. Chairman?
If I could just finish. I promise to be shorter. The statements of the subsequent witnesses are also at variance with Professor Hill's statements -- with what she told the FBI. If she happens to testify differently today, we have to find out which of those statements are true. Now --
Senator, we are not at liberty to publicly discuss what's in the FBI report. Her statement is a different story.
The heck we're not. This report has been leaked to the press. They know about it. Part of it's been read to the accuser in this case. I think it's time to be fair to the nominee. He's come this far. He's the one who's being accused. They have the burden of showing that he's not telling the truth here, and he has a right to face the accuser and everything that accuser says. And if he doesn't, then I'm going to resign from this committee today.
Senator --
I'm telling you, I don't want to be on it.
The Senate's in recess -- the hearing is in recess for five minutes. (Sounds gavel.)
The hearing will come to order. The committee has met and resolved the impasse in the following way: Professor Hill indicated on the telephone that she was prepared to have her statement released, and in further discussion with the committee and others involved, it has been determined that we will excuse temporarily Judge Thomas and we will call momentarily as the witness Anita Hill. Anita Hill will be sworn and make her own statement in her own words, at which time we would then begin the questioning of Professor Hill. After which, we will bring back Judge Thomas for questioning.
Now, the Senate will -- the committee will stand in recess until -- and I imagine it's only momentarily as the Professor will be here momentarily, but we'll stand in recess until she is able to take her seat, which should be a matter of a minute or two.
I'm told security is clearing the hall -- she's in the hall -- so that she can come down.
(The committee stands in recess until the arrival of Ms. Hill.)
Welcome, Professor Hill. Perhaps if I may explain what the procedure will be while your family and others are being seated, in a moment I will ask you stand to be sworn, at which time, when that is finished, we will invite you to make any statement that you wish to make. And then what we will do is I will begin by asking you some questions, and then Senator Specter will ask you some questions, and then Senator Leahy will ask you some questions. And then I assume it will be Senator Specter again, but I am not certain of that, will ask you questions.
And, again, welcome. We're happy that you are here, and let us stand and be sworn, if you will.
Professor, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
I do.
Thank you. Professor Hill, please make whatever statement you would wish to make to the committee.
Mr. Chairman --
And I'm going to ask -- excuse me for -- I instruct the officers, do not let anyone in or out of that door while Professor Hill is making her statement.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee, my name is Anita F. Hill, and I am a professor of law a the University of Oklahoma. I was born on a farm in Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, in 1956. I am the youngest of 13 children. I had my early education in Okmulgee County. My father, Albert Hill, is a farmer in that area. My mother's name is Irma Hill. She is also a farmer and a housewife.
My childhood was one of a lot of hard work and not much money, but it was one of solid family affection, as represented by my parents. I was reared in a religious atmosphere in the Baptist faith, and I have been a member of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, since 1983. It is a very warm part of my life at the present time.
For my undergraduate work, I went to Oklahoma State University and graduated from there in 1977. I am attaching to this statement a copy of my resume for further details of my education.
It will be included in the record as if read.
Thank you.
I graduated from the university with academic honors and proceeded to the Yale Law School, where I received my JD degree in 1980. Upon graduation from law school, I became a practicing lawyer with the Washington, DC, firm of Ward, Hardraker, and Ross.
In 1981, I was introduced to now Judge Thomas by a mutual friend. Judge Thomas told me that he was anticipating a political appointment, and he asked if I would be interested in working with him. He was, in fact, appointed as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights. After he had taken that post, he asked if I would become his assistant, and I accepted that position.
In my early period there, I had two major projects. The first was an article I wrote for Judge Thomas' signature on the education of minority students. The second was the organization of a seminar on high-risk students which was abandoned because Judge Thomas transferred to the EEOC where he became the chairman of that office.
During this period at the Department of Education, my working relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I had a good deal of responsibility and independence. I thought he respected my work and that he trusted my judgment. After approximately three months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him.
What happened next and telling the world about it are the two most difficult things -- experiences of my life. It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and sleepless number -- a great number of sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends.
I declined the invitation to go out socially with him and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize what at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside of the office. I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill-advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so.
I thought that by saying no and explaining my reasons my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks, he continued to ask me out on several occasions. He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying no to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations which would not have been overheard by anyone else.
My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions, he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects, or he might suggest that, because of the time pressures of his schedule, we go to lunch to a government cafeteria. After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters.
His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess.
Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about these subjects. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters such as his background or his beliefs. My efforts to change the subject were rarely successful.
Throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time to time asked me for social engagements. My reaction to these conversations was to avoid them by eliminating opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations. This was difficult because at the time I was his only assistant at the Office of Education -- or Office for Civil Rights.
During the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures and any conversation of his offensive behavior ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial, and professional one.
When Judge Thomas was made chair of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with him. I was asked to do so, and I did. The work itself was interesting, and at that time it appeared that the sexual overtures which had so troubled me had ended. I also faced the realistic fact that I had no alternative job. While I might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm or at another, I was dedicated to civil rights work, and my first choice was to be in that field. Moreover, the Department of Education itself was a dubious venture. President Reagan was seeking to abolish the entire department.
For my first months at the EEOC, where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember his saying that some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn't go out with him.
He began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanor and his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC.
One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has pubic hair on my Coke?" On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex.
At this point, late 1982, I began to feel severe stress on the job. I began to be concerned that Clarence Thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me.
In January of 1983, I began looking for another job. I was handicapped because I feared that, if he found out, he might make it difficult for me to find other employment and I might be dismissed from the job I had. Another factor that made my search more difficult was that there was a period -- this was during a period of a hiring freeze in the government. In February of 1983, I was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for acute stomach pain which I attributed to stress on the job.
Once out of the hospital, I became more committed to find other employment and sought further to minimize my contact with Thomas. This became easier when Allison Duncan (sp) became office director, because most of my work was then funneled through her and I had contact with Clarence Thomas mostly in staff meetings.
In the spring of 1983, an opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts University opened up. I participated in a seminar -- taught an afternoon session and seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether I would be interested in furthering -- pursuing a career in teaching, beginning at Oral Roberts University. I agreed to take the job in large part because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at the EEOC due to Judge Thomas.
