Anita Hill

Top

Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Biographies

It was during the Senate confirmation hearings in October 1991, for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that Anita Hill became famous. She came forward with sexual harassment charges against Judge Thomas that shocked the nation, and many watched as she poured out painful details of Thomas's alleged sexual harassment, purportedly committed when both had worked for the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.

On October 6, 1991, Anita Hill's life was dramatically and irrevocably changed when her charges of sexual harassment against a former employer, Clarence Thomas, were made public on the eve of his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. In the ensuing days, Hill was grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee about the graphic details of the alleged harassment and about her personal life. Her compelling testimony before the committee was broadcast live around the globe, sweeping her from the quiet obscurity of her life as a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma. Her charges produced a stunning collision of race and gender issues, and reactions to her and her story were highly polarized; some viewed her as a hero and a martyr, while others vilified her as mentally unstable, a liar, and even a racist.

In the end, the U.S. House and Senate chose to dismiss her allegations, and as a result, Thomas was given a seat on the highest court in the nation. Yet, Hill's appearance in Washington, D.C., was by no means without far-reaching effects. Her testimony, and the committee's reaction to it, have since been credited with revitalizing feminism, greatly increasing the public's awareness of sexual harassment, inspiring women to run for office in record numbers, and significantly increasing the numbers of women willing to speak out publicly about their own experiences of sexual harassment when they might otherwise have suffered in silence.

Nothing in Anita Hill's upbringing could have prepared her for the glare of international publicity she would eventually face. The youngest in a family of 13 children, she was raised in a deeply religious atmosphere on her parents' farm in rural Morris, Oklahoma, located some 45 miles south of Tulsa. Sundays were spent at the Lone Pine Baptist Church, while the rest of her week was filled with farm chores and schoolwork. She attended Okmulgee County's integrated schools, where she earned straight As and graduated as class secretary, valedictorian, and a National Honor Society student. After graduation, she attended Oklahoma State University, where she continued her outstanding academic performance and graduated with a degree in psychology and numerous academic honors.

An internship with a local judge had turned her ambitions to the field of law, and she sought and won admission into Yale University's demanding School of Law, where she was one of 11 black students in a class of 160. After graduation, she took a full-time job as a professional lawyer with the Washington law firm of Ward, Harkrader, and Ross.

Association with Clarence Thomas

In 1981, after working with the firm for about a year, Hill accepted a job as the personal assistant to Clarence Thomas, who was then head of the Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department in Washington. It was at this time, according to her sworn testimony, that he made repeated advances toward her and, when she rebuffed him, began to make vulgar remarks to her and to describe in vivid detail various hard-core pornographic films he had seen. When he began dating someone else, Hill stated, the harassment stopped, and she accepted an offer to follow him to a better job when he was made chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The alleged harassment began again, however, according to Hill's version of the events. In 1983, after being hospitalized with stress-related stomach problems, she left Washington to accept a position as a professor in the area of civil rights at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa. As a faculty member of this conservative religious school, Hill took an oath that said in part: "I will not lie, I will not steal, I will not curse, I will not be a talebearer."

In 1986, the university was reorganized, and the law school moved to the state of Virginia. Because she preferred to be near her family in Oklahoma, Hill declined to move with the school and instead sought employment at the University of Oklahoma, where she became a specialist in contract law. Six years of teaching are usually required before tenured status is granted to a professor there, but Hill was tenured after only four years. In addition to her teaching duties, she served on the faculty senate and was also named the faculty administrative fellow in the Office of the Provost, which made her a key voice in all major academic policy decisions.

Call from the Senate

Such was the state of Hill's life on September 3, 1991, when she was approached by the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked to supply background information on Clarence Thomas, who was then being considered as a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. In a news conference given at the University of Oklahoma by Hill, which was excerpted at length in the New York Times, Hill elaborated: "They asked me questions about work that I had done there, and they asked me specifically about harassment and issues involving women in the work-place. Those questions, I have heard, were prompted by rumors that individuals who had worked at the agency had understood that I had been subject to some improper conduct … while at the agency." Hill, who had never filed a complaint against Thomas, found herself reluctant to go public with her story some ten years after the fact.

