0:15

Pushkin Getting

0:22

Even is produced by Pushkin

0:25

Industries. Subscribe to Pushkin

0:27

Plus and you can hear Getting Even

0:29

and other Pushkin shows. Add free

0:32

and receive exclusive bonus

0:35

episodes. Sign up on

0:37

the Getting Even show page in Apple

0:39

Podcasts or at Pushkin

0:42

dot Fm.

0:47

A subject so many Americans have to

0:49

confront, sexual harassment. Women

0:52

were calling and clogging the switchboards,

0:55

the question being asked, just where

0:57

is that line between friendly relations

0:59

and sexual harassment? It

1:02

was hard to believe it was happening. A

1:04

Supreme Court nominee on the verge

1:06

of confirmation being called back to

1:08

answer charges that he had once made unwelcome

1:11

sexual comments to a female. Perhaps

1:13

not ever has so much turned on a single

1:15

hearing. There are a couple of

1:17

things you need to know about how I came

1:20

to be sitting in front of a nationally televised

1:22

hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee

1:25

on October eleventh, nineteen ninety

1:27

one. First, I crafted

1:29

a statement for the FBI about

1:32

working with Clarence Thomas at the EOC

1:35

where he sexually harassed me. Then

1:38

that statement was leaked to

1:41

the press. National Public Radio has

1:43

learned that the woman brought her accusation to

1:45

the Senate Judiciary Committee last month,

1:47

and finally, after a public

1:49

outcry, Senator Joe

1:52

Biden subpoenaed me to testify.

1:55

I had three days notice. Remarkably,

1:58

my legal team somehow came

2:01

together for one thing. When we

2:03

first talked, it was not even

2:05

clear they're going to do anything. We

2:08

really didn't know whether they were even going

2:10

to consider it. That's law

2:12

professor Susan Dela Ross.

2:15

She's an author and she is

2:17

the director of a women's human

2:19

rights clinic at Georgetown University.

2:22

Ross is one of the women who pioneered

2:25

the field of sexual harassment law.

2:28

It wasn't until nineteen eighty six

2:31

that the Supreme Court ruled sexual

2:33

harassment a civil rights violation.

2:36

Five years later, when I testified

2:39

that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed

2:41

me, it sparked a national

2:43

conversation, one I

2:46

never anticipated. Luckily,

2:49

I had Susan Dela Ross as part

2:51

of my legal team. She was the

2:53

only one of us who had experienced with

2:55

sexual harassment litigation. Somebody

2:58

on the Senate Judiciary

3:00

Committee called me up and gave

3:03

me a hypothetical and said, would that

3:05

constitute sexual harassment? And

3:08

I said, well, yes, I thought it would, and

3:10

he said, can you send me a memo that

3:14

would describe what sexual

3:16

harassment law consists of? And so I said

3:19

yes, I'd be happy to do that, and I

3:21

sent a memo. And then

3:23

a few days later I got another call,

3:26

this time saying there was an actual person behind

3:28

this hypothetical. The person speaking

3:31

to me said, would you be willing to speak to this person?

3:33

I said yes, I'd be delighted to. Of

3:35

course, the person behind this hypothetical

3:38

was me. I'm

3:41

Anita Hill. This is

3:43

getting even my podcast

3:46

about equality and what it takes

3:48

to get there. On this

3:50

show, I'll be speaking with people who

3:52

are improving are imperfect world,

3:56

people who took risks and

3:58

broke the rules. In the

4:00

last episode, you heard from Sakari

4:02

Hardnett, one of the witnesses

4:05

who wasn't called to

4:07

testify at the nine Thomas

4:09

Confirmation hearing. We talked

4:11

about how being excluded from this historic

4:14

conversation impacted her

4:16

life and the country in the past three

4:18

decades. In this

4:20

episode, Susan Dela

4:22

Ross and I try to piece together what else

4:25

was happening behind the scenes, much

4:28

of which the public has never

4:30

heard. You and

4:32

I talked on the telephone

4:34

before my testimony, and

4:36

we were trying to figure out what

4:39

we were going to be stepping into and

4:41

how we could be heard. We had

4:43

no notice of what was going on. Senator

4:45

Biden called the committee back in session

4:48

to hear the testimony, and

4:51

he called me, and I haven't written down.

