0:15

Pushkin High

0:19

listeners. Anita Hill here, while

0:22

we're hard at work on new episodes

0:24

of Gettigeva, I wanted to share

0:26

something special this week. It's

0:28

a recent interview I did on another Pushkin

0:31

show, Talk Easy, with

0:33

Sam Fragoso. Every

0:36

Sunday, Sam invites an artist,

0:38

activists, or politician to

0:40

come to the table and speak from

0:42

the heart. I talked

0:45

with him about growing up during the Civil

0:47

rights era, witnessing the

0:49

power of the court, and

0:51

about following my mother's model

0:54

for change. We

0:57

revisit how my testimony at the Clarence

0:59

Thomas Confirmation Hearing encouraged

1:01

survivors of sexual harassment

1:04

to come forward, and what

1:06

the historic confirmation Judge

1:09

Katangi Brown Jackson means today.

1:13

To close, I share a point that

1:16

gives me hope by activists

1:18

Polly Murray. You

1:20

can hear more episodes of Talk Easy

1:22

wherever you get your podcasts, or

1:25

at talk easypod dot

1:28

com. For now, here's

1:31

my talk with Sam Fregosa.

1:36

Anita, what did you have for breakfast

1:39

today? I had granola,

1:42

much healthier than I would do, but I

1:44

appreciate it. When you get to be sixty five,

1:47

Sam, you might want to switch to

1:49

granola,

1:51

but don't push it, don't rush it. I

1:53

feel like by the time I reached thirty

1:55

five, I may want to switch to granola.

1:58

Okay, Well, and you'll know when it's

2:00

time. Anita

2:02

Hill, thank you for being here. It's a pleasure

2:04

to be talking with you. Well, I am grateful

2:07

to have this opportunity with

2:09

you, and I just want to jump right in because you

2:12

have a new podcast called Getting

2:14

Even with Anita Hill. What

2:16

does getting even in

2:19

this case mean and look like to

2:21

you? Well, in this case, it means

2:23

getting to equality. I mean, the podcast

2:26

is all about equality and how

2:29

we can get there. It goes

2:31

beyond looking at inequalities,

2:33

and there are plenty of those out there, and there's

2:36

plenty of evidence of it. But

2:38

I think in this moment, two

2:41

years after twenty twenty and which

2:43

was a year of reckoning and clarity

2:46

on a lot of inequalities

2:48

that we experience in society, two

2:51

years later, we're ready for solutions.

2:54

And there are people out there with solutions

2:56

and I want them to be heard. I want them to be on

2:58

my show. I want people

3:01

to listen and take away a message

3:03

that change is possible and

3:06

that they can be a part of that change. First

3:09

few episodes, you have this

3:11

mini series called Reimagining

3:14

nineteen ninety one, in which you

3:16

sit with Sakari Hardnett, a

3:19

witness that was never called to testify at

3:21

the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas.

3:23

You also sit with Georgetown law professor

3:26

Susan Dela Ross, who served on your

3:28

legal team during that hearing. What

3:30

has that process been like revisiting nineteen

3:33

ninety one in twenty twenty two. Well,

3:35

most recently I revisited nineteen

3:38

ninety one in twenty eighteen when

3:41

Christine Blasi four testified and

3:44

the majority of people around

3:46

the country who were viewing it saw

3:49

a repeat of nineteen ninety

3:51

one in her testimony

3:54

in the Brett Cavanaugh confirmation

3:56

hearing. It's not as

3:58

though I'm revisiting nineteen

4:00

ninety one for the first time thirty years later.

4:03

I think so often

4:05

over the past thirty years, we

4:08

have seen reverberations

4:10

or echoes of nineteen

4:13

ninety one in public processes.

4:16

So in Revisiting, I

4:18

wanted to take people back to nineteen

4:20

ninety one to think about

4:22

the ways that things could have been done

4:25

differently, Things that were obviously

4:27

available for the Senate

4:30

Judiciary Committee to hear but

4:32

that were never allowed

4:35

into the record, including witnesses

4:37

who wanted to testify, who submitted

4:40

statements that were relevant

4:42

to my testimony and to their

4:44

own experiences. That

4:47

was my way of really introducing

4:49

what we should be doing now. First

4:52

of all, we should be taking all of the evidence

4:54

in these public hearings. We should

4:56

not be excluding individuals

4:58

from bringing relevant information

5:01

to our public processes, especially

5:04

when it comes to issues of sexual

5:07

assault and sexual harassment. We

5:10

should give women

5:12

and any survivor or victim

5:15

their words should have the same weight

5:18

as the words of the

5:20

nominee. And we've

5:22

got to put together the processes

5:25

that will make sure that things

5:27

are weighted evenly. That

5:29

really does kind of go to the heart of

5:31

getting even How do we even

5:34

the playing field? And we've

5:37

got to understand that the process

5:40

is important, and if we don't

5:43

pay attention to the process, we

5:45

are going to repeat over and

5:47

over again the same

5:49

problems. Well, let's unpack some of that

5:51

process. In nineteen ninety one, on

5:54

one, Clarence Thomas was nominated

5:56

for the Supreme Court by then President Bush. Political

5:59

appointees typically receive an extensive FBI

6:02

background check. But that did

6:04

not happen between July one

6:06

of nineteen ninety one and September third

6:09

of nineteen ninety one. And

6:11

it's that day in September when

6:14

you first received contact from the staff

6:16

of Senator Howard Metzenbaum, a

6:18

Democrat from Ohio. As

6:20

he said in a sworn statement on page twenty

6:23

nine of the Congressional Record for the Senate on October

6:25

seventh, nineteen ninety one, Anita

6:27

Hill was one of three women who worked with Thomas

6:30

at the e EOC who were contacted

6:32

by my staff. They were asked about a

6:34

range of women's issues, including

6:37

rumors of sexual harassment at the agency.

6:39

I want to emphasize and point out

6:41

that Miss Hill did not make an allegation

6:43

against mister Thomas during that September

6:46

third or September fourth conversation.

