Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination

On October 11, 1991, Hill was called to testify during the hearing. She said she was testifying as to the character and fitness of Thomas to serve on the high court and was ambivalent about whether his alleged conduct had in fact risen to the level of being illegal sexual harassment.[33][34][35][36][37]

Ten years earlier, in 1981, Hill had become an attorney-adviser to Clarence Thomas at the United States Department of Education (ED). When Thomas became Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1982, Hill went with Thomas to serve as his special assistant until she quit in mid-1983. Hill alleged in her 1991 testimony that it was during her employment at ED and EEOC that Thomas made sexually provocative statements.[38]

She testified that she followed Thomas to EEOC because “[t]he work, itself, was interesting, and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures... had ended."[38] She also testified that she wanted to work in the civil rights field, and that she believed that “at that time the Department of Education, itself, was a dubious venture."[38]

Hill provided lurid details about Thomas’ alleged inappropriate behavior at the Department of Education: “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... On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess... and made embarrassing references to a porn star by the name of Long Dong Silver”. She also said that the following incident occurred later after they had both moved to new jobs at the EEOC: “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 put pubic hair on my Coke?'"[39]

Two women, Angela Wright and Rose Jourdain, made statements to Senate staffers in support of Hill. Ultimately, however, Wright and Jourdain were dismissed by the Judiciary Committee without testifying.[40] The reasons why Wright was not called (or chose not to be called) to testify are complex and a matter of some dispute;[41][42] Republican Senators wanted to avoid the prospect of a second woman describing inappropriate behavior by Thomas, while Democratic Senators were concerned about Wright’s credibility and Wright herself was reluctant to testify after seeing the Committee’s treatment of Hill, including Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter stating that he felt Hill’s testimony was perjurious in its entirety.[12][41][42] During the Thomas nomination proceedings, Wright and Hill were the only people who publicly alleged that then-Judge Thomas had made unsolicited sexual advances, and Hill was the only one who testified to that effect.[43]

Wright, who was one of Thomas’ subordinates at the EEOC until he fired her, told Senate Judiciary Committee staff that Thomas had repeatedly made comments to her much like those he allegedly made to Hill, including pressuring her for dates, asking her the size of her breasts, and frequently commenting on the anatomy of other women.[44] Wright said that after she turned down Thomas for a date, Thomas began to express discontent with her work and eventually fired her. Thomas said that he fired Wright for poor performance and for using a homophobic epithet.

Rose Jourdain also did not testify but corroborated Wright’s statements, saying Wright had spoken to her about Thomas’ statements at the time they were allegedly made. Jourdain stated that Wright had become “increasingly uneasy” around Thomas because of his constant commentary about her body and looks, and that Wright once came to Jourdain’s office in tears as a result.[12]

Another former Thomas assistant, Sukari Hardnett, did not accuse Thomas of sexual harassment, but told the Judiciary Committee staff that “if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."[45]

Thomas testified that the accusations against him were false and that, “I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.”[46]

Clarence Thomas also stated that, “This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee. It was then leaked to the media. And this committee and this body validated it and displayed it in prime time over our entire nation.” He called the hearing a “high tech lynching”:[46]

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.[46]

Senator Orrin Hatch asked Thomas his response to Hill’s graphic claims inquiring: “[D]id you ever say in words or substance something like there is a pubic hair in my Coke?” and “Did you ever use the term Long Dong Silver in conversation with Professor Hill?” Thomas firmly denied having said either, as well as denying having read The Exorcist, in which the character Burke Dennings says at a party, “There appear[s] to be an alien pubic hair floating around in my gin."[47]

In addition to Hill and Thomas, the Judiciary heard from several other witnesses over the course of three days, on October 11-13, 1991.[32] Several witnesses testified in support of Clarence Thomas and rebutted Hill’s testimony. Phone logs were also submitted into the record showing contact between Hill and Thomas in the years after she left the EEOC.[48]

Among those testifying on behalf of then-Judge Thomas was J.C. Alvarez, a woman who for four years was Thomas’ special assistant at EEOC. Alvarez said that “[t]he Anita Hill I knew before was nobody’s victim.” Alvarez went on to say that Thomas “demanded professionalism and performance.” According to Alvarez, Thomas would not tolerate “the slightest hint of impropriety, and everyone knew it.” Alvarez asserted that Hill’s allegations were a personal move on her part to advance her own interests: “Women who have really been harassed would agree, if the allegations were true, you put as much distance as you can between yourself and that other person. What’s more, you don't follow them to the next job – especially, if you are a black female, Yale Law School graduate. Let’s face it, out in the corporate sector, companies are fighting for women with those kinds of credentials.”[49]

Another witness who testified on behalf of then-Judge Thomas was Nancy Fitch, a special assistant historian to Thomas at EEOC, who said “[t]here is no way” Thomas did what Hill alleged. “I know he did no such thing,” she declared under oath.[50] Also Diane Holt, Thomas' personal secretary for six years, said that, “At no time did Professor Hill intimate, not even in the most subtle of ways, that Judge Thomas was asking her out or subjecting her to the crude, abusive conversations that have been described. Nor did I ever discern any discomfort, when Professor Hill was in Judge Thomas’ presence."[51] Additionally, Phyllis Berry-Myers, another special assistant to Thomas, said that he “was respectful, demand[ing] of excellence in our work, cordial, professional, interested in our lives and our career ambitions”. Berry-Myers said that her “impression” was that Professor Hill desired a greater relationship with Judge Thomas than “just a professional one”.[52]

