Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [174]
When certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee received my statement, they acted on the myths of sexual harassment and proceeded to perpetuate those myths. In labeling me a manipulative aggressor and a political conspirator, you ignored the reality of the workplace, and moreover, that I came before the committee after your staff contacted me. As Judge Hoerchner stated in her testimony, I “did not choose the issue of sexual harassment, rather the issue chose” me, nor did I choose to testify publicly or to make this an issue of public concern. Other than my personal experience, neither I nor you knew much about sexual harassment prior to the hearing and neither did the public. Your lack of knowledge of the problem is understandable. Some members had practiced law before election to the Senate but none had specialized in employment discrimination law specifically. Given the sharp progression in employment discrimination law since 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was passed and in sexual harassment law since 1986 when the first Supreme Court decision was rendered on the topic, it is unlikely that even the attorneys on the committee had kept up with the case-law development in the area of sexual harassment. Consequently, your failure to avail yourselves of available sexual harassment experts is inexcusable. It can only be explained as arrogance or willful ignorance. Your statements during the hearing suggest that both may have been at work.
In addition to educating themselves on the issue of sexual harassment, the committee should have adhered to established procedure and standards in evaluating the fitness of the nominee. One of the greatest disservices that the Judiciary Committee did was to unnecessarily blur the lines between a nominee’s public and private behavior. The issue is one which the public and various congressional advisory committees have grappled with and which promises to become more prominent as the press becomes more and more aware of the details of nominees’ and candidates’ lives. But in many ways it is a false dichotomy—one set up only as a way of avoiding discussing matters which the committee is afraid to consider.
Other nominations have been called into question or failed because of behavior that, if proved, would constitute poor judgment as well as illegal activity—either a criminal or a civil violation. For example, Harvard law professor Douglas Ginsberg allegedly smoked marijuana at a law school function where both students and other faculty were present. President Bush withdrew his nomination to the Supreme Court in the face of this disclosure. Zoe Baird, a corporate attorney, was the first woman ever nominated to head the Justice Department. Baird admitted to hiring illegal aliens for child care at a time when it was illegal to do so. Her nomination ultimately failed when, after discussion, the Judiciary Committee declined to send her name forward to the full Senate. Interestingly, before the revelation about her illegal activity, Ms. Baird’s nomination received bipartisan support. Each of these matters might have been considered private behavior and thus inappropriate for consideration by the committees involved in the process. Nevertheless, they became a part of the public consideration once Presidents Bush and Clinton made the nominations to high office.
Clearly, illegal behavior and evidence of illegal behavior should not be excluded from the scrutiny of an advisory committee when a nomination or candidacy for high office is at stake. Although the reviewing committee is not a court of law competent to adjudicate a claim or mete out a sanction, it must not exclude the information as private or personal. It is relevant to the question of the nominee’s qualifications and character. Moreover, the committee should