Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [71]
In stark contrast to Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Simpson was exasperated by the prospect of reconvening the confirmation hearing. In a profoundly crass statement, following his Nightline appearance Simpson broadcast his ignorance about sexual harassment and the purpose of the upcoming hearing. The tall Wyoming native, who projects a “cowboy” image despite his gray flannel suit and conservative necktie, warned of the treatment I could expect from the Senate:
It’s a harsh thing, a very sad and harsh thing, and Anita Hill will be sucked right into the—the very thing she wanted to avoid most. She will be injured and destroyed and belittled and hounded and harassed, real harassment, different from the sexual kind, just plain old Washington variety harassment which is pretty unique in itself
I looked for some sympathy in Senator Simpson’s words. I found none. I took his message as an unfriendly warning, something just this side of a threat—an attempt to dissuade me from coming forward.
In distinguishing sexual harassment from “real harassment,” Simpson’s statement suggests that the former is tolerable, if not excusable—that it is mild or harmless, or at least less harmful than the “real” kind he had apparently experienced or inflicted as part of the politics of Washington, D.C. According to Simpson, being “injured and destroyed and belittled and hounded” is a consequence of “real harassment,” not sexual harassment. Perhaps because Senator Simpson never experienced sexual harassment, and is not likely to, he did not perceive it as real, injurious, or destructive. What was real to Simpson was “plain old Washington variety harassment.” The pity is that Simpson could not extend his understanding of Washington-variety harassment to sexual harassment to see that both have the same basis—abuse of power—and the same aim: self-gain through devastating or demoralizing the target.
Nor did Simpson’s personal experience with Washington-variety harassment relieve him of his responsibility to attempt to relate to the experience of the thousands of his constituents who understood well that sexual harassment is real harassment. Although Simpson apologized after the hearing for his choice of words, he could not take back the twin message they sent: that sexual harassment is not real and that complaints about sexual harassment should be met with “real harassment.” I will not count the number of times, even before the hearing, that I have been threatened with sodomy, rape, assault, and other forms of sexual and nonsexual violence. Some of the callers have used almost the same words: “Now you will know what real harassment is like.”
Senator Alan Cranston of California summed up the danger of Senator Simpson’s dismissive assessment of my claims in the debate on the postponement of the hearing:
I am appalled at statements being made that these are not serious charges because they involve verbal, not physical, abuse. I am appalled at the stunning admissions of a lack of sensitivity to the problem of sexual harassment. What has a majority of this body been saying to all the women who are subjected to sexual harassment? Who have been, are now, or will be subjected to sexual harassment?
Needless to say, Simpson’s views on “real harassment” did not suggest that he was approaching the hearing with anything like an open mind. And if there was any doubt on that score, his reference to my claim on the second day of the hearing as “sexual harassment crap” extinguished it. Simpson’s statement played over and over in my mind during the next few days. I contemplated