Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [56]
On the morning of Tuesday, September 10, I sat in the small bedroom I had converted to a den, and watched Joseph Biden, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, open the Thomas confirmation hearing. I felt numb. The sight of Jamal, Thomas’ son, reminded me how much time had passed since I left Washington. I’d still lived in Washington and worked for Thomas when I first met Jamal, then a child; now as the hearing unfolded he sat behind his father a fully grown young man.
I had kept my secret for all those years—enough for a child to become an adult. I had not counted the years, and had been fully prepared to go on keeping the secret. Now I would do so no longer. I was not happy about what I felt I had to do ten years before—keep quiet—nor was I happy about what I must do now—speak out. There was no joy, no sense of righteousness or vindication. At best, I felt some small relief, as if a certain pressure had been released—like the unbuttoning of a shirt collar. I had carried the burden of the secret for so long that I trained myself to ignore its existence. The shame I felt should never have been mine, but I had taken it on by my own silence. Now, having finally made the choice to relinquish the burden, to tell the secret, to admit the embarrassment, it was almost as if nothing had happened. In a moment of calm, after I turned off the television set, I realized the significance of what I was about to do, and I prayed that I could see it through.
That same Tuesday, September 10, James Brudney of Senator Metzenbaum’s staff contacted me. Ricki Seidman had informed him of her conversations with me and had suggested that as a former acquaintance he might be an appropriate contact for pursuing the matter. From the beginning of our conversation, I expressed three reservations about going forward. First, I did not want to testify in a public hearing. The nature of behavior to which I had been subjected was embarrassing and personal. It was something I chose not to discuss publicly. Second, I wanted to know what kind of process the committee would use in investigating the charges. I was sure that if the committee, without an independent investigation, simply went to Thomas and asked him about the truth of the allegations, he would either deny them or reduce them to a “misunderstanding.” He could bluff and bluster his way around the charge if he thought it was simply my word against his but would be less able to simply deny them if he knew that the committee had conducted an investigation. He had told me that my disclosure would “ruin” him. I knew that he would not take it without some resistance, and if there was no further investigation, the committee would feel safe to dismiss my charges. Finally, I was hesitant to go forward without some indication whether other women had reported similar behavior. I suspected there were others but had no way to prove it. What I did not know was that the women the committee had contacted thus far had denied that anything in the nature of harassment had occurred.
Jim Brudney asked for details of the behavior. The details, he said, would help me to be more clear and certain about my recollections as well as to demonstrate the seriousness of the matter. I gave him the details of the topics Thomas discussed, the language he used, even some of the graphic scenes he had described. It was enough to convince Brudney of the seriousness of the conduct. I was still hesitant to go forward after we talked. None of my uncertainties had been addressed. Brudney simply did not know what process the committee would follow, although he suggested that a closed executive session of the committee, away from the media, might be possible.
Brudney reported our conversation to Senator Metzenbaum, who told him to refer me to Senator Biden as chair of the committee. According to the report