6:48

On September fifth, Miss Rickey

6:50

Sideman, a second labor aid working

6:53

with then Democratic Senator Ten Kennedy,

6:55

called you. As Kennedy said again

6:58

from that Senate record I quoted from the

7:00

call was a systemic review of people

7:02

who had worked with Judge Thomas, and

7:04

Hill indicated that she needed time to

7:06

decide whether she was willing to discuss the issue,

7:09

the issue being of sexual harassment.

7:12

Then on September ninth, you leave

7:14

a message on the phone of James Brudney,

7:17

the Chief Council of Metz and Baumbs

7:19

subcommittee. I want to go back to that.

7:22

What were you wrestling with in

7:24

those four days between September

7:27

fifth and the ninth. First of all, what I

7:29

was wrestling was it was the way that they had framed the question.

7:32

They asked not whether I had been

7:34

sexually harassed, They asked if

7:36

I was aware of sexual harassment.

7:39

The way the question was framed, I thought

7:42

that perhaps somebody else had

7:44

come forward and was I

7:46

aware of that person's situation,

7:49

And I was only aware of my

7:51

own. But I wasn't quite

7:53

sure that that's what they were asking for. And

7:55

I was also grappling with the fact that these

7:57

are political processes. The

8:01

confirmations for the Supreme Court

8:03

are highly political. That you do

8:05

it sounds like, oh, it's for the Supreme Court.

8:07

Everybody's concerned about the judiciary

8:10

and the legal system. Well,

8:12

some people are really concerned or

8:14

about politics and political

8:17

power and aligning

8:19

with political power. And

8:22

I was very

8:24

concerned that this

8:26

could possibly be one of those situations.

8:29

Where there wasn't really any concern

8:32

about sexual harassment, but

8:34

there was just a chance to

8:37

make political points, and I

8:39

didn't want my experience to be used

8:41

just for political points. In

8:44

the end, I decided that

8:46

I would step forward because

8:49

I thought about what the process should

8:52

be, and what the process is billed

8:54

as is a concerted

8:56

effort including an investigation into

8:59

the character and fitness of

9:02

a nominee for a position

9:05

on the highest court in

9:08

the country, and it's a lifetime

9:10

position. So I

9:12

decided that I did have something

9:14

relevant to say about my own

9:16

experience, and that if

9:19

the Senate Judiciary Committee

9:21

took it seriously as a process

9:23

for vetting an individual's

9:26

qualifications, which

9:28

to me includes integrity

9:30

and honesty and respect

9:33

for the law, then they

9:36

would take my testimony series. So

9:39

you signed up because you

9:41

had this kind of lingering hope

9:43

about what the process

9:46

could and should look like, knowing

9:48

all well that the process

9:50

was likely to fail. You absolutely

9:53

think about it. I'm a lawyer. I was teaching law

9:55

students at the time. I'd teach

9:57

my law students to have

10:00

respect for the law and to value

10:03

process and to really

10:06

understand that they should

10:08

have an investment in making sure the systems

10:10

work, and that means participating,

10:13

not standing on the sidelines. That

10:15

was, in part what was driving me. Another

10:17

thing that was driving me was the fact that

10:20

I grew up after the round versus

10:22

Board of Education system. I'm the youngest of thirteen

10:25

children. Ten of my siblings

10:27

went to segregated schools. I

10:30

and two of my siblings graduated from

10:32

integrated schools. Our lives,

10:35

our opportunities were different

10:37

because of those different experiences, so

10:40

I know firsthand the importance

10:42

of the court. A lot of people think

10:45

of the Supreme Court it's a remote out there.

10:47

They don't understand their process, they don't understand

10:50

their role, and they don't see how

10:52

it affects their lives. But I had grown up believing

10:54

that the court affected

10:56

my life. I saw it

10:59

was my responsibility, ultimately

11:02

to at least challenge

11:05

the system. You know you're talking about

11:07

growing up in Oklahoma, the

11:09

youngest of thirteen children. You

11:12

grew up with the belief that the courts can

11:14

affect change. But I also know that you grew

11:16

up with the belief that, as

11:19

your uncle George, your mother's brother,

11:21

once said, if you talk about harm

11:23

done to you, those people will use it

11:25

against you. I wonder how

11:27

much those words lingered

11:29

inside of you in that window of time before

11:32

deciding to take part in the hearing. Yeah,

11:34

those words are part of what we

11:36

grew up with, and it's part

11:38

of what my family had grown up with. And

11:41

you know, I was born in nineteen fifty six.

11:43

In nineteen fifty six, their segregation

11:46

was legal. Schools were being

11:48

desegregated, not quickly,

11:51

but we didn't have a Civil Rights

11:54

Act of nineteen sixty four, so

11:57

jobs were segregated, education

12:00

was segregated. So it

12:02

wasn't as though I grew up in

12:05

a time where I didn't

12:07

see that the law could

12:10

do bad as

12:12

well as to do good. But

12:14

at the same time, I

12:17

realized that you

12:19

have to take risk for change. I grew

12:21

up through the Civil rights era. You know,

12:24

it was happening on television, but

12:26

what I saw was that people were

12:28

taking risks, and for

12:30

them, the risks meant marching

12:33

with the risk of being beaten up by

12:35

police. It meant people

12:38

fighting for voting rights, trying to enroll

12:41

black people to vote in Mississippi might

12:44

die. It meant taking

12:46

risks, real risk, and

12:48

so I knew that there was risk.

12:50

Am I coming forward, but I

12:53

had this model in the back of my head that

12:55

that's what it takes if you want

12:57

change. I took the risk and

13:00

still held out hope that some change

13:02

would come. And I believe that

13:04

even though the outcomes of the hearings and the vote

13:07

that it clearly wasn't a change

13:10

that I would have liked to have come.