4:53

On October eighth, in nineteen

4:55

ninety one, I was told that I'd be called to testify

4:58

before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yes,

5:00

they announced that there's going to be hearing

5:03

that they're going to ask you to testify,

5:05

which you didn't know before that day. Then

5:09

you fly to Washington, DC, and then

5:11

the very next morning you

5:13

start testifying there. I was

5:15

in Washington, DC, and I think we

5:18

were all just shocked by how

5:20

fast it came about. I

5:22

was sitting in a conference room

5:25

and that was the first time we met face to

5:27

face, and we

5:29

were there to try

5:31

to prepare or what was

5:33

going to be happening the following day,

5:35

which was when they told me

5:37

that I would be called. It's

5:40

worn in to testify.

5:42

That day, we really didn't know much of

5:44

anything. We didn't know who

5:47

was going to be talking aside from

5:49

Thomas. We didn't know

5:52

whether the committee was trying even to

5:54

investigate. Was

5:56

there ever any real

5:59

exchange of information about

6:01

the process and how it would work. Not,

6:03

as far as I'm aware. All we

6:06

were told was that you were going

6:08

to be testified first,

6:11

and that I got to call the night before

6:13

from someone on Biden staff saying, oh,

6:16

no, we're going to switch it. We're going to start

6:18

with Clarence Thomas, which is peculiar to

6:21

start with Clarence Thomas rather than starting

6:24

with you, who had the account of

6:26

what had happened. And

6:28

the switching of the order allowed for Clarence

6:31

Thomas to testify on

6:33

prime time morning TV as

6:36

well, when you know, people

6:38

are still making their way to work

6:41

and still at home watching, so he had a

6:43

much morolder viewing audience. So

6:45

it was just t J. Yeah. Absolutely,

6:48

And we knew nothing about

6:51

information they had in their hands, but I

6:53

gather they had refused to tell

6:55

you well, and the

6:58

hearing was about his

7:00

character and fitness for

7:03

the position. There

7:05

were women who said

7:08

that they had experienced

7:10

or witnessed harassing behavior,

7:13

and others knew from their own

7:16

experience that Thomas was making

7:18

sexual advances or using

7:21

the office to

7:24

assassin women who worked

7:27

at the EOC for

7:29

their sexual availability to him,

7:32

and so there was much

7:35

that could have been admitted in terms of

7:37

witnesses, and I'm particularly struck

7:39

about the lack of willingness

7:42

to hear from those those women

7:44

who had experienced something similar

7:47

or even other experiences

7:50

that went to Thomas's

7:53

character and his fitness for the

7:55

position. Did

7:57

you know about those women?

8:04

No, I didn't know a thing. I

8:06

don't think any of us did. We didn't

8:08

learn it until after the fact that

8:11

there are other women who worked at the

8:13

EOC who

8:15

reported a similar experience.

8:18

I only found it out when I read

8:20

the transcript of everything after

8:23

the hearing. That was my first time, and

8:25

I was so astounded

8:28

to see how closely their

8:30

accounts mirrored exactly

8:32

what you had said. But

8:35

that was kept from the country. The country never

8:37

knew that, and it was

8:39

the chairman who basically said,

8:42

we're not going to hear from the witnesses

8:45

without explaining what they would have testified

8:47

to. So the committee

8:50

kept them from testifying. They

8:54

didn't allow Sukari Hartnett

8:56

to testify. They did put it in the record,

8:58

but nobody knew what it said, and

9:01

that was because the committee

9:03

didn't write a report. Committees

9:05

always write a report after they

9:08

do their work before forwarding

9:10

it to the full Senate

9:13

for a vote. But there was no committee

9:16

report assessing the

9:18

reliability the credibility

9:21

of you of him.

9:23

People were left to try

9:26

to piece together what they had seen,

9:29

which was a totally incomplete

9:32

set of facts. So

9:35

there was very clear evidence. The media

9:37

never reported it on afterwards. They shut

9:39

it down once he was confirmed. So

9:42

many of the senators they just were trying

9:44

to get rid of it. They didn't want to talk

9:46

about it, they didn't want to explore it, they didn't think

9:48

it was relevant, they didn't care. So

9:52

the general public has never come to learn

9:54

exactly what the evidence

9:57

was that corroborated everything you said. After

10:00

the break, Susan Deller Roth

10:02

and I posed the question, what if

10:06

what if the hearings hadn't been so poor

10:09

handled in nineteen ninety one, What

10:12

if we had all the information

10:14

available, What if

10:17

the public had been offered a better

10:19

understanding of sexual harassment during

10:21

the hearing? Where

10:24

would we be today? You're

10:34

listening to getting even my podcast

10:37

about equality and what it takes to get

10:39

there. I'm Anita Hill, and

10:42

I'm talking with Susan Deller Ross the

10:44

only member of my nineteen ninety one

10:46

legal team with experience and sexual harassment

10:49

law. Do you think that

10:52

people had any real awareness

10:54

even after the nineteen

10:57

eighty six decision by

10:59

the Supreme Court that sexual

11:02

harassment was in fact a violation of

11:04

a law. No. I

11:06

think people were very confused by

11:08

it. Initially, the courts didn't treat

11:11

it as an employment discrimination

11:13

issue at all. They saw it as sexual

11:16

activity, and

11:18

it was sort of a boys will be boys. What can you

11:20

expect? And because

11:23

the facts are often really

11:25

atrocious, there's

11:27

a tendency in media not to cover

11:30

what really goes on in these cases.

