Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [73]
Brennan, like Senator Specter, had an impressive record. While he headed the UWA board, he was also chair of Sears, Roebuck. Yet neither Brennan nor Specter is so talented that he is beyond being deluded by other intelligent or powerful men. Moreover, neither seemed to appreciate the high stakes involved in the particular situation or the lengths the accused would go to defend himself. In both cases the stakes involved placing or keeping an individual in a position of power and authority and preserving the trust of the public.
That otherwise very impressive men are capable of misleading friends and the public, and even of lying under oath about their sexual improprieties and poor judgment, has become all too familiar news. Ben Chavis of the NAACP lost his position as that organization’s director because the board learned of his use of NAACP funds to settle a sex discrimination and reportedly a sexual harassment claim. In the face of highly incriminating tape-recorded conversations, President Bill Clinton’s first-term secretary of HUD, Henry Cisneros, is under investigation to determine whether he lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding “conscience money” he paid to a woman with whom he had formerly been romantically involved.
Two lessons can be gleaned from these situations. Though not all men misrepresent such episodes of their lives, many are evidently capable of doing so. What is even more apparent is that it is often impossible, particularly with a cursory inquiry that involves questioning only the person accused of the misconduct, to determine the truth of a matter with certainty.
But beyond the initial assessment of the situation in which each found himself, parallels between Mr. Brennan and Senator Specter diverge. Brennan chose not to pursue his own investigation, but appears to have cooperated with a grand jury conducting an independent investigation of the charges against Aramony. Specter, on the other hand, approached the “fact-finding” hearing already sure of his own conclusion. Similarly, in many cases involving sexual harassment, employers marshal their efforts behind a conclusion that charges are false without pursuing a genuine investigation or inquiry beyond taking the word of the alleged harasser. In addition to doing little to stop an individual from repeating unwelcome behavior, this sends a signal to others, potential harassers and victims alike, that the behavior is protected. Moreover, institutionally, the person bringing the claim becomes the party in the wrong. These are dangerous messages to convey to the public when, even by conservative estimates, no fewer than 40 percent of workingwomen will experience sexual harassment.
When women began to say that the senators “just don’t get it,” they meant among other things that they did not understand the impact their comments regarding me had on all women’s claims of sexual harassment. Clearly, they were so intent on confirming Thomas that they were willing to sacrifice not only me but other women as well.
According to accounts of the hearing, the Republicans designated Specter “chief prosecutor” in an event the administration viewed as “The People v. Anita Hill.” Perhaps Specter was chosen because of his prosecutorial skills and because he went into the hearing convinced that I was not telling the truth. Accounts suggest that he himself had a political stake in destroying me as a credible witness, now seeking the favor of conservatives who’d been outraged by his opposition to the nomination of Judge Robert Bork and his generally liberal position on “women’s issues.” All of which suggests that Specter had no intention of participating impartially in a fact-finding hearing. His conduct during the hearing only confirmed this. And Senator Cranston’s message was lost on Arlen Specter as he and his Republican colleagues planned their strategy for the hearing.
After the Today interview on Tuesday morning, I tried to keep to my teaching schedule and to ignore the discussions taking place in Washington. I soon concluded that I had carved out