13:13

But change can come in different ways. That

13:15

we shouldn't necessarily measure

13:19

our impact by

13:21

the change that comes out of the

13:23

official process. And that's

13:26

a lesson from nineteen ninety one, because we

13:28

know that since nineteen ninety

13:30

one, we have seen

13:33

change around the issue of sexual harassment,

13:36

around the issue of sexual assault, around

13:39

the issue of many forms of gender violence.

13:42

We've seen people from all ways

13:45

of life coming forward, people

13:47

of all races, people of all genders

13:50

coming forward talking about their experiences

13:52

in the Me Tooth movement. And I

13:54

like to believe that nineteen ninety one was a part

13:56

of that, But I don't want to rest on

13:59

that. I want to hold that moment of risk

14:01

that you took. On October eleventh,

14:04

nine eleven thirty

14:06

one am you sat

14:08

alone in your blue linen suit

14:11

in a long table in room three twenty

14:13

five of the Russell Senate Office Building, and

14:15

began your statement in Clarence Thomas's

14:17

confirmation hearing, Mister

14:20

Chairman, Senator Thurma,

14:23

Members of the Committee. My name

14:25

is Anita F. Hill, and I'm

14:27

a professor of law at the University of

14:29

Oklahoma. I was born on a

14:31

farm in Oakmogee County, Oklahoma,

14:33

in nineteen fifty six. I

14:35

am the youngest of thirteen children. When

14:38

you hear that version of yourself at

14:41

age thirty five, what do you

14:43

here? Let the record show that I'm

14:45

looking down now because I'm actually

14:47

visualizing that. Let me just describe

14:50

what else was going on. Yes, I was sitting

14:52

at that table and

14:54

I was alone. It wasn't

14:57

though, that I was alone in the room. As

14:59

I looked to my right, there was a

15:02

bank of photographers ready to take

15:04

a photo of any move

15:06

that I made. I remember at one

15:08

point doing a gesture to my face or

15:10

something, or pulling a picking up a glass

15:12

of water, and flashes, lights flashing,

15:16

because everyone, I assume, thought they

15:18

were going to capture a moment. I

15:20

remember, of course, the bank

15:22

of people sitting in front of me, the

15:24

senators, all white, all male,

15:27

most of them middle aged or older, many

15:30

of whom were entirely incredulous,

15:32

some very hostile, some ambivalent.

15:35

I think everyone was actually ambivalent. Nobody

15:38

wanted to be there. They didn't want me to

15:40

be there anyway. But I also

15:42

have a memory of my family sitting behind

15:44

me, and my family

15:47

and friends were there, and the people

15:49

who supported me had come

15:51

together like magic

15:53

because they believed that I had the right to

15:55

be heard. I really felt

15:58

that, because my family was there, because

16:02

all of those people were there, that

16:05

I, in fact did have

16:07

as close to a level playing field

16:10

in that space as anybody

16:12

could possibly get. And as

16:14

long as I kept that in my head,

16:17

then I was ready to proceed. You

16:20

know, you mentioned some of the incredulous

16:22

behavior coming from the Senate Judiciary

16:25

Committee. If some of their comments were

16:27

considered insensitive in nineteen ninety

16:29

one, they're considered horrifying

16:32

in twenty twenty two. I'm

16:34

thinking now specifically about

16:37

Senator Howell Heflin, a Democrat

16:39

from Alabama. Here he is during

16:41

the confirmation hearing on October twelfth

16:44

of nineteen ninety one. I've got

16:46

to determine what your motivation might

16:49

be. Are you a scorned woman?

16:52

Do you have a militant attitude

16:54

relative to the area of civil

16:57

rights. Do you have a modern complex

17:00

the issue of fantasy has

17:02

arisen? Are you interested in writing

17:05

a book? People will say, though, that

17:07

he was not well understood line

17:09

of questioning. He was trying to

17:11

sort of do this tactic thing

17:13

to our We'll just put all of these out here.

17:16

I think the real antagonism came

17:18

from people like Arlen Spector, like

17:21

Alan Simpson, and like Orn

17:23

Hatch. Yes, Howell Heflin,

17:25

who was a Democrat from the South didn't

17:27

do me any favors in a sense, But

17:30

the direct hostility really

17:33

came from the really

17:35

snide and snarky in the

17:38

looks of disdain

17:40

from those individuals. And then

17:43

the worst of it was also from

17:46

all of the collective decision led

17:48

by Joe Biden for not

17:50

bringing on extra witnesses, not

17:53

including all of the information. So

17:56

it was a combination of things. It wasn't

17:58

just one person, It

18:01

was the entire culture of

18:04

the Senate, and it was

18:06

their lack of understanding and unwillingness

18:08

to bring and experts who

18:10

could inform them. It

18:13

was a lack of consideration for how

18:15

this hearing was impacting people

18:17

around the country. And around the globe.

18:20

There were so many things that were

18:22

wrong. I will tell you this story

18:25

quickly. You know, I've been doing some

18:27

discussions in a podcasts and radio

18:29

shows about a book that I

18:31

wrote, and one woman who

18:34

was watching the hearings in nineteen ninety

18:36

one called up the radio station and said,

18:39

you know, I remember nineteen

18:42

ninety one. She said, just hearing

18:44

your voice makes me sick

18:46

to the stomach now because I recall

18:49

what you went through. So it

18:51

was all of the above that, you

18:54

know, sort of sent people into this like

18:56

visceral response of

18:59

what is happening here? What

19:01

are our leaders doing? And can

19:04

this even be possible? Even in nineteen

19:06

ninety one, I think more

19:09

people today have that feeling. We've

19:12

moved since in nineteen ninety

19:14

one. As a public we

19:16

understand that we should not have

19:19

tolerated all of the innuendos,

19:21

Howell Hefflin's innuendos and suggestions.

