Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [30]
In an informal exit interview from the firm, I met with Robert Wald, one of its founders, who had worked in government himself. I admired his attempt to create a law practice that could be more humane and honorable. And the structure of the Wald firm was, in fact, more egalitarian and less divisive than firms where my classmates from law school worked. But I could not pretend to feel engaged with my work. Wald seemed genuinely sympathetic to my concerns when I explained my reasons for leaving the firm and my interest in government service and civil rights work in particular. And having checked my employment record, he also assured me that the firm would be happy to consider my application if I ever decided to return to private practice.
In October 1991 John Burke, a former partner at Wald, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had had a conversation with me regarding my future at the firm and had encouraged me to find other employment. He also alleged that he had worked with me on numerous projects. This conversation never took place, though Burke may believe it did. The firm record is very clear. I worked with Burke on only one small matter. When I was at Wald, he was a relatively young partner who had no general responsibility for the supervision, hiring, or firing of associates. He did work fairly closely with my friend, the other black female associate, who left Wald soon after I did. Perhaps she was the woman Burke advised to find other employment. He had no such discussion with me. Moreover, the record is also clear that in my first year at the firm, my performance was evaluated as acceptable by those with whom I did work. And Burke evaluated the limited work I did for him as acceptable.
Perhaps because I was so ready for a change or perhaps because he was so persuasive, Thomas convinced me that the work I would be doing for him would promote the goals of civil rights. He promised a challenge, but seemed to welcome innovation. I believed in the enforcement of civil rights laws, and to reassure myself that I was making a positive choice, I told myself that those who cared about civil rights should not abdicate its issues to those who did not. There would be no hope if the current administration’s civil rights agencies were filled with opponents of civil rights.
At all times, I considered myself to be working for Clarence Thomas, not the Reagan administration. It was Thomas who had inspired my allegiance. The fact that he was black was certainly a major factor in my decision to work with him. He even spoke in terms of black solidarity and the need to hire someone black whom he could trust in civil rights matters. To calm whatever misgivings I had about the administration, he encouraged me to think of myself as his “personal assistant.” The position was one that was directly supervised by, maintained by, and related to him, not to Ronald Reagan. President Reagan, he claimed, was uninterested in what was to occur in “his shop.”
Loyalty to him, not to the administration, was what Thomas encouraged, and it was typical of persons in authority on Capitol Hill and in appointed positions with the government. Perhaps Thomas himself had learned it from Senator Danforth. This brand of loyalty requires that assistants report their actions directly to their supervisors. Any questions or complaints must be addressed to supervisors. When things go wrong, the supervisor is alerted immediately and a responsible party is identified. And, just as surely, when things go right, the supervisor gets the credit. None of this was very different from the practice of law, except there the client’s concern was the most important factor. Client matters, hours billed, and revenues brought in were what drove the practice, not the personalities of the partners or a sense of loyalty to them.