Nancy Altman who worked with Hill and Thomas at the Department of Education testified that, “It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engaged in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with – dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues – without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something."[53] Senator Alan K. Simpson was puzzled by why Hill and Thomas met, dined, and spoke by phone on various occasions after they no longer worked together.[54]

After extensive debate, the Judiciary Committee voted 13—1 on September 27, 1991 to send the Thomas nomination to the full Senate without recommendation. A motion earlier in the day to give the nomination a favorable recommendation had failed 7—7.[55] Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas became public after the nomination had been reported out from the committee.[32] Up to that time, there had been no public suggestion of inappropriate behavior or misconduct in Thomas’ past.[25]

The Senate voted 52—48 on October 15, 1991, to confirm Thomas as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.[32] In all, Thomas won with the support of 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats, while 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted to reject his nomination.[56]

Clarence Thomas being sworn in as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court by Justice Byron White during an October 23, 1991 White House ceremony, as wife Virginia Thomas looks on

The 99 days that elapsed from the date Thomas’ nomination was submitted to the Senate to the date on which the Senate voted whether to approve it was the second longest of the 16 nominees receiving a final vote since 1975, second only to Robert Bork, who waited 108 days.[32] Also, the percentage of senators voting against his confirmation, 48% (48 of 100), was the greatest against a successful nominee since 1881, when 48.9% of senators (23 of 47) voted against the nomination of Stanley Matthews.[32][58] Vice President Dan Quayle presided over the vote in his role as President of the Senate, prepared to cast a tie-breaking vote if needed for confirmation.[58][59]

Eight days after winning confirmation, on October 23, Thomas took the prescribed constitutional and judicial (set by federal law) oaths of office, and became the 106th member of the Court. He was sworn-in by Justice Byron White in a ceremony initially scheduled for October 21, but postponed due to the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s wife.[60][61]

David Brock wrote an article titled “The Real Anita Hill” for the 1992 The American Spectator magazine, which argued against her veracity. He also wrote a 1993 book of the same name. However, he would later denounce these works in a 2003 book titled Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.[64]

Ken Foskett, an investigative reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote a book about Justice Thomas in 2004. Foskett concludes that, “Although, it was plausible that Thomas said what Hill alleged, it seems implausible that he said it all in the manner Hill described."[65] Foskett elaborates:

Bullying a woman simply wasn't in Thomas's nature and ran contrary to how he conducted himself around others in a professional environment. And if the context wasn't as Hill alleged, was it fair to turn private conduct into a political weapon to defeat his nomination?

Scott Douglas Gerber wrote a book in 1998 about the jurisprudence of Justice Thomas, and came to the following conclusion about the Anita Hill allegations: “Frankly, I do not know whom to believe."[66] Gerber also wryly noted the reaction when an author (David Brock) who had criticized Hill did a U-turn: “the left maintains that it proves that Hill was telling the truth, while the right contends that it simply shows that Brock is an opportunist trying to sell books."[66]

Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, reporters for The Wall Street Journal, wrote an article for the May 24, 1993 issue of The New Yorker challenging David Brock’s assertions. The two authors would later conclude in an investigative book on Thomas that “the preponderance of the evidence suggests” that Thomas lied under oath when he told the committee he had not harassed Hill.[40][67] Mayer and Abramson say Biden abdicated control of the Thomas confirmation hearings and did not call Angela Wright to the stand.[40] They report that four women traveled to Washington, D.C., to corroborate Anita Hill’s claims, including Wright and Jourdain.[40]

According to Mayer and Abramson, soon after Thomas was sworn in, three reporters for The Washington Post “burst into the newsroom almost simultaneously with information confirming that Thomas' involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe."[68] These reporters had eyewitness testimony and video rental records showing Thomas' interest in and use of pornography.[69] However, according to Jeffrey Toobin, because Thomas was already sworn in by the time the video store evidence emerged, The Washington Post dropped the story.[68] The book by Mayer and Abramson was subsequently made into a movie.

Strange Justice was a finalist for the National Book Award in 1994 and received an extraordinary amount of media attention.[70] Conservatives like John O’Sullivan panned the book, while liberals such as Mark Tushnet praised it, saying it established “that Clarence Thomas lied” during the hearings.[71] Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called the book character assassination: “I don't care if Clarence Thomas had an inflatable doll on his sofa and a framed autograph from Long Dong Silver on the wall. Just because a man has an immature interest in dirty stuff doesn't mean he harassed anyone."[72]

In 1997, Anita Hill penned her autobiography, Speaking Truth To Power, and she addressed why she filed no complaint at the time of the alleged harassment in the early 1980s:

I assessed the situation and chose not to file a complaint. I had every right to make that choice. And until society is willing to accept the validity of claims of harassment, no matter how privileged or powerful the harasser, it is a choice women will continue to make.[73]

In 2007, Clarence Thomas published his memoirs, also revisiting the Anita Hill controversy. He described her as touchy and apt to overreact, and described her work at the EEOC as mediocre.[74] He wrote:

On Sunday morning, courtesy of Newsday, I met for the first time an Anita Hill who bore little resemblance to the woman who had worked for me at EEOC and the Education Department. Somewhere along the line, she had been transformed into a conservative, devoutly religious Reagan-administration employee. In fact, she was a left-winger who'd never expressed any religious sentiments whatsoever during the time I'd known her, and the only reason why she'd held a job in the Reagan administration was because I'd given it to her.

In an op-ed piece written by Anita Hill, appearing in The New York Times on October 2, 2007, Ms. Hill wrote that she “will not stand by silently and allow [Justice Thomas], in his anger, to reinvent me."[75]