19:25

We are a better country for it,

19:27

and that's why I think now is the time for

19:29

us to move beyond

19:31

just understanding the problem and

19:33

being aware that it's in existence, but

19:36

now we should be talking about solutions

19:39

and repairing the harm

19:41

that's been done. Well, I want to talk about

19:43

the solution to one problem

19:46

which I think you alluded to from

19:48

Senator Hatch and Senator

19:50

Simpson, which is this recurrent comment

19:53

if she felt unsafe in the fall of nineteen

19:55

eighty one at the Department of Education, why

19:57

did she go with Thomas when he went

20:00

to the EOC in April of nineteen

20:02

eighty two. Here's Senator

20:04

Simpson, the Republican from Wyoming,

20:07

pursuing the same line of question.

20:10

If what you say this man said to you

20:13

occurred, why in God's name

20:15

when he left his position of power

20:18

or status or authority

20:20

over you and you left

20:22

it in nineteen eighty

20:24

three, why in God's name would

20:27

you ever speak to a

20:29

man like that the

20:31

rest of your life. You describe

20:34

some of the psychology of this in

20:36

your book Believing. Can

20:38

you speak on how that response

20:40

from Thurman, Hatch and

20:43

Simpson reflects a kind of collective

20:45

denial of women's experiences

20:48

with abuse and how we may go about

20:50

fixing that problem. Well, first of

20:52

all, it suggests that

20:55

the behavior is so exceptional that

20:57

automatically people are going to respond and

20:59

leave it. And the reality

21:02

is that even today there are people

21:04

who are experiencing harassment who

21:06

are continuing to live in those

21:08

situation and work in those

21:10

situations because they

21:13

don't feel they have any other real choices.

21:16

I knew that Clarence Thomas

21:19

was an individual who

21:22

was powerful enough to

21:24

eliminate my livelihood

21:27

with a single call. He could

21:30

make sure that I did not have a

21:33

job. And I knew that. And

21:35

at the time that I went to the department,

21:38

I left the Department of Education and went to the EOC,

21:41

some of the behavior had actually stopped.

21:44

It picked up again that

21:46

part. I don't even understand how

21:49

it picked up again, but I do understand

21:51

that I kept wanting

21:53

nothing more than the behavior to stop.

21:56

And I knew that leaving

22:00

would be a risk because I would

22:02

still have to find another job. And

22:05

I knew that leaving

22:08

wouldn't necessarily mean that I would go to

22:10

another job where there would be no harassment,

22:12

because there is harassment at a lot

22:15

of jobs. What you

22:17

saw in those senators

22:20

all very powerful men, all

22:22

of them very wealthy. It

22:25

would have been in their power bubble for

22:27

so long that they didn't understand vulnerability,

22:30

that they didn't understand any

22:33

kind of vulnerability, let alone the

22:35

vulnerability of a young twenty

22:37

five year old working

22:40

in one of our very first professional

22:42

jobs in a place like Washington,

22:44

DC. And I think that's

22:47

a huge gap between

22:50

our leadership and where the

22:53

average worker is because I now

22:55

know the rates of harassment

22:58

for young people people in

23:00

that age group that I was in when I was working

23:02

for Thomas. I know how

23:04

high the rates are, regardless

23:07

of whether they moved from a job you

23:09

stay. So I think

23:11

what is missing the conversation

23:14

about why do women

23:17

stay? I think what is

23:19

missing is the question of

23:22

why don't our leaders

23:24

understand the experiences

23:27

of workers everywhere who

23:30

are not as powerful as they are, who

23:33

don't have the resources to bounce

23:35

back, whose jobs are not as secure

23:38

as theirs. Leaders who

23:40

can look at situations from

23:42

the perspective of the people

23:45

who are marginalized

23:47

or more vulnerable. We

23:50

should expect that of our representation.

23:53

If it were truly represented in Congress,

23:56

then we would have had somebody who understood

23:59

what my experience was, and they wouldn't have had to ask

24:01

the questions in the way that they asked

24:03

them, and maybe not

24:05

even had to ask them at all. And

24:08

if they did have to ask them, they should

24:10

have had an expert help them understand.

24:13

I'd like to better understand your experience,

24:16

because, as you write in your book, believing

24:19

survivors insulate themselves

24:22

with their own form of denial by

24:24

adamantly rejecting the notion that

24:26

they are vulnerable. They develop

24:28

a thick skin to defend themselves

24:31

against being labeled as snowflakes,

24:34

not tough enough, over sensitive,

24:36

and in some cases that means denying

24:39

that their own pain exists or

24:41

that it matters, either before,

24:44

during, or after the hearing. Do

24:47

you think you participated

24:49

in some of that insulation? Oh, absolutely

24:52

I did. That feeling that I'm describing

24:54

in the book doesn't come

24:57

from our heads. It

24:59

comes from the culture. The

25:01

culture that tells us throughout our lives

25:04

that what we're experiencing isn't

25:06

so bad, That tells us,

25:09

you know, just get over it, or

25:12

don't make a big deal out of it. Those

25:15

are the voices that we have heard.

25:17

So when we encounter these experiences,

25:20

that's what comes back to us. Give

25:23

this example of the things that

25:25

we tell children, and

25:28

there is an enormous amount of harassment

25:31

of children in elementary school,

25:34

and it can escalate as it moves

25:36

up to high school grades and then

25:38

of course in college, but

25:41

often where there is a male who

25:44

is being accused of being abusive and

25:46

a female who is a

25:49

victim, you hear

25:52

two things. One you hear, well, boys

25:54

will be boys, and that's just what boys

25:56

do. So in that instance,

25:59

we're telling the victim to accept bad

26:01

behavior because it's inevitable, and

26:04

we're telling the abuser that

26:06

bad behavior is acceptable. So that's

26:09

one message. The other

26:11

message is that we tell

26:14

young girls that boys

26:17

behave in these kinds of abusive

26:19

and sometimes violent ways because

26:22

they like them. And

26:24

in that sense, we're telling girls

26:27

that they should welcome a certain level

26:30

of aggressive, in even

26:32

violent attention because it's

26:34

a sign of their attractiveness

26:38

and that they should be submissive to it.

