Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [103]
“Absolutely not.” The questions begged the answer and Thomas knew that he must take the hard-line approach. Any deviation might result in the public concluding that while he had not sexually harassed me he had acted improperly toward me. He could not risk that reaction.
Senator Hatch prompted Judge Thomas, “Did you ever talk about pornography with Professor Hill?” Judge Thomas responded accordingly, “I did not discuss any pornographic material or pornographic preferences or pornographic films with Professor Hill.”
Though there is no clear evidence that Hatch and Thomas practiced the questions, their interaction worked so well as to appear choreographed. Each knew his role—step by step. Senator Hatch knew the right question; Thomas knew the proper response—aimed at clearing the nomination. The “conversation” between the fastidious Orrin Hatch and the president’s “most qualified” nominee, Thomas, played smoothly. They were so unlike the awkward “conversations” that I had with the members of the committee earlier in the day. Even the questions from the Democrats on the committee sometimes suggested untruthfulness or skepticism. Then it occurred to me that as the president’s nominee Thomas had prepared for weeks for their “conversations.” Moreover, he had practiced with them in the days before the leak of my statement. He spoke their language. In this sense, Biden was right: “the presumption was with” him. He came to the committee as an invited guest. I, on the other hand, was an intruder whom the public had forced upon the committee.
Perhaps the Democrats were deferential to Thomas because of his position on the bench. Nevertheless, in a hearing where both parties are assumed to be on equal footing, no discrepancies based on title should exist. Yet the tenor and approach to Judge Thomas were different. The willingness to ask him difficult or embarrassing questions was missing.
“Well, if [Hill’s allegations] did not occur, I think you are in a position, with certainly your ability to testify, in effect, to try to eliminate it from people’s minds.”
“Senator, I didn’t create it in people’s minds. This matter was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a confidential way. It was then leaked last weekend to the media. I did not do that. And how many members of this Committee would like to have the same scurrilous, uncorroborated allegations made about him and then leaked to national newspapers and then be drawn and dragged before a national forum of this nature to discuss those allegations that should have been resolved in a confidential way?”
“Well, I certainly appreciate your attitude towards leaks. I happen to serve on the Senate Ethics Committee and it has been a sieve,” Senator Heflin said, establishing their common concern.
“But it didn’t leak on me. This leaked on me … You have robbed me of something that can never be restored.” Thomas portrayed himself as a victim. He would have nothing of the camaraderie offered by Heflin.
“I know exactly how you feel,” Senator DeConcini reassured Thomas.
By Friday night rumors were confirmed that another woman named Angela Wright had come forward with similar information about Clarence Thomas. Though no one on the team knew her, we all waited anxiously to hear what she had to say. This and the day’s events floated through my consciousness as I fell asleep that night.
On Saturday, October 12, the lines of communication between our team and the committee leadership seemed to break down just as the coordination between Judge Thomas and the Republicans on the committee, reportedly, was coalescing. I sat in my hotel room all day, alternately watching the hearings and sports. Shirley Wiegand kept me company, watching television with me. Shirley is decidedly not a sports fan, but she, too, was weary of the rapidly deteriorating process and needed relief from the performance by the committee. For me, watching sports was a welcome alternative to the hearing. In sports there are rules and officials who enforce those rules and the penalties for violations. For Shirley,