Initially, she decided to protect herself and her privacy by remaining silent. On further reflection, however, she apparently felt an obligation to tell the truth as she knew it, no matter how difficult that might be. "Here is a person [Thomas] who is in charge of protecting rights of women and other groups in the workplace and he is using his position of power for personal gain for one thing, " she said in an interview with National Public Radio, also quoted by the New York Times. "And he did it in an very ugly and intimidating way."

By September 9, Hill had decided to cooperate in the investigation of Thomas on the condition that her identity be kept confidential. But she was informed on September 20 that the Judiciary Committee could not be told her story unless Thomas was notified of her identity and given a chance to respond to her allegations. Furthermore, if she agreed to cooperate, she and Thomas would both be questioned by the FBI. Hill pondered these new facts as the confirmation hearings for Thomas, already underway, drew near their close. On September 23, she agreed to allow her name to be used in an FBI investigation. She also requested permission to submit a personal statement to the committee.

Hill has since criticized the handling of her complaint, in part because copies of the FBI report were given to just two committee members, and her personal statement also failed to reach all those who should have seen it. Thomas, meanwhile, had issued a sworn statement forcefully denying all of Hill's allegations against him. In his version of the events, he had simply asked Hill out for dates a few times. He and his supporters characterized her eleventh-hour appearance as a ploy designed to keep him off the bench, engineered by liberals opposed to his appointment to the court. Hill answered such suggestions in her press conference at the University of Oklahoma: "There is absolutely no basis for that allegation, that I am somehow involved in some political plan to undermine the nominee. And I cannot even understand how someone could attempt to support such a claim. … This has taken a great toll on me personally and professionally, and there is no way that I would do something like this for political purposes."

Televised Hearings

After considerable debate, the U.S. Senate decided that new hearings on Thomas's confirmation would be held and that Hill would be called to Washington to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee - which was made up of 14 white, male legislators. The televised hearings, which included Hill's and Thomas's appearances, drew an audience of millions, who were riveted by the drama of race and sex unfolding on the screen. Hill remained dignified and composed throughout the proceedings - in the face of repetitive questioning by the senators. Her credibility and character were vehemently attacked by some observers, who questioned why she maintained a speaking relationship with Thomas after the alleged incidents occurred and why she never filed a formal complaint. Republican legislator Arlen Specter went so far as to imply that Hill had fantasized the whole scenario; others suggested that she was acting out of jealousy because Thomas had failed to provide her the attentions she secretly desired from him.

Racial issues were in evidence during the hearings and influenced reaction among both the general public and the Judiciary Committee. Thomas himself fueled that fire when he denounced the proceedings as a "high-tech lynching, " effectively accusing Hill of participating in a racist plot to keep him out of the Supreme Court because he is black. In the book Race-ing Justice, En-gendering Power, essayist Carol M. Swain discussed another race-related phenomenon that turned the tide of black opinion against Hill: "For African Americans generally, the issue was not so much whether Hill was credible or not; she was dismissed because many saw her as a person who had violated the code … which mandates that blacks should not criticize, let alone accuse, each other in front of whites."

In the Aftermath

The nomination of Clarence Thomas was confirmed on October 16, 1991. Hill, who had by then returned to Oklahoma, accepted the news with the composure that had marked her appearance before the committee. Disregarding all the racial, political, and feminist implications of the decision, she told Roberto Suro of the New York Times: "For me it is enough justice getting it heard. I just wanted people to know and understand that this had happened. … You just have to tell the truth and that's the most anyone can expect from you and if you get that opportunity, you will have accomplished something."