11:33

I remember hearing people saying, Oh, I want to

11:35

be sexually harassed. You don't

11:37

know what's going on. When you say something like that,

11:40

well you don't, And I think you're right. It's a focus

11:42

on sex and not even sexual

11:44

but on sex itself and

11:47

that being something normal and

11:50

overlooking the term harassment.

11:53

And even the day when people think

11:55

about sexual harassment, many people

11:57

still think that we're just talking

12:00

about words, and

12:02

we're talking about verbal

12:05

exchanges and not the psychological

12:08

and off and physical harm

12:11

that is going on in the workplace.

12:13

And certainly if we have that today. In

12:16

nineteen ninety one, when we sort of

12:18

jumped into the scene in the

12:20

Clarence Thomas case, there was so

12:22

much confusion. I

12:25

think the country would have been even

12:27

further ahead if

12:29

it had gotten some real explanation

12:32

of what sexual harassment consists

12:35

of at the time. Now,

12:37

I think there was never less

12:39

progress, but maybe not as much progress

12:41

as might have happened if

12:43

there had been a real attempt to grapple with the issue

12:46

at hand. One of the things

12:48

I think really happened

12:51

was a there were a

12:53

lot of women who were very, very upset

12:55

about how you were treated, and

12:59

that convinced a lot of women to run

13:01

for office. President

13:03

Bush, Senor had been vieting

13:05

a proposed bill that would expand

13:07

Title seven to allow victims of

13:09

sexual harassment to get damages. After

13:13

the hearings, he finally signed

13:16

because of the pressure of the Republican Party

13:18

was under for having supported

13:20

sexual harasser from the women

13:22

who'd been horrified by watching what

13:25

had happened. There was publicity

13:27

around the world about sexual harassment,

13:30

So I think if we'd been able

13:32

to have a full presentation

13:35

of what actually happened, with all

13:37

the sources of evidence that were relevant,

13:40

to the issue, people would have had

13:42

a better understanding it and gone forward.

13:44

But nevertheless, it did make progress,

13:47

you know. But the fact that there was an

13:49

impact shows

13:52

to me one how

13:55

people were interested and they needed

13:57

to know the information. But

14:00

it also indicates to me that there

14:02

was a lost opportunity, that

14:04

there was a powerful platform out

14:06

there that could have become a model

14:09

for how to do this right. We

14:13

might have avoided some things in the

14:15

future, and by the future, I mean between

14:17

now in nineteen ninety one

14:20

thirty years or so, you know, we

14:23

might have learned some lessons that could have

14:25

been put in place. And

14:27

I think about all these what ifs.

14:29

If there had been a different kind of

14:31

investigation by a different body than

14:33

the FBI or expert

14:36

witnesses had been allowed, if there

14:38

had been less disinformation or

14:41

information shared so

14:43

that people could respond, we

14:46

could respond to without this

14:48

certainly overwhelming number of witnesses

14:50

that they had. I had wonderful witnesses

14:53

stop up for me to confirm

14:56

what I had said to them

14:58

during the time was exactly what I was testifying

15:01

to. And certainly,

15:03

of course the fact that the other women weren't

15:06

called might have made a

15:08

difference. But there are still things

15:10

that are nagging me personally.

15:13

You know, I wonder had nine

15:16

been handled differently, whether Christine

15:18

Blasi Fords testimony

15:21

would have resonated

15:24

stronger, or whether the Kavanaugh hearing

15:27

might have been structured

15:29

differently. Right, I had the same

15:31

feeling of dejan view, here we go again. You

15:34

know, they're keeping out relevant evidence, doing

15:36

everything they can to shut down what's actually

15:38

happened. So I'm going to ask you,

15:40

what is that one lesson that we

15:43

should have learned from nineteen

15:45

ninety one. Well,

15:47

I think it is the

15:51

importance of really

15:54

trying to find out what happened and

15:56

being willing to

15:58

get the unpleasant

16:01

details out in the open so that people

16:03

understand what's happening. Because

16:05

the basic problem over and over

16:08

and the hearings was a failure to

16:11

put on all the relevant evidence.

