Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [91]
“There is a question about Phyllis Berry who was quoted in the New York Times on October 7. ‘In an interview Ms. Berry suggested that the allegations,’ referring to your allegations, ‘were the result of Ms. Hill’s disappointment and frustration that Mr. Thomas did not show any sexual interest in her.’ ” The senator read Ms. Berry’s remarks into the record as though her authority to comment had been established.
“You were asked about Ms. Berry at the interview on October 9 and reported to have said, ‘Well, I don’t know Phyllis Berry and she doesn’t know me.’ And there are quite a few people who have come forward to say that they saw you and Ms. Berry together and that you knew each other very well.” Senator Specter once again took the comments I made out of the context in which I made them.
“I would disagree with that. Ms. Berry worked at the EEOC. She did attend some staff meetings at the EEOC. We were not close friends. We did not socialize together and she has no basis for making a comment about my social interests with regard to Clarence Thomas or anyone else.” I attempted to explain, as I had in the press conference, that not only was Ms. Berry’s statement wrong, incredibly wrong, she had had no basis for making such a statement. In fact, Ms. Berry undermined her authority to make such a statement about my personal interests in her own testimony. On Sunday, when called by the panel, she would testify that she had found me aloof and detached.
When asked about Ms. Berry’s statement at the press conference on Monday, October 7, I had found myself wondering who she was, recalling her only vaguely and mostly just by name. Because I could not believe that her comment was being taken seriously, my response was rather casual. No one who knew me would have asserted that I had a sexual interest in Clarence Thomas, much less that I had been frustrated by a lack of attention on his part. Phyllis Berry and I were, at best, passing acquaintances. In fact, when pressed on the issue at the hearing, even Berry cited nothing that would lead her to reach such a conclusion. At the hearing Specter wanted me to respond to Ms. Berry’s foolish comment, as well as to the suggestion by “quite a few people” that we “knew each other very well,” and he gave no focus to Berry’s admission that she had no basis for her statement about me to begin with. Senator Specter continued to rely on off-the-record comments as the source of his questions—an inherently flawed method for “find(ing) out what happened” in a formal proceeding where sworn testimony was available to the panel. It became apparent that I, like other harassment victims, would suffer from indictment by speculation and conjecture.
Later, Senator Specter asked my response to a comment appearing in USA Today. “Professor Hill, the USA Today reported on October 9th, ‘Anita Hill was told by Senate staffers her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that “quietly and behind the scenes” would force him to withdraw his name.’ Was USA Today correct on that, attributing it to a man named Mr. Keith Henderson, a 10-year friend of Hill and former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer?”
“I do not recall. I guess—did I say that? I don’t understand who said what in that quotation,” I responded, genuinely confused by the question and the statement.
Specter’s phrasing was confusing. I could not determine whether the senator