26:40

Now, what we are also again telling

26:43

boys, is that that's

26:45

the way that you show

26:48

your interest, and it's an acceptable

26:50

way of showing interest. And

26:53

so we have to deal with

26:55

this as a cultural issue. Instead

26:58

of telling boys that this is, you

27:00

know, okay, because you know you're a boy and

27:03

you'll just grow out of it, we should

27:05

be teaching more positive ways to

27:07

interact with folks, that aggression

27:10

is not the answer to

27:12

social relationships. You

27:15

know, we could talk endlessly just

27:17

about what's going on in our elementary

27:20

schools. If we don't

27:22

understand three things. First of all, the

27:24

cultural issues that allow

27:26

for gender violence and aggression.

27:29

We aren't understanding the

27:31

systems that are in place that

27:34

are supposed to be protecting people against it,

27:36

but really are allowing

27:38

it to happen. Systems like what happened

27:41

in nineteen ninety one and twenty eighteen,

27:44

and institutions that support it, like

27:46

the US Senate, like the Senate Judiciary

27:48

Committee, that support

27:51

really and sort of house this culture

27:53

in the systems. And so those

27:56

are the things that we have

27:58

to deal with as a society if we're

28:00

going to get beyond where we

28:02

are. But right now, what we do

28:05

is we have systems that put

28:08

the entire burden of understanding

28:10

the problem on the victims,

28:13

and as a society, we don't take

28:15

responsibility for even understanding what

28:17

they're going through. And that

28:19

needs to change. But I

28:22

think that there are, you know,

28:24

there's signs that we are changing. And

28:27

the response to Christine blassie Fort was

28:29

very different from the response to me.

28:32

It took a while to get to the response,

28:35

but the immediate response was

28:37

in Brett Kavanaugh in a majority of the

28:39

population Brett Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

28:42

That didn't happen in nineteen ninety one. You

28:45

know, it's a process of the society really

28:47

listening and understanding and

28:50

hearing from many

28:52

people who have survived various forms

28:54

of abuse. I think many people

28:57

watched the twenty eighteen Justice

29:00

Kavanaugh hearings and felt it

29:02

was eerily similar to nineteen ninety one.

29:05

You mentioned the cultural response

29:07

had changed, But something you write

29:10

in your book is that one of the things

29:12

that are not changed were the structures.

29:15

And if you don't change the process, you're

29:17

going to continue to get the same outcomes.

29:20

Now. Of course, the twenty eighteen Senate

29:22

Judiciary Committee had more gender

29:24

and racial diversity, and yet in

29:27

spite of that diversity, they reached

29:29

the same outcome the committee reached

29:32

in nineteen ninety one. Why

29:34

do you think we often focus

29:36

on making changes in

29:38

personnel over changes

29:41

in process because it's easier.

29:43

It's easier for us to believe that all

29:46

this is is a behavioral issue

29:48

instead of a structural issue. What does that mean,

29:50

Well, it means that we don't even

29:52

think about the process. For one thing. We

29:54

just think that, okay, if we put

29:58

better people or more sensitive people

30:00

in a position to hear a

30:03

case, then they'll come

30:05

up with the right decision, because

30:07

it's just about, you know, evaluating

30:10

behavior. But all the evaluations

30:13

of behavior take place

30:15

through the lens of a process.

30:18

So in twenty eighteen, when

30:20

we had an investigation into

30:23

Christine blasi Ford's complaint,

30:26

you still had it filtered through a

30:28

lens and a process. For an example,

30:31

the President of the United States could say, well,

30:34

we don't have to call any additional witnesses,

30:36

we don't have to take any into context.

30:39

We are going to limit the number of

30:41

people that the investigators talk

30:43

to, cutting out

30:46

any number of different

30:48

voices that might have confirmed

30:51

what she was saying, or maybe even confirmed

30:53

what are you was saying. That is

30:55

a flawed process.

30:58

If the process is flawed, if you

31:00

don't give people the information that

31:02

they need, then it doesn't

31:04

matter who the people are, they're

31:07

not going to be able to

31:10

necessarily change the outcome. I

31:13

think what we have to do

31:16

is to create structures that

31:18

will prevent the kind of

31:20

conflicts of interest, the power

31:23

alignments that occur not

31:26

because they don't believe a witness

31:28

or because the information

31:31

doesn't exist, but because

31:34

it's just easier to

31:37

side with the powerful people and exclude

31:39

the information if it's inconsistent

31:42

with what the person in power. In twenty

31:45

eighteen, that person was

31:47

Donald Trump. But think about

31:49

this. Sam nineteen ninety

31:52

one, Senator Grassley

31:54

was on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thirty

31:57

years later, he was chairing the

32:00

Senate Judiciary Committee. In nineteen

32:02

ninety one, he vowed that he would put

32:04

in place a process that would

32:06

prevent nineteen ninety one from half

32:09

again. In

32:11

twenty eighteen, instead of introducing

32:14

that new process, he doubled

32:16

down on the old one. And he

32:19

did it because he could do it, because

32:21

the system allowed him to do it. I

32:23

think, if we really want to have some

32:26

assurance that this is not going to happen

32:28

again, whether it's a Supreme

32:30

Court nominee or some nominee

32:33

for another position, if

32:35

we want some insurance, we

32:38

will encourage our representatives

32:41

to provide a platform

32:44

that is a level platform so

32:46

that individuals can come forward.

32:50

Right now, the balance of power is always

32:52

going to be against victims,

32:55

and we should not have that in our highest

32:58

bodies of the government. Putting

33:03

a pause on the conversation will

33:05

be right back with Anita him coming

33:22

back. You were talking about the time between

33:24

nineteen ninety one and twenty eighteen

33:26

percenter Grassley, But I'm curious

33:28

about that time between nineteen

33:30

ninety one and twenty nineteen. For

33:33

Joe Biden. In ninety one, he was the

33:35

head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In

33:37

twenty nineteen, he was weighing

33:40

a presidential bid for the twenty

33:42

twenty election. In March

33:44

of twenty nineteen, you sat

33:47

in a hotel room in Houston, Texas,

33:50

waiting for a conversation that was nearly

33:53

twenty eight years in the making,

33:56

and then the phone rang. What

33:58

happened on that call between you

34:00

and Joe Biden, Well,

34:04

the former vice

34:06

president. Biden introduced

34:08

himself, you're being awfully polite

34:10

about this. Well, there's

34:12

a certain kind of politeness that occurs.