Many of Hill's detractors had predicted that she would capitalize on her experience by making high-paid speaking appearances, writing a book, or even selling her story as a television movie-of-the-week, but in the months following her testimony, she proved them wrong. She resumed her usual teaching duties and returned to her regular routine as nearly as was possible, given the reporters and others who constantly sought her out. In time she took a sabbatical from teaching, using the interlude to study the sociology and psychology of sexual harassment. Aside from an appearance on the CBS News program 60 Minutes, and, much later, one on the Today show, she turned down all interview requests. She made carefully selected appearances on the speaking circuit, often for no fee, and at such appearances, she declined to talk in detail about the hearings or her own personal experience, focusing instead on the larger issues of sexual harassment and discrimination in general.

Following the hearings, former Minnesota House representative Gloria M. Segal approached Hill with a plan to establish an endowed fund for a special professorship in her name - devoted to the study of sexual harassment and workplace equity - at the University of Oklahoma. In spite of the fact that half of the $250, 000 needed for the project was easily raised, by mid-1993 work on establishing the professorship had stalled, due mainly to the adverse publicity and political fallout felt at the University of Oklahoma. The future of the fund remains in doubt, although several other colleges and universities across the country have reportedly expressed an interest in assuming control of the money and following through on the institution of the professorship.

The Thomas-Hill hearings continued to resonate long after the headlines had faded. Public opinion polls taken at the time of the Senate hearings showed that a majority of those polled discredited Hill's story. Yet a poll taken one year later showed that twice as many people had come to believe her version of the events. Then, in the spring of 1993, investigative journalist David Brock published his controversial book The Real Anita Hill, in which he claims to offer hard evidence that Hill lied about her relationship with Thomas. Political commentator George F. Will commented in Newsweek: "To believe that Hill told the truth you must believe that dozens of people, with no common or even apparent motive to lie, did so. Brock's book will be persuasive to minds not sealed by the caulking of ideology. If Hill is a 'victim, ' it is not of sexual harassment. … Rather, she may be a victim of the system … that taught her to think of herself as a victim and made her fluent in the rhetoric of victimization."

Still, Anita Hill has, for many, become a symbol of a new and powerful wave of feminism. Women's groups continue to credit Hill's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee with vastly increasing the public's awareness of sexual harassment and making it much less tolerated in the workplace. In an Associated Press news story dated October 11, 1992, Helen Neuborne, executive director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, stated: "A lot of women had felt so isolated and perhaps couldn't even define sexual harassment. … The hearings made an enormous difference even though they were horrible."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where Hill and Thomas once worked, reported a 50 percent increase in complaints filed for harassment in the year following Hill's testimony. Additionally, in the aftermath of the hearings, numerous women ran for and won election to government office for the first time, citing their dissatisfaction with the all-male Senate Committee's response to Hill's allegations as their primary reason for doing so. And debate about the truth or falsity of Hill's allegations went on. Tonya Bolden, a Black Enterprise contributor commenting on the various analyses of the Hill-Thomas affair, suggested that the entire incident may have sparked a vital understanding of broader issues. As she put it in the April 1993 issue: "At the end you care less about who was lying and more about what you can do to counter racism and sexism."

In the fall of 1995, Hill retuned to her teaching position at the University of Oklahoma. During her leave, she authored two books. In 1995, she co-edited the book Race, Gender, and Power in America: the legacy of the Hill-Thomas hearing with Emma Coleman Jordan. Hill left the University of Oklahoma at the end of the fall 1996 semester.

Anita Hill

Top

Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Black Biographies

lawyer; activist; educator

Personal Information

Born Anita Faye Hill, July 30, 1956, in Morris, OK; daughter of Albert (a farmer) and Irma Hill.
Education: Oklahoma State University, B.S., 1977; Yale University School of Law, LL.D., 1980.
Religion: Baptist.

Career

Lawyer with the firm of Ward, Harkrader, and Ross, Washington, DC, 1980-81; personal assistant to the head of the Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department and the chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, 1981-83; Oral Roberts University School of Law, Tulsa, OK, civil rights professor, 1983-86; University of Oklahoma School of Law, Norman, professor of law, 1986--.