When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now I would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him. I told him that I still preferred not to do so. At some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of the term. When I declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation, but only if it was at the every end of a working day.
On, as I recall, the last day of my employment at the EEOC in the summer of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas. We went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. We talked about the work I had done, both at education and at the EEOC. He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that I had done for him while we were at the Office for Civil Rights. Finally, he made a comment that I will vividly remember. He said that if I ever told anyone of his behavior that it would ruin his career. This was not an apology, nor was it an explanation. That was his last remark about the possibility of our going out or reference to his behavior.
In July of 1983, I left Washington, DC area and have had minimal contact with Judge Clarence Thomas since. I am of course aware from the press that some questions have been raised about conversations I had with Judge Clarence Thomas after I left the EEOC. From 1983 until today, I have seen Judge Thomas only twice. On one occasion, I needed to get a reference from him, and on another he made a public appearance in Tulsa.
On one occasion he called me at home and we had an inconsequential conversation. On one occasion he called me without reaching me, and I returned the call without reaching him, and nothing came of it. I have on at least three occasions, been asked to act as a conduit to him for others.
I knew his secretary, Diane Holt. We had worked together at both EEOC and education. There were occasions on which I spoke to her, and on some of these occasions undoubtedly I passed on some casual comment to then Chairman Thomas. There were a series of calls in the first three months of 1985, occasioned by a group in Tulsa, which wished to have a civil rights conference. They wanted Judge Thomas to be the speaker and enlisted my assistance for this purpose.
I did call in January and February to no effect, and finally suggested to the person directly involved, Susan Cahal (ph) that she put the matter into her own hands and call directly. She did so in March of 1985. In connection with that March invitation, Ms. Cahal (ph) wanted conference materials for the seminar and some research was needed. I was asked to try to get the information and did attempted to do so.
There was another call about another possible conference in July of 1985. In August of 1987, I was in Washington, DC and I did call Diane Holt. In the course of this conversation, she asked me how long I was going to be in town and I told her. It is recorded in the message as August 15. It was, in fact, August 20th. She told me about Judge Thomas's marriage and I did say congratulate him.
It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone except my closest friends. As I've said before these last few days have been very trying and very hard for me and it hasn't just been the last few days this week. It has actually been over a month now that I have been under the strain of this issue.
Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life, but it is very close to having to live through the experience that occasion this meeting. I may have used poor judgment early on in my relationship with this issue. I was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely affect my future career. And I did not want early on to burn all the bridges to the EEOC.
As I said, I may have used poor judgment. Perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I was in the agency, or after I left it. But I must confess to the world that the course that I took seemed the better as well as the easier approach.
I declined any comment to newspapers, but later when Senate staff asked me about these matters I felt I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.
It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I was asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent.
Thank you very much. Judge before I -- Professor, before I begin my questioning, I notice that there are a number of people sitting behind you. Are any of them your family members you'd like to introduce?
Actually, my family members haven't arrived yet. Perhaps I -- yes they have, they're outside the door. They weren't here for my statement.
Well, we will make room for your family to be able to sit.
It's a very large family Senator.
Well, we will begin, but attempt to accommodate as quietly as we can, what may be an unusual arrangement. I might ask, is everyone who is sitting behind you necessary to sit behind, and maybe they could stand and let your family sit. But we will -- I would assume the reason why, to make it clear, the reason why your family is not here at the moment is that you did not anticipate coming. So if those who aren't absolutely necessary, would you stand with the rest of our staffs and let family members come in.
Now, and we'll try to get a few more chairs if possible, but we should get this underway.
[Network interruption]
I would ask -- we may at some point, Professor Hill, attempt to have to accommodate either your counsel and/or your family members with chairs down the side there. They need not all be up front here, we cannot completely reconfigure this situation. Okay? Fine, we can put them in the back as well.
Now, would you -- there are two chairs on the end here folks. We must get this hearing moving. There are two chairs on the end here. We'll find everyone a seat, but we must begin. Now, Professor Hill, at the risk of everyone behind you standing up, would you be kind enough to introduce your primary family members to us.
Okay. I'd like to introduce first of all my father, Albert Hill.
Mr. Hill, welcome.
My mother, Irma Hill.
Mrs. Hill.
My mother is going to be celebrating her 80th birthday on the 16th.
Happy birthday in advance.
My sister, my elder sister, Elretha Lee (sp) is here. My sister Joanne Finel (sp). My sister Carlene Gilchrist (sp). My sister Joyce Barrett.
I welcome you all -- I'm sorry?
My brother, Ray Hill. I think that's everyone.
Thank you professor.
I would also like to introduce my counsel at this time.
Yes, that would be appropriate.
Mr. Gardner, Ms. Susan Ross, and Mr. Charles Okletree (sp).
Thank you. Now Professor, thank you for your statement and your introductions, and I think it's important that the committee understand a little more about your background and your work experience before we get into the specific allegations that you have made in your statement.
I understand, as you have just demonstrated, you come from a large family, and I've been told that you've indicated you're the youngest in the family. Is that correct?
Yes I am.
Now, I assume, that like all families, they've been of great help and assistance to you. Let me ask you, tell me again your educational background for the record.
I went to primary, elementary and secondary school in Okmulgee County and Morris Junior High School, and -- (inaudible) -- school, that's in reverse order. I went to Oklahoma State University, starting in 1973 and graduated in 1977 from Oklahoma State University with a degree in psychology. In 1977, I began attending Yale Law School, I graduated, received my JD degree from there in 1980.
Now, what was your first job after graduation from law school?
I worked at the firm of Wald, Harkrader & Ross.
How did you acquire the job -- that is a Washington law firm.
That is a Washington, DC law firm.
And how did you acquire that job?
Through the interviewing process, the first interview took place at Yale Law School. I was interviewed for that job, I don't remember the names of the interviewers. I was called to Washington for an interview in the office of Wald, Harkrader and Ross. I was interviewed by a number of people, and I accepted an appointment with them. Now, I will say that that interview process was preceded by work that I had done with them as a summer associate, and so the interview process the second time around, was really -- actually, I'll say that the interview process took place before the summer associatship, and then at the end of that summer associateship, I was asked to work there full time.