34:15

I mean, maybe it's a deference

34:17

to the position of a

34:19

former vice president. I don't know, but

34:22

maybe it's just my deference to

34:25

being open to hear. He

34:27

had been asked repeatedly by journalists

34:30

when he was going to apologize. He

34:32

had said that he owed me an apology,

34:35

so I was open to hearing.

34:38

I was approached beforehand about whether I

34:40

would take a call, and I said, of course, I'll take a

34:42

call now. Keep in mind

34:44

that it was almost thirty years then, and

34:47

I had really worked through a lot

34:49

of what I had to work

34:51

through after nineteen ninety

34:53

one, and so I

34:56

was open to hearing from him. And he did

34:58

say that he was very sorry about what

35:01

happened to me, and that

35:03

he took responsibility for what

35:06

happened to me in that process.

35:08

How I still don't

35:11

think he understood, or

35:13

he certainly didn't articulate to me that he understood

35:17

what had happened to many

35:19

other people who were watching. And

35:22

many of those people I had heard from

35:25

since nineteen ninety one,

35:27

and they had told me about how

35:30

much it hurt to watch those hearings

35:32

and how they felt that if I couldn't

35:35

breakthrough, they would have no

35:38

chance of breaking through. I had

35:40

heard from people on the whole whole

35:42

range of behaviors, and including very early

35:44

on an incest survivor who

35:47

said that that Senate Judiciary Committee

35:49

reminded him of his family

35:52

when he had told his family

35:54

about being abused by a family member,

35:57

and his parents rejected

36:00

his complaint and sided with the

36:02

abuser, And how that hearing

36:05

resonated with him and

36:07

brought back those memories. On

36:09

that phone call you mentioned, which

36:12

came in the winter of nineteen ninety one,

36:14

he said to you, you've opened a

36:16

whole can of worms. Yes,

36:19

he said, I had opened a whole can of

36:21

worms, because up to that time I had been thinking

36:23

about sexual harassment, and

36:25

I had heard from many sexual harassment victims.

36:28

But I started to read the letters and I realized

36:30

that they weren't limited to sexual harassment

36:32

victims. Even before then,

36:35

when I got the call and this man

36:38

said to me that he had been

36:41

abused and that I had

36:43

opened a whole can of worms, I

36:45

realized that the experience

36:47

of nineteen ninety one wasn't my

36:49

experience alone. It wasn't just harassment,

36:52

It wasn't just women. It was a whole

36:54

range of people, and that in that call

36:57

in twenty nineteen, it

36:59

just seemed as though Joe Biden

37:01

didn't recognize that

37:04

that he thought it was just about

37:06

me, and that he hadn't

37:08

absorbed fact that people

37:10

all over the country were

37:13

hurt by nineteen

37:15

ninety one, and I found later

37:17

that it wasn't just people around the country, as

37:19

people around the globe. That's

37:21

was what I was hoping he would understand

37:24

at that point he was wanting to

37:27

be the President of the United States. As

37:29

a leader of this country,

37:32

I wanted him to be able to address

37:34

the harm that was done to the country.

37:37

That was my big disappointment that it

37:39

did not happen that way. I accept

37:41

the apology for what happened to me, but

37:44

I cannot rest knowing

37:47

that part of the reason

37:50

that the apology was possible was

37:53

because he could pretend

37:55

that the rest of it didn't matter. Part

37:58

of your surprise seems to come

38:00

from the fact that he couldn't recognize

38:02

all of those experiences,

38:05

in part because you received

38:08

those phone calls, not him.

38:10

You. It was a burden you

38:13

carried that he and the rest of this Judiciary

38:15

committee thrust it upon you in nineteen

38:18

ninety one. It was your burden

38:20

suddenly something they created,

38:23

and I just wonder how you sit

38:25

with that. Well, it should have

38:27

been their burden. Yeah,

38:29

it should have been their burden. It should

38:32

have been their burden. And

38:34

when someone who says I'm an incest

38:36

survivor and You've opened

38:38

a whole can of worms, I

38:41

don't take that lightly. I still remember

38:43

that conversation. I'll never

38:45

forget that conversation. It

38:48

puts a responsibility because

38:51

it was my testimony,

38:53

but it was not just my testimony.

38:56

It was their response to my

38:58

testimony. And that's

39:01

why it should be their

39:03

burden too. And that's why

39:06

I believe that Joe Biden should be responding

39:08

to what happened in

39:10

nineteen ninety one. It's never too late

39:13

to own these issues

39:16

in our roles in them, and he

39:19

should own his. And what that

39:21

means for somebody who is a senator

39:23

or vice president is different

39:26

from what it means is someone who is the

39:28

president who can put

39:30

in place measures, who can call cabinet

39:33

members to say, we need you to

39:35

put together a plan for not only how

39:37

you're going to address gender violence

39:40

as it exists, but how

39:42

you are going to work to prevent it, especially

39:45

when we're talking about the situations

39:47

in elementary schools, so we

39:50

are passing along a problem

39:52

to a generation, and

39:55

I think that every leader in this

39:57

country ought to be putting together

39:59

a plan for how they're going

40:01

to make sure that we don't. Can

40:04

I ask you just a personal question,

40:06

that burden that you've carried a

40:09

can of worms that you in fact did not

40:11

open. Has it weighed you down.