Life's Work

On October 6, 1991, Anita Hill's life was dramatically and irrevocably changed when her charges of sexual harassment against a former employer, Clarence Thomas, were made public on the eve of his confirmation as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. In the ensuing days, Hill was grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee about the graphic details of the alleged harassment and about her personal life. Her compelling testimony before the committee was broadcast live around the globe, sweeping her from the quiet obscurity of her life as a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma. Her charges produced a stunning collision of race and gender issues, and reactions to her and her story were highly polarized; some viewed her as a hero and a martyr, while others vilified her as mentally unstable, a liar, and even a racist.

In 1981, after working with the firm for about a year, Hill accepted a job as the personal assistant to Clarence Thomas, who was then head of the Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department in Washington. It was at this time, according to her sworn testimony, that he made repeated advances toward her and, when she rebuffed him, began to make vulgar remarks to her and to describe in vivid detail various hard-core pornographic films he had seen. When he began dating someone else, Hill stated, the harassment stopped, and she accepted an offer to follow him to a better job when he was made chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The alleged harassment began again, however, according to Hill's version of the events. In 1983, after being hospitalized with stress-related stomach problems, she left Washington to accept a position as a civil rights professor at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa. As a faculty member of this conservative religious school, Hill took an oath that said in part: "I will not lie, I will not steal, I will not curse, I will not be a talebearer."

Such was the state of Hill's life on September 3, 1991, when she was approached by the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked to supply background information on Clarence Thomas, who was then being considered as a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. In a news conference given at the University of Oklahoma by Hill, which was excerpted at length in the New York Times, Hill elaborated: "They asked me questions about work that I had done there, and they asked me specifically about harassment and issues involving women in the workplace. Those questions, I have heard, were prompted by rumors that individuals who had worked at the agency had understood that I had been subject to some improper conduct ... while at the agency." Hill, who had never filed a complaint against Thomas, found herself reluctant to go public with her story some ten years after the fact.

Initially, she decided to protect herself and her privacy by remaining silent. On further reflection, however, she apparently felt an obligation to tell the truth as she knew it, no matter how difficult that might be. "Here is a person [Thomas] who is in charge of protecting rights of women and other groups in the workplace and he is using his position of power for personal gain for one thing," she said in an interview with National Public Radio, also quoted by the New York Times. "And he did it in an very ugly and intimidating way."

Hill has since criticized the handling of her complaint, in part because copies of the FBI report were given to just two committee members, and her personal statement also failed to reach all those who should have seen it. Thomas, meanwhile, had issued a sworn statement forcefully denying all of Hill's allegations against him. In his version of the events, he had simply asked Hill out for dates a few times. He and his supporters characterized her eleventh-hour appearance as a ploy designed to keep him off the bench, engineered by liberals opposed to his appointment to the court. Hill answered such suggestions in her press conference at the University of Oklahoma: "There is absolutely no basis for that allegation, that I am somehow involved in some political plan to undermine the nominee. And I cannot even understand how someone could attempt to support such a claim.... This has taken a great toll on me personally and professionally, and there is no way that I would do something like this for political purposes."

After considerable debate, the U.S. Senate decided that new hearings on Thomas's confirmation would be held and that Hill would be called to Washington to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee--which was made up of 14 white, male legislators. The televised hearings, which included Hill's and Thomas's appearances, drew an audience of millions, who were riveted by the drama of race and sex unfolding on the screen. Hill remained dignified and composed throughout the proceedings--in the face of repetitive questioning by the senators. Her credibility and character were vehemently attacked by some observers, who questioned why she maintained a speaking relationship with Thomas after the alleged incidents occurred and why she never filed a formal complaint. Republican legislator Arlen Specter went so far as to imply that Hill had fantasized the whole scenario; others suggested that she was acting out of jealousy because Thomas had failed to provide her the attentions she secretly desired from him.