Who was your immediate supervisor when you were at that law firm?
Well, a number of individuals -- I worked with a number of different attorneys on different projects.
So it would depend upon the project you were working on.
Yes.
Now, what type of work did you do while you were at the law firm? Was it specialized, or did you do whatever was asked of you of any of the partners?
Well, since I was -- I worked there for only one year. I was a fairly new associate. Most of my work was basically what was available and when I had time available to do it. However, I did some federal trade work, I did some environmental law work there, and I participated in the drafting of a manual on banking law while I was there.
Now did you decide you wanted to leave that law firm, or was it suggested to you?
It was never --
Did someone approach you and say that there was another job that you might like, or did you indicate that you would like to leave the law firm to seek another job?
I was interested in seeking other employment. It was never suggested to me at the firm that I should leave the law firm in any way.
How old were you at this time?
At the time I was 24 years old.
Now, why were -- were you dissatisfied at the law firm? Why did you want to leave?
Well I left the law firm because I wanted to pursue other practice other than basically the commercial practice, civil practice that was being done at the law firm. I was not dissatisfied with the quality of the work or the challenges of the work. I thought that I would be more personally fulfilled if I pursued other fields of the law.
Now again were you approached as to the opportunity at the Department of Education, or were you aware -- were you aware that there was a potential opening and you sought it out?
I spoke only with Clarence Thomas about the possibility of working --
Excuse me. How did you get to Clarence Thomas? That is my question.
I was introduced to him by a mutual friend.
Was the mutual friend a member of the law firm at which you worked?
Yes. His name is Gilbert Hardy (ph). He was member of the firm at which I worked. Wald, Harkrader and Ross.
So you had expressed to Mr. Hardy that you would like to move into government or move out of the practice? Were you specific in what you wanted to do?
I told him only that I was interested in pursuing something other than private practice.
Now, some of the activities of the Office of Civil Rights at the time were pretty controversial. We heard testimony in fact about the fact that the office was under a court order to change its practice for carrying out its duties. And as some have suggested that Mr. Thomas had done an exemplary job in -- in changing things. Some have suggested otherwise. Did the controversy surrounding the office detract from your interest in taking this job, or did you consider it?
Oh, I certainly considered it. I considered the fact that there was talk about abolishing the office. I considered all of those things. But I saw this as an opportunity to do some work that I might not get at another time.
Did you think that this was a good job?
Pardon me?
Did you view this as a good job? Or did you view this as an intermediate step?
I viewed it as a good job.
Can you describe for the committee your duties, initial duties when you arrived at the office -- the Department of Education, and doing the, the civil rights area? What were your duties?
My duties were really special projects and special research. A lot of the special projects involved commenting on Office for Civil Rights policies. It involved doing research on education issues as they related to socioeconomic factors and so forth.
Was Judge Thomas your direct supervisor? Did you report to anyone else but Judge Thomas at the time?
I reported only to Judge Thomas.
So at the Department of Education, your sole immediate supervisor was Judge Thomas?
Yes.
And what was your title?
Attorney advisor.
Attorney advisor. Now did you have reason to interact with Judge Thomas in that capacity very often during the day?
We interacted regularly.
Did you attend meetings with Judge Thomas?
I would attend some meetings, but not all of the meetings that he attended.
Perhaps you would be willing to describe to the committee what a routine workday was at this -- that phase of your career in working with Judge Thomas.
Well, I'm not sure that there was any such thing as a routine workday. Some days I would go in. I might be asked to respond to letters that Judge Thomas had received. I might be asked to look at memos that had come to the various offices in the Office for Civil Rights. If there was a meeting which Judge Thomas needed to attend, that he wanted someone there to take information, or to help him with information, I might be asked to do that.
Where was your office physically located relative to Judge Thomas's office?
His office was -- sat off down the hall from mine. Inside his set of offices, there was a desk for his secretary, and then his office was behind a closed door.
My office was down the hall. It was separated from his office.
Can you describe to us how it was that you came to move over to the EEOC with Judge Thomas?
Well, my understanding -- I did not have much notice that Judge Thomas was moving over to the EEOC. My understanding from him at that time was that I could go with him to the EEOC. That I did not have -- since I was his special assistant, that I did not have a position at the office for education, but that I was welcome to go to the EEOC with him.
It was a very tough decision, because his behavior had occurred. However at the time that I went to the EEOC there was a period -- or prior to the time we went to the EEOC there was a period where the incidents had ceased. And so after some consideration of the job opportunities in the area as well as the fact that I was not assured that my job at the Education was going to be protected, I made a decision to move to the EEOC.
Were you not assured of that because you were a political appointee, or were you not assured of it because -- . Tell me why you felt you weren't assured of that.
Well there were two reasons really. One I was a special assistant of a political appointee, and therefore I assumed and I was told that that position may not continue to exist. I didn't know who was going to be taking over the position. I had not been interviewed to become the special assistant of the new individual. I assumed they would want to hire their own, as Judge Thomas had done.
In addition, the Department of Education at that time was scheduled to be abolished. There had been a lot of talk about it. And at that time it was truly considered to be on its way out. And so for a second reason I could not be certain that I would have a position there.
Now when you moved over the EEOC, did -- can you recall for us to the best of your ability how that offer came about. Did you inquire of Judge Thomas whether you could go to EEOC. Did he suggest it. Do you recall?
I recall that when the appointment at the EEOC became firm that I was called into his office. And I believe Diane Holt (ph) was there too. And --
Diane Holt (ph) was his personal secretary.
-- was his secretary at Education. We were there and he made the announcement about the appointment and assured us that we could go to the EEOC with him.
Now, when you went to EEOC, what were your duties at EEOC?
Well my duties were really varied. Because it was such -- it was a much larger organization. There were so many more functions of the organization. My primary duties were at the office -- being the liaison to the Office of Congressional Affairs, and the Office of Review and Appeals. So that I reviewed a number of the cases that came up on appeal to make sure that our office had given proper consideration. I acted as a liaison to the press sometimes for the chairman's office through Congressional Affairs and public relations. I had some additional responsibilities as special projects came along.
Did you have as much occasion to interact personally with Judge Thomas at EEOC as you had with him at the Department of Education?
