Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [150]
I was angry and disappointed when Katie Couric of NBC asked me to address David Brock’s allegations about me. The question had nothing to do with the Harris case and had not been raised by the show’s producers as one of the subjects they were interested in hearing about. Yet the question was revealing especially in the context of the discussion of a major legal decision. Ms. Couric’s question reminded me that no matter what the breakthrough in law and in our understanding of the problem of sexual harassment, there will always be those who want to reduce us to talking about the salacious and the sordid.
Interestingly, she did not ask me to comment on the irony of the fact that Thomas, in whose confirmation hearing sexual harassment charges played prominently, was deciding cases on that issue. Nor did she comment on the potential conflict of interest that Justice Thomas might have in deciding the Harris and Franklin cases. The emotions, anger and hostility, he displayed at his hearing regarding my claim suggest that he might have been less than objective in his review of the cases and, moreover, might even compromise the entire Court by weighing in on these decisions. Since the Supreme Court is the court of final review and given the significance of the issue, these seemed to me the more critical questions. Yet again, I became the subject of the scrutiny, not Thomas or the important issue of sexual harassment. That I may always be viewed through the prism of my detractors is not surprising. In that, I am sadly not alone. For every woman I know who has complained about harassment—those who are successful in their efforts and those who are not—unfounded accusations continue as well.
The energy breathed into the issue in the wake of the hearings was reflected in the number of suits filed soon after and the innovation with which attorneys pursued them in court. That added support led to women complaining in groups rather than alone. Women miners were the first to be certified as a class in a hostile environment sexual harassment suit against their employer, Eveleth Taconite Co., a mining company. Female bottlers and machinists at Stroh Brewery Company sued the brewery for sexual harassment. Lori Peterson, the young lawyer in the case, asserted that Stroh’s advertising encouraged sexual harassment. Company work sites featured promotional posters that were takeoffs from television advertisements, such as those featuring the “Swedish bikini team.” The advertising suggested that men could have both the beer and the women and that both were equally valued. In another suit involving multiple complainants waitresses from the Hooters restaurant chain sued their employer. In addition to complaining that the company failed to stop customer harassment, the women complained that the company contributed to it. Revealing uniforms which the company required them to wear contributed to the sexual harassment they experienced.
These cases are important because they represent group complaints about hostile environment sexual harassment—a new wave in the area of the law. They are important as well because they prove that the issue concerns women of different occupations and income classes. The miners, machinists, waitresses, and bottlers in these lawsuits can hardly be characterized as members of a privileged class of workers, out of touch with the reality of the work world.