Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [52]
Yet the media stories about Thomas rarely called attention to the different opportunities and expectations for him versus his sister, namely the educational opportunities and the freedom from caring for the elderly that were his and not hers. Inequities that can be reasonably attributed to her gender alone went undiscussed, as did the programs that enabled him to enter the best schools. Even Thomas’ early job with his mentor, Jack Danforth, seemed to come from Danforth’s own style of affirmative action. As the story goes, Danforth, who was attorney general of Missouri at the time, sought recommendations from Dean Guido Calabresi of Yale for a black law student who might want to work in his office. Yet in 1991 the press coverage focused on Thomas’ own efforts rather than the social programs that had benefited him throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Thomas contributed to this shift in the discussion when he contrasted himself with his sister, condemning her lack of initiative and extolling his self-initiative and resourcefulness.
Nowhere was the discussion of Thomas’ nomination more intense and divisive than in the African American community. Some polls said that 52 percent of blacks supported Thomas’ nomination. In retrospect, though that figure was used by Thomas supporters, it seems incredibly low given that one would expect some measure of support from African Americans for another already prominent African American. Blacks who supported the nomination seemed split into two camps. One line of thought suggested that any black nominee would be better than any white nominee because a white nominee would mean losing what was seen as the “black” seat on the Court. Others thought that Thomas would be better than a white nominee because his background and the circumstances of his upbringing would make him empathetic to poor blacks. Despite what his detractors described as his dismal civil rights record, this camp believed that he would change once secure in a lifetime appointment. (At his confirmation hearing, Thomas suggested the same when he distinguished his early positions as those of a political appointee rather than those of a jurist.) Both groups believed that he should be given a chance.
Thomas’ critics in the black community maintained that his views were so antagonistic to the well-being of the community that his race was secondary, even problematic, as it would lend credibility to an anti-civil-rights agenda. Some were convinced that the community would be better off with a conservative white person on the Court than with Thomas. One black congressman argued that the question should not be Thomas’ “skin color” but rather whether he was “going to be on our side in the dark of night when the chips are down.” Christopher Edley, who would later testify against the nomination, said that only Thomas’ color accounted for his selection over Starr. And more than a few pointed to what they called President Bush’s cynicism in declaring that Thomas was the “best man” for the job. Thomas’ supporters in the African American community accused his detractors of being elitists; African American critics accused his supporters of putting skin color over principle. In nominating Judge Clarence Thomas to succeed Justice Thurgood Marshall, Bush created a situation in which the community would lose whether the nomination failed or succeeded.
The divisive nature of the political debate surrounding the nomination made it even more difficult for me to think about coming forward. I had no desire to become embroiled in the drama that was unfolding in the African American community or the political community as a pawn for either side. In fact, one friend, a Washington attorney and law school classmate to whom I mentioned Thomas’ behavior, bluntly advised me, “Don’t get involved. It wouldn’t be worth it.”
I didn’t get involved. Instead, I continued to wait for a call from the investigators. I struggled