Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [155]
Like the new support for the Civil Rights Act, the assembly of women politicians was bipartisan. Two state Democratic senators from Oklahoma were present, as were individuals who would later work for the Republican governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman. Most of the women, though in a few cases grudgingly so, caught the enthusiasm of the event. The hearing woke up many women to the failure of progress on women’s issues. The political issue was not sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a legal issue. The political issues in 1992 for newly involved women were lack of representation and insensitivity to our experiences. That is what the hearing represented to women and men who viewed it.
When I first made the decision to start public speaking, I was driven by frustration and anger at the tone the hearing took. Later I continued to speak out of fear. I feared that if I gave up my voice this time, it would be lost forever. I would never retrieve it again. My critics accused me of having a “political agenda.” Pure politics, in my experience, is ephemeral at best. I had witnessed that people change their politics to suit their own personal goals. I have even been accused of doing the same. I have not been so concerned about politics as I have issues. In retrospect, I admit that that position left me with a limited vision of larger areas of concern. It allowed me to ignore some of the faults of the Reagan administration political agenda and to work for some positive changes on specific, yet relatively minor issues. That experience caused me to distrust politics altogether. Thus, I had no overt political agenda, but I now admit that politics was an inevitable by-product of what was happening with women. I am convinced that the political awakening was not one of pure politics, but of politics driven by issues of common concern to women.
Whatever the manner women and men chose to become more politically active after the hearing, many pointed to the hearing as the precipitating factor for their activity. Nineteen ninety-two gave them a slate of women candidates from which to choose. A variety of factors contributed to the increase in women’s participation in the elections: the anti-incumbency mood, the problem of gridlock, the House bank scandal, and concerns about the economy and other domestic policies. Women and men had been shaking their heads and throwing up their hands in the face of these problems. Until the hearing and the reaction to it sparked involvement in the political process, many had chosen to devote their time to their families and jobs. Family issues, work issues—these were things that they understood and had to confront daily. Before the hearing, most people were unaware that there were only two women in the Senate. For the first time, due to the coverage of the hearing, many people realized that only one or two senators were members of ethnic minority groups. For the first time, after reviewing the bungled handling of the hearing, many people realized the gap between representation and our basic concerns.
Through the magnifying glass of the hearing, we saw the face and some of the heart of the senatorial representation. We did not like what we saw. As a result, many women and men vowed to change the face of government.
I was delighted with the tone of women’s political activity following the hearing. Women in grassroots efforts indicated that they had