Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [167]
By the end of 1993 I began to feel decidedly overworked and underappreciated. David Swank had been replaced as dean under circumstances which my detractors were claiming as a victory over me. When he applied for university recognition which his years of service to the institution, including one year as interim president, more than qualified him for, he was denied. The reasons most often cited were that he had been too visible in his support for me and in dismissing the football coach, Barry Switzer. The Switzer dismissal was the culmination of a year in which a player was indicted for selling drugs to undercover agents, one player was arrested for brandishing a semiautomatic rifle in the athletic dormitory, and three other players were arraigned and later convicted for raping a woman in the athletic dormitory. Though he maintained his position as a tenured member of the faculty of the College of Law, Swank suffered at the hands of his enemies, football fans and conservative politicians. They assured him that he would not receive the recognition that others with similar service and accomplishments would have been awarded.
The administration continued to suggest that I make a public announcement that I would not apply for the Hill Professorship. David Swank’s replacement, Peter Goplerud, though sympathetic to the issue of harassment, seemed not to appreciate the pressures placed on me for raising funds and from outside agitators. While assuring me he would help with fund-raising but for the no doubt well-founded fear that he would lose his job if he did, he informed me that he hoped that the professorship would attract another scholar, giving the school the benefit of the expertise of two qualified professors. In the same conversation he told me that he longed for the day when, upon being introduced as the dean of the Oklahoma University College of Law, people did not inquire about Anita Hill.
Rumors that Richard Van Horn, for his failure to take action against me, was soon to be dismissed by the Board of Regents spread. In 1994 Van Horn resigned and Sullivan claimed the victory. Eventually, the regents would replace Van Horn with Senator David Boren, one of the six Democrats to vote in favor of the Thomas confirmation. Later Boren would express regrets about the vote but make clear that his regrets had nothing to do with my testimony. Boren based his contrition on positions Justice Thomas took as a member of the Court with which Boren disagreed. Boren’s new position was almost as indefensible as his argument that Thomas deserved the benefit-of-innocence standard reserved for criminal trials. Information about Thomas’ position on issues was available to all of the senators before their vote. Senators who reviewed the information in their role of advise and consent were aware that those positions espoused by Thomas as Supreme Court justice were the same as he espoused in various other public positions. Boren, former Rhodes scholar and viewed as one of the more intelligent members of the Senate, could claim no surprise.
News media around the country carried stories about the continued turmoil in the state caused by my presence. In a story that ran in The New York Times on April 19, 1993, I was described as Oklahoma’s “open wound.” As poignant as some of the stories were, the conflict was most often portrayed as political, failing to capture the racist and sexist elements of the continued campaign against me. I decided to write about the episode myself, knowing that I would not be satisfied with anyone else’s portrayal.
In the spring of 1994 I applied for an unpaid leave of absence for the following school year. I would write my memoirs and finish another collection of essays based on the 1992 conference on race and gender issues. In addition, the leave would give me the time to finish the fund-raising for the professorship. Leaves of absence