Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [151]
Yet for each case that is publicly and favorably resolved there are countless others less public and less favorable to women who suffer harassment, like the surgeon in Oakland who complained during her medical residency that she had been harassed by her supervising physician. The result of her complaint was that she was constructively prevented from pursuing her career as a doctor. Only ten years later, in 1992, would she begin again the residency she abandoned under duress. She will fulfill her dream but much later and after much pain. Then there is the woman who successfully sued her Washington, D.C., employer, but has yet to collect the damages awarded to her. She had to sell her home to pay for the litigation, but she and her two sons are much closer for the experience. The successful lawsuits are important for these women as well.
Through the stories of successful complaints, all who have experienced harassment have found the community they need in order to understand the importance of their complaints. Yet in each case the dream that they had was abandoned or deferred. The tragedy in the stories goes beyond the immediate pain of the experience. The tragedy in the stories involves the waste that these experiences leaves us all with—the wasted aspirations, wasted energy, and wasted talent of gifted and bright individuals.
Paula Jones’ claim that Bill Clinton sexually harassed her tests our commitment to this issue over personality. My sense of fairness and understanding of the issue lead me to conclude that Paula Jones, like other women, deserves to be heard. Instinctively, I relate to the difficulty she must have experienced in trying to tell her story. And despite those who claimed that feminists responded hypocritically to Ms. Jones’ complaint, much of the leadership in women’s groups agreed that the issue must be heard by the courts. Some made unsuccessful attempts to meet with Ms. Jones. Yet I was torn, because Ms. Jones was aligned with people who were Bill Clinton’s political enemies—some of the very people who may have dismissed my claim and, worse, accused me of a variety of wrongdoing.
Ironically, my detractors included in their charges against me a count of conspiracy with political “interest groups.” If I had gone to Washington organized with people who were Clarence Thomas’ sworn political enemies, everyone certainly would have cried foul. Under those circumstances, they would have been right to assert that a woman’s painful experience with sexual harassment should not be manipulated to further some unrelated political agenda. And I would have agreed with them. But the fact that Ms. Jones’ supporters have never indicated a sympathy to sexual harassment makes me extremely skeptical of her judgment in relying on them for advice. One woman, who identified herself as a Jones supporter, telephoned to advise me of my “hypocrisy.” Jones, she was sure, was “telling the truth” while I, she was just as certain, was “lying.” Nevertheless, I am willing to accept for the moment that Jones’ supporters were not all of her own choosing. And even if politics motivated some in their support for this claim, this still does not mean that we can dismiss it out of hand. Otherwise the hint of political motivation would become an irrebuttable defense against any claim, and political figures would be exempt from charges of sexual harassment. Each case must be examined on its own, with motivation and credibility taken into full account.
No matter what you make of the merits of Paula Jones’ claim, it has potential for impact on the issue. High-profile claims raised for whatever purposes can impact all claims. Yet the court, not the public arena, is the best place to ferret out the truthful claims from the spurious