Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [160]
Sincerely,
Women from twenty-seven states, Alabama to Wyoming, plus the District of Columbia signed the letter. By the morning of October 15, 1991, their numbers had risen to 750.
The ad appearing around the country from “African American Women in Defense of Ourselves” was organized by and signed in part by women from academic institutions. In part it read:
In 1991, we cannot tolerate this type of dismissal of any one Black woman’s experience or this attack upon our collective character without protest, outrage, and resistance.
As women of African descent, we express our vehement opposition to the policies represented by the placement of Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. The Bush administration, having obstructed the passage of civil rights legislation, impeded the extension of unemployment compensation, cut student aid and dismantled social welfare programs, has continually demonstrated that it is not operating in our best interests. Nor is this appointee.
Each of these appeals to the Senate and public reflected and affirmed a different period of my life in some way. The latter, in particular, was of significance because of the portrayal of the issue in the African American community. The academic community has an important role in public discourse. On this issue, it took a solid, substantive position based on experience and principle. It was gratifying. Having my Oklahoma University colleagues’ and students’ support was crucial. They knew me and had shared in the struggle of the media barrage with me. Yet no petition was any more moving than the letter from sixty of my law school classmates around the world.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
It has been our privilege to know Anita Hill professionally and personally since the late seventies, when we were in law school together. The Anita Hill we have known is a person of great integrity and decency. As colleagues, we wish to affirm publicly our admiration and respect for her. She is embroiled now in a most serious and difficult controversy, which we know is causing her great pain. We make no attempt to analyze the issues involved, or to prejudge the outcome. We do, however, wish to state emphatically our complete confidence in her sincerity and good faith and our absolute belief in her decency and integrity. In our eyes it is impossible to imagine any circumstances in which her character could be called into question. We are dismayed that it has been. We know that it could not be by anyone who knows her.
Anita has imperiled her career and her peace of mind to do what she felt was right. We know we are powerless to shield her from those who will seek to hurt her out of ignorance, frustration, or expediency in the days ahead. But we will have failed ourselves if we did not at least raise our voices in her behalf. She has our unhesitating and unwavering support.
The letter was dated October 10, 1991, the day before I testified. When I read it, my stomach quivers even today. It moves me so because it expresses a caring and concern of people with whom I spent three years and some of the most trying times in my life. Over ten years later they still cared. As timeless and comforting as poetry, it spoke to me as directly as it would had I read it in 1977 when we were together in school.
The entire Yale Law School community was shaken by the hearing. Professor Elias Clark, who taught me and Clarence Thomas, wept in class the Monday following my testimony. The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism called for Thomas to resign from the Supreme Court the day following his confirmation. A Thomas supporter in the student group the Federalist Society countered with accusations that I was “delusional or acting out of spite.” Ernest Rubenstein, an alumnus in attendance at the annual reunion the weekend of the hearing, reported that no one of the faculty or former students with whom he spoke doubted my credibility.
In the spring of 1992 Dean Guido Calabresi invited me to visit and to