Racial issues were in evidence during the hearings and influenced reaction among both the general public and the Judiciary Committee. Thomas himself fueled that fire when he denounced the proceedings as a "high-tech lynching," effectively accusing Hill of participating in a racist plot to keep him out of the Supreme Court because he is black. In the book Race-ing Justice, En-gendering Power, essayist Carol M. Swain discussed another race-related phenomenon that turned the tide of black opinion against Hill: "For African Americans generally, the issue was not so much whether Hill was credible or not; she was dismissed because many saw her as a person who had violated the code ... which mandates that blacks should not criticize, let alone accuse, each other in front of whites."

The nomination of Clarence Thomas was confirmed on October 16, 1991. Hill, who had by then returned to Oklahoma, accepted the news with the composure that had marked her appearance before the committee. Disregarding all the racial, political, and feminist implications of the decision, she told Roberto Suro of the New York Times: "For me it is enough justice getting it heard. I just wanted people to know and understand that this had happened.... You just have to tell the truth and that's the most anyone can expect from you and if you get that opportunity, you will have accomplished something."

Following the hearings, former Minnesota House representative Gloria M. Segal approached Hill with a plan to establish an endowed fund for a special professorship in her name--devoted to the study of sexual harassment and workplace equity--at the University of Oklahoma. In spite of the fact that half of the $250,000 needed for the project was easily raised, by mid-1993 work on establishing the professorship had stalled, due mainly to the adverse publicity and political fallout felt at the University of Oklahoma. The future of the fund remains in doubt, although several other colleges and universities across the country have reportedly expressed an interest in assuming control of the money and following through on the institution of the professorship.

The Thomas-Hill hearings continued to resonate long after the headlines had faded. Public opinion polls taken at the time of the Senate hearings showed that a majority of those polled discredited Hill's story. Yet a poll taken one year later showed that twice as many people had come to believe her version of the events. Then, in the spring of 1993, investigative journalist David Brock published his controversial book The Real Anita Hill, in which he claims to offer hard evidence that Hill lied about her relationship with Thomas. Conservative political commentator George F. Will commented in Newsweek: "To believe that Hill told the truth you must believe that dozens of people, with no common or even apparent motive to lie, did so. Brock's book will be persuasive to minds not sealed by the caulking of ideology." However, several reviews of the book questioned the reliability of Brock's assertions. As Jacob Weisberg put it in Entertainment Weekly, The Real Anita Hill "has yet to produce many converts."

Still, Anita Hill has, for many, become a symbol of a new and powerful wave of feminism. Women's groups continue to credit Hill's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee with vastly increasing the public's awareness of sexual harassment and making it much less tolerated in the workplace. In an Associated Press news story dated October 11, 1992, Helen Neuborne, executive director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, stated: "A lot of women had felt so isolated and perhaps couldn't even define sexual harassment.... The hearings made an enormous difference even though they were horrible."

Awards

Ida B. Wells Award from the National Coalition of 100 Black Women, 1991; named one of Glamour magazine's 10 Women of the Year, 1991.

