Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [176]
Presidential nominations to other than lifetime posts must to a lesser extent be subject to scrutiny as well. These nominations and subsequent appointments are subject to the will of the president, who in turn every four years is subject to the will of a popular vote. Nevertheless, the fact that they are prizes and not entitlement dictates that they, too, must be scrutinized. Actions of public officials, even seemingly private ones, may have public consequences, and a nominee who violates the law can blame only him- or herself.
During the hearing, Senator Paul Simon asked that I or someone at my academic institution provide the Senate with some guidance on how to “deal with a charge that someone makes, that is a substantial charge, but that person says, … ‘I don’t want the charge made publicly.’ ” Two things are of utmost importance: a thorough and fair investigation and application of the proper standard of evaluation.
Even before an investigation takes place a person seeking to provide information to the Senate should be advised of the process by a competent staff person. Secrecy about the process resulted in my own insecurities and perhaps delays in the investigation. Nevertheless I proceeded. However, others may be discouraged altogether from engaging in a procedure about which they are told they are entitled to no information. If the committee expects a citizen to participate in the process with this kind of information or information of any kind, the committee must extend the citizen the courtesy and benefit of knowing what the process is.
The investigation should be handled by a nonpartisan body or individual in the role of a neutral fact finder, experienced in investigating sexual harassment matters. In investigating sensitive issues follow-up interviews should be the norm, not the exception.
As the circumstances surrounding the hearing proved, the investigator’s neutrality is crucial. The FBI proved not to be a neutral fact finder in investigating my complaint. As part of the executive branch there is, at the very least, an appearance of alliance to the president whose nominee is being investigated. The danger in this alliance was realized later as the FBI was ordered to review my testimony for the purpose of spotting additional information or inconsistencies. The bureau received no such orders with regard to Thomas’ testimony. The conflict of interest is apparent: not only were the agents trying to defend their investigation but they were acting at the direction of a party whose interest was in seeing that the nomination went forward. Even though the use of the FBI in this manner was unusual, its occurrence illustrates the problem of relying on an investigator who may not be neutral or who can be utilized to serve an interest other than the fair resolution of the complaint. Secondly, the FBI has little formal experience in the handling of sexual harassment claims and no apparent knowledge of the law of employment discrimination. The agency’s expertise lies in criminal investigations and background checks. Sexual harassment is a social and a legal problem—a civil rights violation. The FBI agents may be aware of the legal definitions involved but may not be aware of how to elicit adequate information about a claim.
The standard for sexual harassment information should be no different than for other information about the nominee. Thus, the claim need not present a violation of the law to be considered relevant to the nomination process. The committee should consider competent information which negatively reflects on the competency and