Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [115]
From my perspective those who testified to corroborate my account were wonderful friends. They came forward and held firm in the face of unwarranted hostility from the Republicans. Thomas’ supporters developed huge dossiers on the political and social activities through their investigators. And each of the witnesses risked the further wrath of the Republicans even in the aftermath of the hearings, a wrath manifested in challenges to the employment of at least two of the witnesses, Susan Hoerchner and Joel Paul. Moreover, they risked the response of an angry public. They, too, received threatening letters and phone calls in response to their participation in the hearing. One vile individual actually mailed fecal matter to Judge Hoerchner at her office.
But far more important to the process than their loyalty as friends was the integrity of these members of the panel. And it was that, as much as anything, which brought them forward, each separately and against the odds, to testify. Judge Hoerchner was the only member of the panel who, prior to the leak, had been aware of the statement I sent to the Senate. John Carr, with whom I hadn’t spoken in years, wrote a letter reminding me that I had told him about Thomas. It arrived in Oklahoma the day following my press conference. And after attempts to reach me in Oklahoma failed, Ellen Wells came to the offices of Pepper, Hamilton and Scheetz the day before the hearing to confirm her recollection of the harassment. My last prior contact from Ellen had been a Christmas card she mailed the year before. Joel Paul contacted the Senate directly, through his own attorney, and spoke with the press even before any member of my team had spoken with him. He and I had not been in contact in years. None of the witnesses knew each other, having met for the first time in the Senate building during the hearing. The very idea that these four people, living in three different cities and coming from four different walks of life, could have conspired to come together in that setting is preposterous.
When I heard them testify, I consoled myself in the realization that no matter what the senators on the committee concluded, those who knew me during the time knew that I was telling the truth. Late in the hearing, on Sunday afternoon, when many members of my team balanced precariously on the edge of bitterness, Senator Kennedy summed up the import of their testimony eloquently:
[Some people] just don’t want to believe you and they don’t want to believe Professor Hill. That is the fact of the matter, and you may be detecting some of that in the course of the hearing and the questions this afternoon. But I hope … that after this panel we’re not going to hear any more comments, unworthy, unsubstantiated comments, unjustified comments about Professor Hill and perjury, as we heard in this room yesterday. I hope we’re not going to hear any more comments about Professor Hill being a tool of the various advocacy groups after we’ve heard Ellen Wells and John Carr and Joel Paul, all who have volunteered to come forward after they heard about this in the newspapers, comments about individual groups and staffers trying to persuade her. I hope we’re not going to hear a lot more comments about fantasy stories picked out of books and law cases after we’ve heard from this distinguished panel or how there have been attempts in the eleventh hour to derail this nomination. I hope we can clear this room of the dirt and innuendo that has been suggested [about] Professor Hill, as well, about over the transom information, about faxes, about proclivities. We heard a good deal about character assassination yesterday. And I hope we’re going to be sensitive to the attempts at character assassination on Professor Hill. They’re unworthy. They’re unworthy. And, quite frankly, I hope we’re not going to hear a lot more about racism as we consider this nominee. The fact is that these points