Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [47]
Early in the day, I went to the university to prepare the examination for my contracts class, which consisted of about thirty students, a relatively small number that made teaching more enjoyable than usual. Despite my interest in the nominations, my thoughts were elsewhere—about thirty miles away in the Oklahoma City office of a gynecologist I was yet to meet. At midmorning I left the law school for the drive to my appointment in the city. Like too many doctor’s visits, this one was frustrating and disappointing. My new gynecologist, chosen primarily because my health plan covered his fees, speculated that a hysterectomy was inevitable but said he would treat my condition with painkillers until the discomfort became unbearable. I reminded him that the internist who had referred me thought that immediate action was in order. He responded with a smile, “They tend to overreact. They don’t see as many of these as we do,” and added, “I treated one woman whose tumors were the size of a seven-month fetus. Yours are nowhere near that big.” Somehow I was not reassured. Finally, he suggested that he had spent far too much time answering my questions, and that was the end of my visit. Never mind the time I had spent in the examining room waiting for him. I returned to Norman praying that I could find a gynecologist who’d be both responsive to my condition and covered by my health plan. By midday I had completely forgotten the president and the Supreme Court.
Late that afternoon, back at the law school, I got a call from David Margolick of The New York Times. Through him I learned that President Bush had selected Clarence Thomas as his nominee to the Supreme Court. I was caught completely off guard. I had spent most of the day waiting in an examination room. All morning, whenever I thought about the nomination, I assumed that Garza would be picked. I was guarded in my comments to Margolick. Whether honestly or as part of a journalistic ploy, he seemed dissatisfied. He told me he was doing a “psychological profile” of the nominee, and I responded that I was not qualified to give such a psychological analysis of Thomas or anyone else.
Margolick neither quoted me nor referred to our conversation in his article, which appeared a few days later. But his call made me wonder: if, on the very day of the nomination, a New York Times reporter knew that I had worked with Clarence Thomas, who else might know and what might that mean in terms of future inquiries? I did not mention Thomas’ conduct toward me to Margolick. In fact, I had not mentioned it to anyone in years, until later that evening, during a conversation with my friend Karolyne Murdock, whom I had come to know in 1988 when we were both serving as members of the board of directors of the Women’s Resource Center. This local organization offered counseling services for rape victims, sponsored group sessions for marital and family crises, and provided shelter for victims of battering and other forms of domestic violence. Karolyne, a bank vice-president with over twenty years in banking, and I, the commercial law teacher, had hit it off immediately. I was very impressed by the professional demeanor and the financial expertise that she brought to the board. Our friendship was based partly on our common concern for community issues—Karolyne followed her membership on the center board with a membership on the board of a local child advocacy