Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [39]
Among other assignments, I was asked to review the EEOC’s position on sexual harassment shortly after we arrived at the agency. The EEOC is the government’s enforcement agency for claims of sexual harassment in the workplace as a part of its antidiscrimination enforcement responsibilities. Individuals who felt that they were victims of an employer discrimination would file claims with the EEOC. Agency officials investigated the complaints and made recommendations about whether the complaint stated a cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The administration’s rhetoric called for lessening employer responsibility in cases of harassment probably on the assumption that the behavior was private behavior or that it was not harmful to the victim. Whatever the reason, the pursuit was consistent with a pro-business philosophy of the administration. Acutely aware of that goal, I felt as though I had been dipped in a vat of scalding water as I read over the policies and cases pursued by the agency. I was flooded with embarrassment at my own experience. Still, it never entered the discussion as I reviewed my conclusions with Clarence Thomas. I knew then that I would not work for him for much longer, not because of anything that was happening at the time, but rather because of the aftershocks of what had happened in the past.
After studying the issues, I recommended that the EEOC continue its policies, which stated that employers were liable when supervisors sexually harassed employees or when they failed to respond to coworker harassment that was known to them. Imposing employer liability was an effective means of addressing the problem of harassment. When I presented my findings to him, Thomas grumbled and muttered something to himself. And though I could tell that he would have rather not, he accepted the recommendation nevertheless. What I did not know until years later was that Thomas was part of the administration’s transition team which had recommended the change in policy to reduce the burden an employer bore for supervisors who harassed their workers.
Turmoil at the Education Department continued. In July 1982 Harry M. Singleton was named to succeed Thomas as assistant secretary for civil rights. Harry Singleton, a friend of Thomas’ from law school, was another black conservative who surfaced in Washington during this period. In October The Washington Post reported that an internal department report had recommended major personnel cuts in programs that primarily benefited minority and disadvantaged children. The report provoked charges that the Reagan administration planned to use layoffs and budget cuts to get rid of programs that a Congress more sympathetic to civil rights refused to eliminate. In April 1983 Singleton announced a new “loyalty” requirement in the Office for Civil Rights, adding to the sense of uneasiness in the agency. These changes stipulated that all personnel must receive a “critical sensitive” clearance requiring a background check and sign a waiver of privacy for medical records. The theory was that if they carefully screened for sympathy to liberal policies, they could quash disagreement and rid the agency of anyone who might leak material to the press. Some speculated that the new requirement was intended to uncover employees who had leaked information critical of the administration’s civil rights policy. Rumors about the abolition of the department, layoffs, and programmatic cutbacks continued throughout 1983 and 1984. I was relieved to be away from it.
With the benefit