No. No. We were much busier. We were all much busier. And the work that we did was work that did not necessarily require as much interaction. A lot of times at the Education Department, the work required some -- there were policy decision that had to be made, and we were trying to do an evaluation of the program, so there was more interaction at the time.
At EEOC there were just projects that had to get out. And so there was less of an opportunity for interaction.
Who was your immediate supervisor at EEOC?
At the EEOC initially, Clarence Thomas was my immediate supervisor. After a period, Alison Duncan (ph) was appointed to be the director of the staff. Initially the staff consisted of two special assistants, myself and Carlton Stuart (ph). The staff eventually grew to a larger number of assistants and Alison Duncan (ph) was brought up from the legal counsel's office to take control of that situation.
Now how long were you at EEOC with Judge Thomas before Alison Duncan (ph) became the chief of staff?
I don't recall.
Once she became the chief of staff, is she the person who gave you assignments most often, and to whom you reported most often?
That's right. Occasionally at staff meeting assignments would be given out. But that was held only one day a week. So the rest of the week when things came out, Alison (ph) was in charge of giving out assignments.
Now did the judge's chief of staff report directly to him, or did he have -- did she have an intermediate supervisor?
No. She reported directly to him as I understand.
Who prepared your performance evaluations?
I understand that Judge Thomas prepared the performance evaluations.
Did the chief of staff, to the best of your knowledge, have the power to fire you?
Not to my knowledge.
Who had that power?
Judge Thomas.
Was there anyone else at EEOC that you believe possessed that power?
No. Not for that office.
Was Judge Thomas then still you ultimate boss and the boss of the entire office?
Yes.
Now, is there -- was there any routine workday at EEOC that you could describe for the committee?
Actually most of the work that we did, unlike at Education, most of the work was responding to internal memos, instead of responding to things that came from outside. There were many more of those, because there were many more offices. So each of us were responsible for a certain area would respond to a memo, or write up a memo to be sent to the chairman for his response.
We also had hearings, and there was always a special assistant who was assigned to sit in the commission hearings. And so on some days if we were having hearings, one of the special assistants -- very often it was me -- would sit in the hearing, supervise the chairman with information.
On the weeks, during the days of the weeks that we weren't having hearings, we had to prepare the chairman for the hearings themselves, so we had to go through the files on the hearings and the records and brief the chairman on those -- or write memos of brief to the chairman on them.
Professor, you testified that you had regular contact with Judge Thomas at the Department of Education, and you've just described the extent of your contact with Judge Thomas at EEOC. And you've described your professional interaction with him. Now I must ask you now to describe, once again, and more fully, the behavior that you have alleged he engaged in while your boss. Which you say went beyond the professional conventions and were unwelcome to you.
Now I know these are difficult to discuss. But you must understand that we have to ask you about them. Professor, did some of the attempts at conversation that you have described in your opening statement occur in your office or in his office?
Some occurred in his office, some comments were made in mine. Most often they were in his office.
Did all of the behavior that you have described to us in your written statement to the committee and your oral statement now, and what you have said to the FBI, did all of that behavior take place at work?
Yes, it did.
Now, I'd like you to go back --
Let me clarify that. If you're including a luncheon during the work day to be at work, yes.
I'm just trying to determine -- it was in what you could describe and you believed to be part of the work day?
Yes.
Now, I have to ask you, where did each of these events occur? If you can, to the best of your ability, I'd like you to recount for us where each of the allegations that you have mentioned in your opening statement, each of the incidences occurred, physically where they occurred.
Well, I remember two occasions these incidents occurred at lunch in the cafeteria.
Do you remember which of those incidences were at lunch, Judge? I mean, Professor? Let me ask this as an antecedent question. Were you always alone when the alleged conversations would begin, or the alleged statements by Judge Thomas would begin?
Well, when the incidents occurred in the cafeterias, we were not alone. There were other people in the cafeterias but because of the way the tables were set, there were few individuals who were in the immediate area of the conversation.
Those incidences that occurred other than in the cafeteria, those incidences occurred in his office. Can you tell me what incidences occurred, of the ones you've described to us, occurred in his office?
Well, I recall specifically that the incident about the Coke can occurred in his office at the EEOC.
And what was that incident again?
The incident with regard to the Coke can that's spelled out in my statement.
Would you describe it once again for me, please?
The incident involved his going to his desk -- getting up from a work table, going to his desk, looking at this can and saying, "Who put pubic hair on my Coke?"
Was anyone else in his office at the time?
No.
Was the door closed?
I don't recall.
Are there any other incidences that occurred in his office with just -- in his office, period?
There is -- I recall at least one instance in his office at the EEOC where he discussed some pornographic material, or he brought up the substance or the content of pornographic material.
Again, it's difficult, but for the record, what substance did he bring up in this instance at EEOC in his office? What was the content of what he said?
This was a reference to an individual who had a very large penis and he used the name that he had been referred to in the pornographic material.
Do you recall what it was?
Yes, I do. The name that was referred to was Long Dong Silver.
Were you working on any matter in that context, or you just were called into the office? Do you remember what the circumstance of you being in the office on that occasion?
Very often I went in to report on memos that I had written. I'm sure that that's why I was in the office. What happened generally was that I would write a note to Clarence Thomas and he would call me in to talk about what I had written to him, and I believe that's what happened on that occasion.
Let's go back to the first time that you alleged Judge Thomas indicated he had more than a professional interest in you. Do you recall what the first time was and, with as much precision as you can, what he said to you?
As I recall, it either happened at lunch or it happened in his office when he said to me very casually, "You ought to go out with me some time."
You ought to, or you are to?
You ought to.
Was that the extent at that incident --
That was the extent at that incident. At that incident I declined and at that incident, I think he may have said something about, you know, he couldn't understand why I wanted to go out with him, and the conversation may have ended.
Can you describe for the committee how you felt at that time when he asked you out? Were you -- what was your reaction?
Well, my reaction at that time was a little surprised because I had not indicated to him in any way that I knew that I was interested in dating him. We had developed a good working relationship, it was cordial, it was very comfortable, so I was surprised that he was interested in something else.
