1. Read â€å“statement of Professor Anita F. Hill to the Senate Judiciary
A nita H sick
Opening Statement to the Senate Judiciary Commission
delivered 11 October 1991, Washington, D.C.
Sound AR-XE mp3 of Accost
click for pdf
[Authenticity CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio]
Thousand
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 educational activity.
In 1981, I was introduced to now Judge Thomas past a mutual friend. Judge Thomas told me that he was anticipating a political engagement, and he asked if I would be interested in working with him. He was, in fact, appointed as Assistant Secretarial assistant of Didactics for Civil Rights. Afterwards he was -- After he had taken that post, he asked if I would go his assistant, and I accustomed that position.
In my early catamenia there, I had two major projects. The start was an article I wrote for Approximate Thomas's signature on the education of minority students. The second was the arrangement of a seminar on high-gamble students which was abandoned because Judge Thomas transferred to the EEOC where he became the chairman of that function.
During this period at the Department of Pedagogy, my working human relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I had a skillful deal of responsibility and independence. I thought he respected my work and that he trusted my judgment. After approximately three months of working at that place, he asked me to go out socially with him.
What happened next and telling the world about it are the ii most difficult things -- experiences of my life. It is only subsequently a not bad deal of agonizing consideration and sleepless number -- a slap-up 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 leave socially with him and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize at what -- at -- 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, every bit now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my piece of work would be ill-brash. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so.
I idea that past proverb no and explaining my reasons my employer would abandon his social suggestions. Nevertheless, to my regret, in the following few weeks, he connected to inquire me out on several occasions. He pressed me to justify my reasons for proverb no to him. These incidents took place in his part or mine. They were in the grade of individual conversations which not -- would not have been overheard by anyone else.
My working relationship became even more than strained when Judge Thomas began to utilise work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions, he would call me into his part for reports on education issues and projects, or he might advise that, because of the time pressures of his schedule, we go to dejeuner to a authorities cafeteria. After a cursory discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters.
His conversations were very brilliant. He spoke most 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 activity acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess.
Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex activity with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not desire to talk about these subjects. I would likewise try to change the discipline to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters such every bit his background or his beliefs. My efforts to change the -- the subject field were rarely successful.
Throughout the period of these conversations, he as well, from fourth dimension to fourth dimension, asked me for social engagements. My reaction to these conversations was to avoid them by eliminating opportunities for u.s.a. to engage in extended conversations. This was difficult because at the time I was his only assistant at the Part of Educational activity -- or Role for Ceremonious Rights.
During the latter role of my time at the Section of Education, the social pressures and whatever conversation of his offensive behavior ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial, and professional i.
When Approximate Thomas was made chair of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to get with him. I was asked to practise so, and I did. The work itself was interesting, and at that fourth dimension 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 take gone back to private practice, peradventure in my quondam firm or at another, I was dedicated to civil rights work, and my first selection was to be in that field. Moreover, the Department of Education itself was a dubious venture. President Reagan was seeking to cancel the entire section.
For my beginning months at the EEOC, where I continued to be an banana to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the autumn and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't get out with him to remarks about my personal advent. I call back his saying that some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn't exit with him.
He began to show displeasure in his tone and phonation and his demeanor and his connected force per unit area for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether information technology made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC.
I of the oddest episodes I retrieve 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 go the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has pubic pilus on my Coke?" On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis every bit being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sexual practice.
At this point, belatedly 1982, I began to feel astringent stress on the job. I began to exist concerned that Clarence Thomas might accept out his acrimony with me by degrading me or not giving me of import assignments. I besides thought that he might observe 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 get in 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 flow of a hiring freeze in the government. In February 1983, I was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for an acute -- for astute stomach pain, which I attributed to stress on the job.
In one case 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 became office director, because most of my piece of work was and then funneled through her and I had contact with Clarence Thomas generally in staff meetings.
In the spring of 1983, an opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts Academy opened up. I participated in a seminar -- taught an afternoon session and seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the -- of the academy saw me instruction and inquired equally 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 office 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 practise then. At some time later on that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the cease of the term. When I declined, he bodacious me that the dinner was a professional person courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation, but only if it was at the very finish of a working mean solar day.
On, as I recall, the concluding day of my employment at the EEOC in the summertime of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas. Nosotros went directly from piece of work to a restaurant near the office. Nosotros talked nigh the work I had washed, both at Educational activity and at the EEOC. He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an commodity and speech that I had done for him while we were at the Office for Ceremonious Rights. Finally, he made a annotate that I will vividly call back. He said that if I always told anyone of his behavior that information technology would ruin his career. This was not an amends, nor was information technology 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, D.C. area and I've had minimal contacts 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 later on I left the EEOC. From 1983 until today, I have seen Estimate Thomas only twice. On i 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 ane occasion he called me without reaching me, and I returned the telephone call without reaching him, and zilch came of it. I have, on at least three occasions, been asked to [act] as a conduit to him for others.
I knew his secretarial assistant, 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 annotate to then Chairman Thomas. At that place were a series of calls in the beginning 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 Cahall, that she put the -- 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. Cahall wanted briefing materials for the seminar and some enquiry was needed. I was asked to endeavor to get the information and did try to do then.
There was some other call almost another possible conference in the July of 1985. In August of 1987, I was in Washington, D.C. and I did call Diane Holt. In the grade of this chat, she asked me how long I was going to be in boondocks and I told her. It is recorded in the message equally August fifteen. It was, in fact, August 20th. She told me about Judge Thomas's union and I did say, "Congratulate him."
It is but afterwards 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 terminal few days accept been very trying and very hard for me, and it hasn't just been the last few days this week. It has really been over a month now that I have been nether the strain of this issue.
Telling the world is the most hard experience of my life, but it is very close to having to live through the experience that occasion this meeting. I may take used poor judgment early in my human relationship with this upshot. I was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely bear on my future career. And I did not desire early on on to burn down all the bridges to the EEOC.
As I said, I may accept used poor judgment. Perchance I should accept taken angry or fifty-fifty militant steps, both when I was in the bureau, or after I left it. Only I must confess to the globe that the form that I took seemed the improve as well as the easier approach.
I declined any comment to newspapers, merely 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 every bit relevant.
Information technology would have been more comfortable to remain silent. It took no initiative to inform anyone -- I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I was asked by a representative of this committee to written report my feel, I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not go along silent.
Book/CDs by Michael East. Eidenmuller, Published past McGraw-Hill (2008)
Also in this database: Judge Clarence Thomas' Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Audio Source: C-SPAN.org
Sound Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement
Folio Updated: 10/9/21
U.S. Copyright Status: This text and sound = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com.
Source: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/anitahillsenatejudiciarystatement.htm
0 Response to "1. Read â€å“statement of Professor Anita F. Hill to the Senate Judiciary"
Post a Comment