40:13

Oh yeah, well, yeah, it does weigh

40:15

me down. I feel like people are counting

40:17

on me. But you know, I also think it's a

40:19

great privilege. Again,

40:22

I go back to the era that I grew up

40:24

in and the fact that, you know,

40:26

I've watched people on TV who are bearing

40:28

burdens heavier than mine,

40:30

at least visibly heavier, during

40:33

the Civil rights movement, and I

40:35

think it's a great privilege to be able

40:38

to after thirty years, to still

40:40

be in there trying to make it better. And

40:43

so when I look at it that way, I

40:45

don't focus on the burden so much as I focus

40:48

on the privilege that I have and

40:50

the opportunity that I have to

40:52

take advantage of to move

40:54

us along so that maybe

40:57

it happens less, or maybe

40:59

it happens a lot less.

41:02

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about

41:04

the burden because right now

41:06

I'm maybe at the end of

41:08

my career, and I

41:10

want to focus as much time

41:13

and attention as I have to

41:15

making sure that no one else has

41:17

to carry this burden, whether

41:20

their own individual situation or

41:23

the problem of society

41:25

as a whole waiting on them. We've been

41:27

circling that phone call with President Biden. In

41:30

your book, you said mostly Biden

41:32

talked and I listened. Do

41:35

you think his nomination of Judge

41:37

Katangi Brown Jackson is

41:40

his way of finally listening

41:43

to you. I don't know. I would

41:45

like to think that that's part of

41:47

it, but that's not all of it. That's

41:49

not all of it. Yes, this

41:51

nomination of Judge Jackson is monumental.

41:54

I mean, it's historic, and I'm

41:56

elated that we're going to have a different

41:59

kind of representation on the court, because

42:01

judicial representation does matter.

42:04

And I don't know what kind of judge she'll be

42:07

or how she's going to show up in the space

42:10

as a justice on the Supreme Court

42:12

if she's confirmed. But

42:15

I know that having a perspective

42:17

can change everything. Oh, we only have to

42:19

cite Bruce Bader Ginsburg. We

42:21

have to say Justice Sonya Sotomayor.

42:24

They have changed the conversation

42:27

and sometimes in the dissent, putting in place

42:29

reasoning that will move

42:31

us forward in the future. That's

42:33

one thing, but that's not all of it.

42:36

You know. One of the things that I say, just

42:38

about gender violence, generally

42:41

we look at it in two ways. Either

42:43

as a health issue or as

42:45

a criminal justice issue. Well, the

42:47

issues are well beyond that. You know, the

42:49

problem reflects economic issues,

42:52

it reflects cultural issues,

42:54

It reflects transportation, it reflects

42:56

housing, it reflects education,

42:58

of course, and I think we

43:01

need to do a comprehensive assessment

43:04

on audit, if you will, of our government

43:06

agencies and who should be in this company

43:09

station to address the part of

43:11

it that affects them. Let me give you

43:13

one example. Ten million people will

43:15

be affected by gentlemen partner violence

43:18

in this country, ten million

43:20

every year. A third of those

43:23

people will become homeless

43:25

because of that, Think about all

43:28

of the ways that they're going to be affected. If

43:30

they have children, their education will be affected.

43:33

If they have a job, their job

43:35

may be affected if they become homeless. We

43:38

don't have a comprehensive plan to address

43:40

even what happens after. But

43:43

I also think that we need to be addressing

43:45

some things in ways that

43:47

will prevent the problems

43:49

from happening. And we know

43:51

that people are vulnerable to violence

43:54

based on income, low income people, So

43:57

how do we make sure that that

43:59

doesn't happen. Is it a matter of

44:01

increasing income, Is it a matter of putting

44:03

it into place other kinds of labor

44:06

protections or other kinds of civil

44:08

rights protection that really

44:10

speak to the experiences of low income

44:12

people or contract workers. So

44:15

I think that there is so much more to be done,

44:17

but somebody has to be at the top,

44:20

and that person who is at the top

44:22

has to commit to making this a priority.

44:25

There's so much more to be done, and it sounds

44:28

like, despite everything that's happened to you,

44:31

that you hold out hope that it

44:33

will be done. I do. I've

44:35

seen a country move forward. I know people

44:38

are ready for change. I mean, we

44:40

had this moment of reckoning around

44:42

inequalities in twenty twenty

44:44

where all of these inequities were revealed

44:47

through the pandemic, and one of the

44:49

things that was revealed was through

44:51

a spike in intimate partner violence.

44:54

Well, what that says to me, it's

44:56

not just that a pandemic causes intimate

44:58

partner violence. What it says is

45:00

that some people are living in situations

45:04

where something could

45:06

happen like a pandemic, like a lockdown,

45:08

like an economic down to her that will

45:10

put them at bodily risk.

45:13

And so, yes, you

45:15

know, we have this moment

45:18

where we had the Me Too movement,

45:21

where we've had Black Lives Matter, where

45:23

we have this cry for

45:26

a different way to

45:28

address inequalities. And

45:30

when it comes down to it, gender violence,

45:32

sexual harassment, sexual assault in

45:35

many ways comes from gender

45:37

inequality. So how do we address

45:39

those things? I am hopeful

45:42

because I think we have come

45:44

so far, and I hope

45:46

that means that we are really ready to take

45:49

the next step and demand real

45:51

change. That hope you have

45:53

today, I wonder how much of

45:55

that comes from your mother.

45:58

She was born in nineteen eleven and the Jim

46:00

Crow South in a country that did

46:02

not recognize her right to vote. And

46:05

yet you say, and insisting

46:07

that her children get an educatecasion that

46:09

far exceeded the opportunities available

46:12

to them at the time, she showed

46:14

her belief that the world would change for the

46:16

better and that her children would

46:18

be prepared to enjoy the benefits. And

46:21

thinking about your work, do you

46:23

see yourself as continuing the

46:25

work your mother was doing for

46:27

you? I'm following in her footsteps,

46:30

I'm following her model, and

46:32

I'm expanding it. I don't have biological

46:35

children. We were her platform.

46:38

Our household was her platform.