With regard to the other incidences, and my time is running down and I will come back to them, but with regard to the other incidences that you have mentioned in your opening statement, can you tell us how you felt at the time?
Were you uncomfortable, were you embarrassed, did it not concern you? How did you feel about it?
The pressure to go out with him I felt embarrassed about because I didn't -- I had given him an explanation that I thought it was not good for me as an employee working directly for him to go out. I thought he didn't take seriously my decision to say no and that he did not respect my having said no to him.
I -- the conversations about sex I was much more embarrassed and humiliated by. The two combined really made me feel sort of helpless in a job situation because I really wanted to do the work that I was doing. I enjoyed that work, but I felt that that was being put in jeopardy by the other things that were going on in the office and so I was really, really very troubled by it and distressed over it.
Can you tell the committee what was the most embarrassing of all the incidences that you have alleged?
I think the one that was the most embarrassing was his discussion of pornography involving these women with large breasts and engaged in a variety of sex with different people or animals. That was the thing that embarrassed me the most and made me feel the most humiliated.
If you can, in his words, not yours, in his words can you tell us what on that occasion he said to you? You have described the essence of the conversation. In order for us to determine -- can you tell us in his words what he said?
I really cannot quote him verbatim. I can remember something like "You really ought to see these films that I've seen or this material I've seen. This woman has this kind of breasts that measure this size and they've got her in there with all kinds of things. She's doing all kinds of different sex acts," and you know, that kind of -- those were the kinds of words, where he expressed his enjoyment of it and seemed to try to encourage me to enjoy that kind of material as well.
Did he indicate why he thought you should see this material?
No.
Why do you think -- what was your reaction? Why did you think he was saying these things to you?
Well, coupled with the pressure about going out with him, I felt that implicit in this discussion about sex was the offer to have sex with him, not just to go out with him. There was never any explicit thing about going out to dinner or going to a particular concert or movie. It was, "We ought to go out," and given these other conversations, I took that to mean "We ought to have sex, or we ought to look at these pornographic movies together."
Professor, at your press conference, one of your press conferences, you said that the issues that you raised about Judge Thomas, you referred to as an "ugly issue." Is that how you viewed these conversations?
Yes, they were very ugly. They were very dirty and they were disgusting.
Were any one of these conversations -- this is my last question, my time is up -- were any one of these conversations other than being asked to go out, were any of them repeated more than once? The same conversation, reference to --
Their reference to his own physical attributes was repeated more than once, yes.
Now again, for the record, did he just say "I have great physical capability and attributes," or was he more graphic?
He was much more graphic.
Can you tell us what he said?
Well, I can tell you that he compared his penis size, he measured his penis in terms of length, those kinds of comments.
Thank you. My time is up under our agreement. By the way, I might state for the agreement, once again we have agreed that we will go back and forth, half hour conversation on each side, at which time, when the principals finish asking questions that members who have not been designated to ask questions, since all have been keenly involved and interested this on both sides, will have an opportunity to ask questions for five minutes but let me now yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Hill, I have been asked to question you by Senator Thurmond, the ranking Republican, but I do not regard this as an adversary proceeding.
Thank you.
My duties run to the people of Pennsylvania, who have elected me, and in the broader sense as a United States Senator, to constitutional government and the Constitution. And my purpose, as the purpose of the hearing generally, is to find out what happened.
Certainly.
We obviously have a matter of enormous importance from a lot of points of view. The integrity of the Court that is very important, the Supreme Court, ought not have any member who is tainted or have a cloud. In our society we can accept unfavorable decisions from the Court if we think they're fairly arrived at --
Senator, excuse me for interrupting, but some of our colleagues on this end can't hear you. Can you pull that closer? I know it makes it --
I have done that carefully, Mr. Chairman, to avoid that.
Well, you've succeeded, Senator.
You can hear me all right, can't you, Professor Hill?
Yes, I can.
But I was just saying about the importance of the Court, where there should be a feeling of confidence in the fairness of decisions because we can -- parties can take unfavorable decisions if they think they're being treated fairly.
I think this hearing is very important to the Senate and to this committee because by 20-20 hindsight we should have done this before, and obviously it's of critical importance to Judge Thomas and you, whose reputations and careers are on the line.
It's not easy to go back to events which happened almost a decade ago to find out what happened, very, very difficult to do. I would start, Professor Hill, with one of your more recent statements, at least according to a man by the name of Carlton Stewart, who says that he met you in August of this year, ran into you at the American Bar Association convention in Atlanta, where Professor Hill stated to me in the presence of Stanley Grayson, quote, "How great Clarence's nomination was and how much he deserved it," unquote.
"We went on to discuss Judge Thomas and our tenure at EEOC for an additional 30 minutes or so. There was no mention of sexual harassment or anything negative about Judge Thomas stated during that conversation" and there's a statement from Stanley Grayson corroborating what Carlton Stewart has said.
My question is, did Mr. Stewart accurately state what happened with you at that meeting?
As I recall, at that meeting I did see Carlton Stewart, and we did discuss the nomination. Carlton Stewart was very excited about the nomination and said -- I believed that those were his words -- how great it was that Clarence Thomas had been nominated. I only said that it was a great opportunity for Clarence Thomas. I did not say that it was a good thing, that this nomination was a good thing.
I might add that I have spoken with newspaper reporters and have gone on record as saying that I have some doubts and some questions about the nomination. I -- however, in that conversation, where I was faced with an individual who was elated about the probabilities of his friend being on the Supreme Court, I did not want to insult him or argue with him at that time about the issue.
So then --
I was very passive in the conversation.
Excuse me.
I was very passive in the conversation.
So that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Grayson are simply wrong when they say -- and this is a quotation from Mr. Stewart -- that you said specifically, how great his nomination was and how much he deserved it. They're just wrong.
The latter part is certainly wrong. I did say that it is a great opportunity for Clarence Thomas. I did not say that he deserved it.
We have a statement from former Dean of Oral Roberts Law School, Roger Tuttle, who quotes you as saying that -- laudatory comments about Judge Thomas, as a fine man and excellent legal scholar, and in the course of three years when Dean Tuttle knew you at the law school, that you had always praised him and had never made any derogatory comments. Is Dean --
During the time --
-- Tuttle correct?