Hill, Anita Faye

Top

Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Legal Biographies

A little-known law professor testifying before a U.S. Senate committee in 1991 became a cause cél;agebre when she accused a respected U.S. Supreme Court nominee of sexual harassment. Anita Faye Hill became a household name during the televised confirmation hearings of U.S. Supreme Court candidate Clarence Thomas, the second African American in U.S. history to be tapped for the High Court. Hill, who is also African American, was calm and articulate as she withstood an intense grilling by the all-male, all-white Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite skepticism and open hostility from some of the senators, Hill stood firm on her account of sexually explicit remarks and behavior by Thomas, her former boss. Conservatives reviled Hill, feminists revered her—and by the end of the hearings, U.S. citizens of all political persuasions had a keener awareness of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Nothing in Hill's background prepared her for the unremitting media attention she received during and after the Thomas confirmation hearings. The youngest of Albert Hill and Erma Hill's thirteen children, she was an extremely private person. Hill was born July 30, 1956, and raised on a struggling family farm near Morris, Oklahoma. Her religious parents emphasized the importance of hard work, strong moral values, and education. Intelligent and disciplined, Hill was valedictorian of her high school class and an honor student at Oklahoma State University, in Stillwater, where she graduated in 1977 with a degree in psychology. After college, Hill attended Yale University Law School on a scholarship from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Hill graduated from law school with honors in 1980, and worked briefly for the Washington, D.C., law firm of Wald, Harkrader, and Ross. In 1981, she left private practice to become special counsel to the assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The assistant secretary was Thomas. It was during this time that Thomas asked her out and, according to Hill, sexually harassed her. In 1982, Thomas was appointed chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Hill moved to the EEOC with her boss in what she felt was a necessary career step.

In 1983, Hill decided to leave Washington, D.C., to became a law professor at Oral Roberts University. In 1986, she accepted a teaching position at the University of Oklahoma. Although full professorship and tenure are normally granted at Oklahoma after six years, Hill achieved both in just four years.

Hill's transformation from legal scholar to feminist icon came about after Thomas was offered the career opportunity of a lifetime. President George Bush nominated Thomas, then a federal appeals court judge, to fill an opening on the U.S. Supreme Court. During the mandatory Senate investigation of Thomas, Hill disclosed in private sessions the alleged incidents of sexual harassment by Thomas. Reports of Hill's private testimony were leaked to a National Public Radio reporter. When Hill's allegations became public, they stood as a potential roadblock to Thomas's confirmation.

During a live broadcast of the Senate hearings, Hill's personal motives, character, and politics were scrutinized relentlessly. Both Hill and Thomas brought in witnesses to support their separate versions of events. Thomas angrily denied Hill's charges and accused the Senators of conducting a media circus and a "high tech lynching." Hill stood by her story, despite the accusations of some senators who suggested that she was delusional. Her testimony was detailed and graphic. In a clear, dispassionate manner, she described Thomas's alleged interest in pornographic films and bragging comments about his sexual performance. She steadfastly denied that she was lying or prone to fantasies.

Despite Hill's damaging testimony, Thomas weathered the hearings and received Senate confirmation by a narrow margin on October 15, 1991. Hill returned to the University of Oklahoma Law School and tried to resume her quiet private life.

Immediately after the Hill-Thomas hearings, only 24 percent of the registered voters who responded to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll indicated that they believed Hill. Forty percent thought Thomas was telling the truth. Just one year after Thomas's confirmation, public opinion had changed. In a 1992 Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, 44 percent of the people interviewed sided with Hill and 34 percent believed Thomas. One possible explanation for this shift in loyalties is the nation's year-long posthearings examination of the nature and effects of sexual harassment. Perhaps as more people became aware of the problem and more women revealed their own encounters with sexual harassment, Hill's credibility increased.

To some, the Hill-Thomas hearings illustrated the almost insurmountable difficulty in bringing a sexual harassment claim; to others, they showed how vulnerable men are to false accusations by women with ulterior motives. Although some women were discouraged after witnessing Hill's treatment by the Senate panel, others found the courage to file their own sexual harassment complaints after watching Hill's example.

Wikipedia on Answers.com:

Anita Hill

Top

Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Wikipedia

For the Lutheran pastor, see Anita C. Hill.