46:40

She had control over that and

46:42

she knew she couldn't control all the

46:45

rest of the world, but she could

46:48

give her children something

46:51

that would change their lives.

46:53

I feel like I have a platform that she

46:56

never had to work outside of my

46:58

own immediate family. I

47:01

feel I had the opportunity. I feel

47:03

that I have public sentiment and support

47:06

with me, and so, Yes, my

47:08

world is different for my mother's, but

47:10

the model is the same. How

47:12

do we prepare people even

47:14

though we know that

47:17

the opportunities aren't immediately

47:20

available. We want them to be

47:22

ready when the future comes and the

47:24

opportunities are there. Throughout

47:27

her life, she held on the hope, and

47:29

you have to. No matter how frequently

47:31

it has been tested, both in

47:34

public and in private, it

47:36

has remained in you and all of your work.

47:39

Before we go, I thought perhaps

47:41

we could read a poem on the subject, a

47:44

piece that I know means a

47:46

great deal to you. Yes, this

47:48

is a poem, Dark

47:51

Testament. It's verse eight, and it's

47:53

a poem written by Polly Murray.

47:55

Hope is a crushed stack between

47:58

clenched finger's Hope is a bird's

48:00

wing broken by a stone. Hope

48:03

is a word and a tuneless ditty, a word

48:05

whispered with the wind, a dream

48:07

of forty acres and a mule, a cabin

48:09

of one's own, and a moment

48:11

to rest, A name and place

48:14

for one's children and children's

48:16

children. At last, Hope

48:19

is a song and a weary throat. Give

48:21

me a song of hope and a world where

48:24

I can sing it. Give me a song

48:26

of faith and a people to believe in

48:28

it. Give me a song of kindliness

48:32

and a country where I can live it.

48:35

Give me a song of hope and love

48:38

and a brown girl's heart to

48:40

hear it. What did

48:42

that poem make you think of? Oh?

48:44

You know, I do focus on that song

48:47

hope. It's a song and a weary throat, And

48:50

I don't think of myself necessarily as an optimist.

48:53

When I think of that phrase

48:55

alone, I think and

48:57

concentrate on the song,

49:00

not the weary throat, because we will

49:02

get weary and there will

49:05

be chances for us to rest. But

49:07

as long as we have a song, we

49:09

have hope. I will keep

49:12

thinking it. I will always

49:14

remain hopeful no matter how we

49:16

are Again, well, I

49:18

thank you for that song, for all that you've

49:21

done in the last sixty

49:23

five years of your life. I

49:25

don't know where we'd be without you, But I'm

49:27

very grateful to be passing through in this

49:30

time with you. Thank you. That's

49:32

wonderful. That gives me hope.

49:36

Anita Hill, thank you for sitting with me. It's a pleasure

50:38

and that's our show special

50:40

thanks to Nicole Mrano and of course,

50:43

Professor Anita Hill. You can

50:45

hear her new podcast, Getting

50:47

Even with Anita Hill wherever you

50:49

like to listen. To learn more about

50:51

Anita's work, visit our show notes

50:54

at talk easypod dot

50:56

com. On the site, you'll find

50:58

our back catalog of over two hundred

51:00

and fifty episodes. If you enjoyed

51:03

what you heard today, had recommend

51:05

our talks with Margaret Atwood, Doctor

51:07

Cornell West, represent ilhan

51:09

Omar, Claudia Rankin, Gloria

51:11

Steinem, Dolorus, Wertha, Questlove,

51:14

and roxand Gay. To hear those

51:17

and more, Pushkin Podcasts, listen

51:19

on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

51:21

Spotify, or wherever you like to

51:24

listen. You can also follow us on Twitter,

51:26

Facebook, Instagram at talk easypod.

51:29

If you want to send in an email or a

51:31

voice memo for our upcoming mailbag

51:33

episode, you can send that to mail at

51:35

talk easypod. Dot com.

51:38

That's mail at talk easypod

51:41

dot com. We're looking for comments,

51:43

reflections, questions, really

51:46

anything you'd like us to share or hear

51:48

more about on the show. If

51:50

you want to support talk Easy by purchasing one

51:53

of our mugs they come in cream or navy,

51:56

or our vinyl record with fran Leebwitz,

51:58

you can do so at talk easypod dot

52:00

com slash shop. If

52:03

you want to support the show in other ways, the

52:05

best thing you can do is share the program

52:07

with a friend. The second best thing

52:09

you can do is rate this show on Spotify,

52:12

Apple Podcasts, wherever you listen.

52:15

Reviewing the show on Apple or even

52:17

just clicking those five stars at the

52:19

top of Spotify really is

52:22

a great way for new listeners

52:24

to find Talk Easy. As

52:26

always, the show would not be possible

52:28

without our incredible team. Talk

52:31

Easy is produced by Caroline Reebok.

52:33

Our executive producer is Janick Sobravo.

52:35

Our associate producer is Caitlin Dryden.

52:37

Today's talk was edited by Caitlin Dryden

52:40

and mixed by Andrew Vastola. Music

52:42

by Dylan Peck, illustrations

52:44

by Christia Chenoy, video and graphics

52:47

by Ian Chang. Derek gaberzach Ian

52:49

Jones, Ethan Seneca, and Laila Register.

52:52

Special thanks to Patrice Lee, Kaylin Ung

52:54

and shiloh'fagan. I'd also like to thank

52:56

the team at Pushkin Industries Justin

52:59

Richmond, Julia Barton, John Schnars,

53:01

David Glover, Tather Fan Miila

53:04

Belle, Eric Sandler, Maggie Taylor,

53:06

Nicole Morano, Mayachanic, Carly

53:09

Gliori, Jason Gambrell, Malcolm

53:11

Gladwell, and Jacob Weisberg. I'm

53:14

Sam Fragoso. Thank you for listening

53:16

to Talk Easy. I'll see you back here next

53:18

week with a new episode. Until

53:21

then, stay safe and so

53:23

Lo