I'm sorry. During the time that I was at Oral Roberts University, I realized that Charles Kothe, who was the founding Dean of that school, had very high regards for Clarence Thomas. I did not risk talking in disparaging ways about Clarence at that time. I do recall -- I don't recall any specific conversations about Clarence Thomas in which I said anything about his legal scholarship. I don't really know of his legal scholarship certainly at that time.
Well, I can understand it if you didn't say anything, but Dean Tuttle makes a specific statement. His words are that you said, quote, "the most laudatory comments." Unquote.
I have no response to that because I don't know exactly what he is saying.
There is a question about Phyllis Barry (sp) who was quoted in the New York Times on October 7th. Quote, "In an interview, Ms. Berry suggested that the allegations" -- referring to your allegations -- "were a result of Ms. Hill's disappointment and frustration that Mr. Thomas did not show any sexual interest in her." Close quote.
You were asked about Ms. Berry at the interview on October 9th, and were reported to have said, "Well, I don't know Phyllis Berry, and she doesn't know me." And there are quite a few people who have come forward to say that they saw you and Ms. Berry together and that you knew each other very well.
I would disagree with that. Ms. Berry worked at the EEOC. She did attend some staff meetings at the EEOC. We were not close friends, we did not socialize together, and she has no basis for making a comment about my social interest, with regard to Clarence Thomas or anyone else.
I might add that at the time that I had an active social life, and that I was involved with other people.
Did Ms. Anna Jenkins (sp) and Ms. J.C. Alvarez (sp), who both have provided statements attesting to the relationship between you and Ms. Berry -- a friendly one where Ms. Berry would have known you -- were both Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Alvarez co-workers in a position to observe --
Yes.
-- your relationship with Ms. Berry?
They were both workers at the EEOC. And I can only say that they were commenting on our relationship in the office. It was cordial and friendly. We were not unfriendly with each other, but we were not social acquaintances. We were professional acquaintances.
So that when you said, "Ms. Berry doesn't know me and I don't know her," you weren't referring to just that, but some --
I was referring --
Some intensity of knowledge?
Well, this is a specific remark about my sexual interests. And I think one has to know another person very well to make those kinds of remarks, unless they are very openly expressed.
Well, did Ms. Berry observe you and Judge Thomas together in the EEOC office?
Yes, at staff meetings where she attended and -- at the office, yes.
Let me pick up on Senator Biden's line of questioning. You referred to the, quote, "oddest episode I remember," and then talked about the coke incident. When you made your statement to the FBI, why was it that that was omitted, if it was so strong in your mind and such an odd incident?
I spoke to the FBI agents, and I told them the nature of the comment and did not tell them more specifics. I refer to the specific comments that were in my statement.
Well, when you talked to the FBI agents, you did make specific allegations about specific sexual statements made by Judge Thomas.
Yes.
So that your statement to the FBI did have specifics.
Yes.
And my question to you, why, if this was such an odd episode, wasn't it included when you talked to the FBI?
I don't know.
I'd like you to take a look, if you would, at your own statement on the first full paragraph of page five, on the last line, and ask you why that was not included in your statement to the FBI.
Excuse me. My copy is not the -- would you refer to that passage again?
Yes, of course. Referring to page five of the statement which you provided to the committee, there is a strong allegation in the last sentence, and my question to you is, why didn't you tell that to the FBI?
When the FBI investigation took place, I tried to answer their questions as directly as I recall. I have -- I was very uncomfortable talking to the agent about that, these instances. I am very uncomfortable now. But I feel that it is necessary. The FBI agent told me that it was regular procedure to come back and ask for more specifics if it was necessary. And so at that time I did not provide all of the specifics that I could have.
Professor Hill, I can understand that it's uncomfortable, and I don't want to add to that, and if any of it is something you want to pause about, please do.
You testified this morning in response to Senator Biden that the most embarrassing question involved -- this is not too bad -- women's large breasts -- that's a word we use all the time. That was the most embarrassing aspect of what Judge Thomas said to you?
No, the most embarrassing aspect was his description of the acts of these individuals, these women, the acts that those particular people would engage in. It wasn't just the breasts; it was the continuation of his story about what happened in those films with the people with this characteristic -- with this physical characteristic.
With the physical characteristic of??
The large breasts.
Well, in your statement to the FBI, you did refer to the films, but there's no reference to the physical characteristic you described. But I don't want to attach too much weight to it, but I had thought you said that the aspect of large breasts was the aspect that concerned you, and that was missing from the statement to the FBI.
Then I have been misunderstood. It wasn't the physical characteristic of having large breasts. It was the description of the acts that this person with this characteristic would do, the acts that they would engage in, group acts, acts with animals, things of that nature involving women.
Professor Hill, I'd like you now to turn to page 3 of your statement that you submitted to the Committee we got just this morning. In the last sentence on the first full paragraph, you again make on that statement a very serious allegation as to Judge Thomas, and I would ask you why you didn't tell the FBI about that when they interviewed you.
I suppose my response would be the same. I did not tell the FBI all of the information. The FBI agent made clear that if I were embarrassed about talking about something, that I could decline to discuss things that were too embarrassing but that I could provide as much information as I felt comfortable with at that time.
Well, now, did you decline to discuss with the FBI anything on the grounds that it was too embarrassing?
There were no particular questions that were asked. He asked me to describe the kinds of incidents that had occurred as graphically as I could without being embarrassed. I did not explain everything. I agree that all of this was not disclosed in the FBI investigation.
Was it easier for you because one of the FBI agents was a woman, or did you ask at any time that you give the statements to her alone in the absence of the man FBI agent?
No, I did not do that. I didn't ask to disclose -- I just -- I did not.
Well, I understand from what you're saying now that you were told that you didn't have to say anything because -- if it was too embarrassing for you, but my question to you is did you use that at any point to decline to give any information on the ground that it was too embarrassing?
I never declined to answer a question because it was too embarrassing, no. He asked me to describe the incidents, and rather than decline to make any statement at all, I described them to my level of comfort.
Well, you described a fair number of things in the FBI statement, but I come back now to the last sentence on page 3 in the first full paragraph because it's a strong allegation, and now you have said that you had not omitted that because of its being embarrassing, or you might have said even something embarrassing to the female agent, and my question to you is why was that omitted?
