Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [159]
My return to campus sparked a set of angry letters to the newspaper mostly at the urging of a local politician who wanted to see me fired from my university position. I breathe a sigh of relief as I read the full-page advertisement taken out by the faculty and staff at Utah State University. A lump grows in my throat, as I read the show of support from Senator Hatch’s constituents. The originators of the message wanted me to “know that not everyone in Utah supported Senator Hatch’s treatment” of me.
“This will go a long way in helping get through the next week,” I tell March. At this point, I felt as though I was struggling through life one day at a time and each bit of encouragement helped. This was more than a day’s worth of encouragement; it actually buoyed me up for nearly a month.
Since age six, except for the three years in Washington, D.C., I have been a part of an academic community. When I began teaching and interacting with faculty around the country through the Association of American Law Schools, I knew that I had found real colleagues. In particular, the minority law professors and those professors who specialized in contract and commercial law were people with whom I shared interests and experiences. Had it not been for my friends and colleagues in the various academic communities with which I have been associated, the hearing would have been more devastating.
Professor Laurence Tribe telephoned Senator Biden prior to the hearing to tell Biden that “some women law professors” thought that my complaint was not being taken seriously. Either Senator Biden was concerned that he maintain the respect of Professor Tribe or he feared “women law professors,” because only then did he distribute my statement to the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. On October 8, 1991, nearly two hundred law professors from around the country sent this message to the Senate:
To The Members of the United States Senate:
The Supreme Court’s place in American government and society depends on unqualified public respect for its members and the institution. In this light, as law professors—including many who have not taken a position on the nomination of Judge Thomas to the Court—we strongly urge the Senate to delay action on the nomination until it can make a fully informed and considered appraisal of Professor Anita Hill’s allegation. To act now would be to risk grave injury to the Court, the Senate and the country.
Sincerely yours,
This response was quick. It arrived two days after the story about my statement aired on public radio.
In the meantime, resolutions and petitions supporting either the delay in the hearing or my credibility and integrity went to the Senate from various groups of individuals. My colleagues at the College of Law along with the College of Law Student Bar Association sent resolutions of support. The University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate sent a resolution which was accompanied by a resolution from the University Student Congress. By October 14, 1991, five hundred women scholars had signed a letter which Nancy Sherman, philosophy professor at Georgetown University, forwarded to Senator Biden.
Dear Senator,
The following 500 women scholars have asked me to forward this letter to you. As signatories, we are acting independently and do not represent any organized group. The signatures were collected over the 30 hour period ending 4 p.m., Sunday, October 13, 1991; the list continues to grow.
We the undersigned are women scholars who wish to express our deep concern over the possible confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The issue of sexual harassment is one with which many of us have dealt on a personal level. We have been harassed ourselves, or know of others who have been. Because of fear of reprisal and the influence of the men involved in our professional careers, it is common for victims not to report these incidents and to maintain professional contact with their harassers. Accordingly, it is imperative that Prof. Anita Hill’s testimony be