16:13

There was an instead of an attempt to keep out

16:15

relevant evidence to shut it down.

16:18

And unless you can hear

16:20

everything that bears

16:23

on the credibility of what the key

16:25

parties are saying, there's no chance

16:27

of finding out the truth. Finding

16:30

out the truth isn't about finger pointing

16:33

or vindication. It's

16:35

about giving us a starting point for

16:37

trying to make things right. As

16:42

we wrapped up our conversation, Ross

16:44

reminded me of another memory

16:46

from a long time ago. Just

16:49

a few weeks after the hearing, we

16:52

went to a conference of women elected

16:54

in offices across the country.

16:57

It was a delegation of state

16:59

legislators, state women legislators from

17:01

around the country. We walked

17:03

in with Anita leading the way,

17:06

and suddenly all the women

17:09

rows, and they had pink napkins, and

17:11

they waved the napkins in the air, and

17:14

there was just this round of applause for Anita.

17:18

Such a contrast with

17:20

what we had faced on the Senate committee,

17:22

with all those white men one

17:24

side overtly hostile, the

17:27

other side sitting quietly and doing nothing.

17:30

It had gotten me through the winter. You

17:35

know, I admire you so much for

17:37

the courage you displayed and

17:40

standing up and doing what was right, and in

17:42

your dedication to these issues over the

17:44

years ever since. Prior

17:47

to the Thomas Confirmation hearing, many

17:50

people didn't know that sexual harassment

17:52

was illegal. Now they

17:55

do, in part because of the

17:57

hearing in nineteen ninety one. But

17:59

knowing that the law exists isn't

18:03

enough to get equality.

18:06

Victims and their allies

18:09

to know how to use the

18:12

law. One thing

18:14

that struck me after speaking with Susan Deller

18:16

Ross and Sakari Hardnett,

18:19

one of the witnesses who wasn't called

18:22

to testify at the nineteen ninety one

18:24

Thomas confirmation hearing, is

18:26

that even though the process was imperfect,

18:29

they both said that they would do

18:31

it again. I feel the

18:33

same way. I never set

18:35

out to get mired in a Supreme Court

18:37

confirmation hearing, but

18:39

what I did set out to do, way

18:41

back before I ever met Clarence Thomas,

18:44

was to tell the truth and

18:46

to make our country a more just

18:49

place. In the

18:51

rest of the series, I'll

18:53

be talking to other people who, like

18:56

Hardnett and Ross, have taken

18:58

risks to make equality

19:01

more possible, more tangible,

19:04

people who I believe we

19:06

should all be listening to. Next,

19:10

I speak with Kimberly Crenshaw, who

19:12

coined the terms intersectionality

19:15

and critical race theory. Race

19:18

reform has in this

19:20

country always been met

19:22

with a backlash, and sometimes

19:25

the backlash was

19:27

more powerful and lasted longer than the

19:29

reform. Jet Getting

19:33

Even is a production of Pushkin Industries

19:36

and is written and hosted by me Anita

19:38

Hill. It is produced by Molaboard

19:41

and Brittany Brown. Our editor

19:43

is Sarah Kramer, our engineer

19:46

is Amanda kay Wang, and our showrunner

19:49

is Sasha Matthias. Louis

19:52

Garat composed original music for

19:54

the show. Our executive producers

19:57

are Mia Lobel and

20:00

Letal malad. Our Director

20:02

of Development is Justine Lane.

20:05

At Pushkin thanks

20:07

to Heather Fame, Carly Migliori,

20:10

Jason Gambrel, Julia

20:13

Barden, John Schnars, and

20:15

Jacob Weisberg. You can

20:17

find me on Twitter at

20:19

Anita Hill and on

20:21

Facebook at Anita

20:23

Hill. You can find Pushkin

20:25

on all social platforms at pushkin

20:28

Pods, and you can sign

20:30

up for our newsletter at pushkin

20:33

dot f M. If you love

20:35

this show and others from Pushkin Industries,

20:38

consider subscribing to Pushkin Plus.

20:41

Subscribe to Pushkin Plus and you can

20:43

hear Getting Even and other Pushkin

20:46

shows add free and receive

20:48

exclusive bonus episodes. Sign

20:51

up on the Getting Even show page in

20:54

Apple Podcasts or at

20:56

pushkin dot fm.

20:58

To find more Pushkin podcasts, listen

21:01

on the iHeartRadio app, Apple

21:04

Podcasts, or wherever you

21:07

like to listen