Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [173]
Because sexual harassment claims involve issues of substantive law, the nomination process should never be turned into a forum for resolution of such claims. The Senate Judiciary Committee lacks the process, the authority, and the legal competence to hear such. The charge of the committee is to advise on the nominee’s qualifications. Nevertheless, since sexual harassment was central to the nominee’s qualifications, the members of the committee should have educated themselves on the issue before them. Evidence that you failed to do so lies in your use of social myths to explain my testimony, your refusal to utilize information provided by experts on sexual harassment, and your deviation from your own procedural rules in hearing the testimony as presented.
Myths that support harassment and deny legitimacy of such claims abound. Society points to women’s ambition and ingratitude in the face of harassment claims to show that they are insincere or unworthy of public concern. Often, those charged with evaluating a claim explained it away as a response to social or professional rejection despite the lack of factual support for such explanations. Women are accused of using harassment as a scapegoat for a variety of other alleged problems ranging from incompetence to social deficiencies described as sexually aggressive, prudish, man-hating, and erotomaniacal. Often these characteristics are attributed to the same person despite the apparent contradictions. Underlying all is the grand myth that women control male sexuality—whether at home, on the streets, or at work, regardless of the relative physical strength or social power of the participants. Consequently, the presumption is that all sexual behavior is “welcomed” because a woman either invited it or did not prevent it. At some point in the hearing and aftermath, your members employed all of these myths. Along with the public, I watched the hearing as members of your committee attributed to me motives, traits, and characteristics that were designed to further obscure the matter before you rather than shed light on how Clarence Thomas conducted himself in public office. Your members advanced your theories despite their logical inconsistencies and lack of factual support. In doing so you pandered to myths and misconceptions about women in general and sexual harassment in particular or simply failed to distinguish myth from reality and created a world where sexual harassment is a figment of an accuser’s imagination.
The reality of sexual harassment is that most women do say no to harassment but too often are stuck with the interpretation of her harasser that her no meant yes or, at least, “maybe.” The idea that even forcefully saying no stops the behavior misperceives the basis for harassment and the dynamics of such interaction. Targets of harassment are all too often not in control of the harasser’s behavior or the general environment in which the harassment takes place. Harassment is abuse of power manifested in the form of sexual coercion. In the same way that saying no to the use of the club rarely stops its use or the threat of it, saying no to harassment does not end it absent some greater power to back up the refusal.
Women targeted for sexual harassment are rarely the sexual prudes or aggressors described by their harassers or their harassers’ apologists. Nor is every harasser an “animal” with obvious social deviancies. The prevalence of the problem supported by social research indicates that harassment victims come from all walks of life and are of all different personalities. Similarly, women rarely use harassment claims to escape responsibility for other problems in their