Senator, at the time of the FBI investigation, I cooperated as fully as I could at that time, and I cannot explain why anything in specific was not -- was not stated.
Professor Hill, you testified that you drew an inference that Judge Thomas might want you to look at pornographic films, but you told the FBI specifically that he never asked you to watch the films; is that correct?
He never said: Let's go to my apartment and watch films, or go to my house and watch films. He did say: You ought to see this material.
But when you testified that -- as I wrote it down -- quote, "We ought to look at pornographic movies together", that was an expression of what was in your mind that he --
That was the inference that I drew, yes --
The inference --
-- with his pressing me for social engagements, yes.
That -- something he might have wanted you to do. But the fact is, flatly, he never asked you to look at pornographic movies with him?
With him? No, he did not.
Will the Senator yield for one moment? Point of clarification. I don't want to --
I'd rather not.
No, to determine whether or not the witness ever saw the FBI report. Does she know what was stated by the FBI about her conversation?
Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm asking her about what she said to the FBI.
No, I understand. I'm just asking -- (pause). Have you ever seen the FBI report?
No, I have not.
Thank you.
Would you like to take a few moments and look at it now?
Yes, I would.
Okay. Let's make a copy of the FBI report. I --
I think we have to be careful to make sure the FBI report only as it pertains --
Senator Grassley asked me to make sure it doesn't --
Maybe you could continue. Only as it pertains to her. We're not at liberty to give to her what the FBI said about other individuals.
I was asking Professor Hill about the FBI report obviously because the portion I'm questioning you about relates to their recording what you said. And I think it's fair -- one lawyer to another -- to ask about it.
No, I would continue, because you are not asking her directly. I just wanted to know whether or not her responses were at all based upon her knowledge of what the FBI said she said. That's all I was asking.
Well, she's asked to see it, and I think it's a fair request . And I would be glad to take a moment's delay to have her look at that.
This is the FBI report as it references Professor Hill -- only Professor Hill.
May we stop the clock, Mr. Chairman?
Yes, we will. We'll turn the clock back and give the Senator additional time. I will not ask how long to turn it back. I'll leave that decision to Senator Simpson. Senator Simpson?
I'll be watching the clock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Pause while Ms. Hill reads relevant portion of FBI report.)
(Bangs gavel.) That was not to hurry you along, Professor, that was to ask for silence in the room.
The only point I wish to make is that you have -- that you know what's in the report and understand the report as a summary of your conversation, not a transcription of your conversation.
(Pause.)
While we have this momentary break, the Senator has 10 or more minutes remaining and at that -- at the conclusion of his questioning we'll recess for lunch for an hour and then begin with Senator Leahy -- whatever, an hour from the time we --
I see. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that part. Thank you.
All right. Have you had a chance to peruse it?
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, I apologize to my colleague for the interruption.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Hill, now that you have read the FBI report you can see that it contains no reference to any mention of Judge Thomas's private parts or sexual prowess or size, et cetera. And my question to you would be on something that is as important as it is in your written testimony and in your responses to Senator Biden, why didn't you tell the FBI about that?
Senator, in paragraph 2 on page 2 of the report it says that he liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex. And I'm not sure what all that summarizes, but his sexual prowess, his sexual preferences could have --
Which line are you referring to, Professor?
The very last line in paragraph 2 of page 2.
Well, that says, quote -- this is not too bad, I can read it -- "Thomas liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex," closed quote. Now are you saying in response to my question as to why you didn't tell the FBI about the size of his private parts and his sexual prowess and Long John Silver that that information was comprehended within the statement, quote, "Thomas liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex"?
I am not saying that that information was included in that. I don't know that it was. I don't believe that I even mentioned the latter information to the FBI agent. And I could only respond again that at the time of the investigation I tried to cooperate as fully as I could to recall information that -- to answer the questions that they asked.
Professor Hill, you said that you took it to mean that Judge Thomas wanted to have sex with you, but in fact he never did ask you to have sex, correct?
No, he did not ask me to have sex. He did continually pressure me to go out with him, continually, and he would not accept my explanation as one as -- being valid.
So that when you said you took it to mean we ought to have sex that that was an inference that you drew?
Yes, yes.
Professor Hill, the USA Today reported on October 9th, quote, "Anita Hill was told by Senate staffers she signed an affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas" -- (correcting himself) -- or "Anita Hill was told by Senate staffers her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that, quote, `quietly and behind the scenes' -- close quote -- would force him to withdraw his name."
Was USA Today correct on that, attributing it to a man named Mr. Keith Henderson, a 10-year friend of Hill and former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer?
I do not recall -- I guess -- did I say that --
Well, let me --
I don't understand who said what from that quotation.
He said -- Keith Henderson, a 10-year friend of Hill and former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer -- says Hill was advised by a senator's staffers that her charge would be kept secret and her name kept from public scrutiny. Quote, "They would" -- apparently referring again to Mr. Henderson's statement -- quote, "They would approach Judge Thomas with the information and he would withdraw and not turn this into a big story," close quote, Henderson says.
Did anybody ever tell you that by providing the statement that there would be a move to press Judge Thomas to withdraw his nomination?
I don't recall any story about pressing, using this to press anyone.
Well, do you recall anything at all about anything related to that?
I think that I was told that my statement would be shown to Judge Thomas, and I agreed to that.
But was there any suggestion, however slight, that the statement with these serious charges would result in a withdrawal so that it wouldn't have to be necessary for your identity to be known or for you to come forward under circumstances like these?
There was no -- not that I recall. I don't recall anything being said about him being pressed to resign.
Well, this would only have happened in the course of the past month or so --
Yes.
-- because all this started just in early September.
I understand.
So that when you say you don't recall, I would ask you to search your memory on this point, and perhaps we might begin, and this is an important subject, about the initiation of this entire matter with respect to the Senate staffers who talked to you. But that's going to be too long for the few minutes that I have left, so I would just ask you once again, and you say you don't recollect, whether there was anything at all said to you by anyone that, as USA Today reports, that just by having the allegations of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas that it would be the instrument that, quote, "quietly and behind the scenes," close quote, would force him to withdraw his name? Anything related to that in any way whatsoever?
