Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [105]
The tone set by the senators in their own unsubstantiated remarks encouraged them to do so. The law school environment fosters intense competition under the best of circumstances. Disappointment about a single grade, the most obvious competitive standard, often grows into a grudge. The environment at Oral Roberts University was particularly tense because of the uncertain future accreditation status of the law school and its ultimate transferral to Regent University. Students felt uncertain about where they would complete their education and whether doing so, under the conditions of the institution, would enable them to sit for the bar and to obtain employment. Students had no control over the accreditation of the law school or its transfer. Good grades, the mark of advantage over which they had some control, were seen as a way to maintain a competitive edge. And for some students, under these circumstances, grades took on exaggerated meaning. Under the guise of background information, any student who bore animosity toward me or the institution for something as unrelated as a disappointing grade might come forward. Given the lateness of the inquiries—coming on the weekend of the second round of the confirmation hearing—and the lack of will on the part of the Democrats to pursue my claim, they were virtually assured that their charges would not be investigated.
Thomas’ supporters sought out students who would provide statements asserting that I was a radical feminist, a lesbian, a sexual aggressor, or an incompetent teacher. Senator Danforth’s campaign included calling several of my former students ten to twelve times over the course of two days. Yet even with the breadth of his inquiry and persistence of his search, Senator Danforth was able to obtain only one affidavit, the contents of which were denied by the “witnesses” listed in the document. This affidavit was dubbed the “pube affidavit” because it contained descriptions of alleged sexual remarks, advances, and bizarre activity—including putting pubic hair in student papers I returned—that the former student attributed to me. The alleged remarks, according to the document, were made in the presence of the students named in the affidavit. But when the Senate contacted those named students, they denied witnessing any such activity. Still, despite the fact that no one questioned how the young man had concluded that the “short curly hair” he says he and others found in their work was pubic hair, Danforth moved forward with them.
Moreover, Danforth disregarded the likelihood that a young black woman at a Christian university could engage openly in such activity without some institutional sanctioning or even castigation from the dean of the school. Yet neither Dean Kothe nor his successor, John Sanford, endorsed the affidavit. And despite the fact that Kothe testified as a witness for Thomas, he did so without impugning my character. John Sanford, who at the time of the hearing was at Regent University, an institution associated with the Reverend Pat Robertson’s ministry, gave a favorable assessment of my character, as did other former Oral Roberts faculty then at Regent. The Republicans on the committee ignored their statements as failing to fit in with their political objective, even though the statements came at considerable risk, given that Robertson openly supported Judge Thomas’ nomination. The word of the former student who submitted the affidavit was worth more to Danforth in a political sense even if not in a logical or moral sense. Senator Danforth used the document in an effort to bargain with the Democrats over control of the hearing, and the Democrats—unwilling to place any value in the word of a black woman or to pursue the statements of the white male colleagues who supported her—allowed it.
Even after Thomas’ confirmation when it was clear that Danforth had “won,” he was not satisfied. Danforth attempted to get the press to publish the more inflammatory contents of the affidavit. To complete the political task,