The only thing that I can think of -- if you'll check -- there were a lot of phone conversations. We were discussing this matter over very carefully. And at some point, there might have been a conversation about what might happen. But --
(Off mike) -- have been?
There might have been, but it wasn't -- I don't remember this specific kind of comment about "quietly and behind the scenes pressing him to withdraw."
Well, aside from "quietly and behind the scenes pressing him to withdraw," any suggestion that just the charges themselves in writing would result in Judge Thomas withdrawing, going away?
No. No. I don't recall that at all, no.
Well, you started to say that there might have been some conversation --
There might have been some conversation about what could possibly occur.
Well, tell me about that conversation.
Well, I can't really tell you any more than what I've said. I discussed what the alternatives were, what might happen with this affidavit that I submitted. We talked about a possibility of the Senate committee coming back for more information. We talked about a possibility of the FBI asking -- going through the FBI in getting more information. Some questions from individual senators. I just -- the statement that you're referring to, I really can't verify.
Well, when you talk about the Senate coming back for more information or the FBI coming back for more information, senators coming back for more information, that has nothing to do at all with Judge Thomas withdrawing. So, when you testified a few moments ago that there might possibly have been a conversation in response to my question about a possible withdrawal. I would press you on that, Professor Hill, in this context. You've testified with some specificity about what happened ten years ago --
Uh-huh.
I would ask you to press your recollection as to what happened within the last month.
And I have done that, Senator. And I don't recall that comment. I do recall that there might have been some suggestion that if the FBI did the investigation, that the Senate might get involved, that there may be -- that a number of things might occur. But I really -- I have to be honest with you -- I cannot verify the statement that you are asking me to verify. There is not really more that I can tell you on that.
Well, when you say a number of things might occur, what sort of things?
May I just add this one thing?
Sure.
The nature of that kind of conversation that you're talking about is very different from the nature of the conversations that I recall. The conversations that I recall were much more vivid, they were more explicit. That -- the conversations that I have had with the staff over the last few days, in particular, have become much blurry -- much more blurry. But these are vivid events that I recall from even eight years ago when they happened. And they are going to stand out much more in my mind than a telephone conversation. They were one-on-one, personal conversations, as a matter of fact, and that adds to why they are much more easily recalled. I am sure that there are some comments that I do not recall the exact nature of from that period, as well. But these, that are here, are the ones that I do recall.
Well, Professor Hill, I can understand why you say that these comments -- alleged comments -- would stand out in your mind. And we've gone over those -- I don't want to go them again. But when you talk about the withdrawal of a Supreme Court nominee, you're talking about something that is very, very vivid -- stark, and you're talking about something that occurred within the past four or five weeks. And my question goes to a very dramatic and important event, if a mere allegation would pressure a nominee to withdraw from the Supreme Court, I would suggest to you that that's not something that wouldn't stick in a mind for four or five weeks, if it happened.
Well, Senator, I would suggest to you that for me these are more than mere allegations, so that if that comment were made, these are the truth to me. These comments are the truth to me. And if it were made, then I may not -- I may not respond to it in the same way that you do.
Well, I'm not questioning your statement when I use the word "allegation" to refer to 10 years ago. I just don't want to talk about it as a fact, because so far that's something we have to decide. So I'm not stressing that aspect of the question. I do with respect to the time period. But the point that I would come back to for just one more minute would be -- well, let me ask it to you this way --
Okay.
Would you not consider it a matter of real importance if someone said to you, Professor, you won't have to go public, your name won't have to be disclosed. You won't have to do anything. Just sign the affidavit and this man, as the USA Today report, would be the instrument that, quote, "quietly and behind-the-scenes," closed quote, would force him to withdraw his name. I'm not asking whether it happened. I'm asking you now only if it did happen, whether that would be the kind of statement to you which would be important and impressed upon you that you would remember in the course of four or five weeks?
(Pause.)
I don't recall a specific statement. And I cannot say whether that comment would have stuck in my mind. I really cannot say that.
The sequence with the staffers is very involved, so I'm going to move to another subject now. But I want to come back to this and over the luncheon break I would ask you to think about it further if there's any way you can shed any further light on that question --
Okay.
-- because I think it's an important one.
Thank you.
Professor Hill, the next subject I want to take up with you involves the kind of strong language which you say Judge Thomas used in a very unique setting where there you have the Chairman of the EEOC, the nation's chief law enforcement officer of sexual harassment, and here you have a lawyer who's an expert in this field later goes on to teach civil rights and has a dedication to making sure that women are not discriminated against. And if you take the single issue of discrimination against women, the Chairman of the EEOC has a more important role on that question even than a Supreme Court justice. A Supreme Court justice is a more important position overall, but if you focus just on sexual harassment -- and the testimony that you have described here today depicts a circumstance where the Chairman of the EEOC is blatant as you describe it.
And my question is, understanding of the fact that you're 25 and that it's your -- you're shortly out of law school and the pressures that exist in this world, and I know about it to a fair extent. I used to be a district attorney and I know about sexual harassment and discrimination against women, and I think I have some sensitivity on it. But even considering all of that, given your own expert standing and the fact that here you have the chief law enforcement officer of the country on this subject and the whole purpose of the civil rights law is being perverted right in the office of the Chairman with one of his own female subordinates -- what went through your mind, if anything, on whether you ought to come forward at that stage, because if you had you'd stop this man from being head of EEOC perhaps for another decade. What went on through your mind? I know you decided not to make a complaint, but did you give that any consideration, and if so how could you allow this kind of reprehensible conduct to go on right in the headquarters without doing something about it?
Well, it was a very trying and difficult decision for me not to say anything further. I can only say that when I made the decision to just withdraw from the situation and not press a claim or charge against him, that I may have shirked a duty, a responsibility that I had. And to that extent I confess that I am very sorry that I did not do something or say something, but at the time that was my best judgment. Maybe it was a poor judgment but it wasn't a dishonest, and it wasn't a completely unreasonable choice that I made given the circumstances.
My red light is on, thank you very much, Professor Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Professor Hill. We will adjourn until 2:15. We'll reconvene at 2:15.
END