Anita Faye Hill
Born	(1956-07-30) July 30, 1956 (age 55) Morris, Oklahoma
Residence	Massachusetts^[1]
Ethnicity	African-American
Education	Attorney
Alma mater	Oklahoma State University; Yale Law School
Occupation	Attorney, professor
Years active	1983-present
Employer	Brandeis University
Known for	Testimony against Clarence Thomas
Board member of	Board of Trustees, Southern Vermont College
Awards	Fletcher Foundation Fellowship; Louis P. and Evelyn Smith First Amendment Award

Anita Faye Hill (born July 30, 1956) is an American attorney and academic—presently a professor of social policy, law and women's studies at Brandeis University's Heller School for Social Policy and Management.^[2] She became a national figure in 1991 when she alleged that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had made harassing sexual statements when he was her supervisor at the U.S. Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.^[3] Though Thomas was confirmed and took a seat on the Court, Hill's testimony focused national attention on the issue of workplace sexual harassment.^[3]^[4]

Contents

1 Early life and education
2 Clarence Thomas controversy
- 2.1 Effects
3 Later career
4 Awards and honors
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Early life and education

Hill was born in Morris, Oklahoma, the youngest of the thirteen children of Albert and Erma Hill, who were farmers.^[3]^[5] Her family hailed from Arkansas, where her great-grandparents and her maternal grandfather, Henry Eliot, were born into slavery.^[6] Hill was raised in the Baptist faith.^[3]

After graduating as valedictorian from Morris High School, Hill enrolled at Oklahoma State University, receiving a bachelor's degree with honors, in psychology 1977.^[3]^[5] She went on to Yale Law School, obtaining her Juris Doctor degree with honors in 1980.^[3]^[7]

She was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1980 and began her law career as an associate with the Washington, D.C. firm of Wald, Harkrader & Ross. In 1981, she became an attorney-adviser to Clarence Thomas who was then the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. When Thomas became Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1982, Hill went along to serve as his assistant, leaving the job in 1983.

Hill then became an assistant professor at the Evangelical Christian O. W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University^[8] where she taught from 1983 to 1986. In 1986, she joined the faculty at the University of Oklahoma College of Law where she taught commercial law and contracts.^[9]^[10]

Clarence Thomas controversy

Thomas was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by then-President George H. W. Bush, a position that required Senate hearings and confirmation. The hearings were initially completed,^[11] with Thomas's good character being presented as a primary qualification for the high court because he had only been a judge for slightly more than one year.^[12] There had been little organized opposition to Thomas's nomination and his confirmation seemed assured^[12] until a report of a private interview of Hill by the FBI leaked out to the press.^[11]^[13] The hearings were then reopened, and Hill was called to publicly testify.^[11]^[13] Hill said in the October 1991 televised hearings that Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the EEOC. When questioned on why she followed Thomas to the second job after he had already allegedly harassed her, she said she had wanted to work in the civil rights field, she had no alternative job, "and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures ... had ended."^[5]

According to Hill, during her two years of employment as Thomas's assistant, Thomas had asked her out socially many times,^[7] and after she refused, he used work situations to discuss sexual subjects.^[5]^[7] "He spoke about ... such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes" she said, adding that on several occasions Thomas graphically described "his own sexual prowess" and the details of his anatomy.^[5] Hill also recounted an instance in which Thomas examined a can of Coke on his desk and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"^[5]

Four female witnesses waited in the wings to reportedly support Hill's credibility, but they were not called,^[13]^[14] due to what the Los Angeles Times described as private, compromise deal between "aggressive, gloves-off" Republicans and the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Democrat Joe Biden.^[15] According to Time magazine, one of the witnesses, Angela Wright, may not have been considered credible on the issue of sexual harassment because she had been fired from the EEOC by Thomas.^[14]

Hill agreed to take a polygraph test which found that her statements were true;^[16] Thomas declined the test. He made a vehement and complete denial, saying that he was being subjected to a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks" by white liberals who were seeking to block a black conservative from taking a seat on the Supreme Court.^[17]^[18] After extensive debate, the U.S. Senate confirmed Thomas to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52–48; the narrowest margin since the 19th century.^[14]^[19]

Thomas's supporters questioned Hill's credibility claiming she was delusional or was a spurned woman, seeking revenge.^[13] They cited the time delay of ten years between the alleged behavior by Thomas and Hill's accusations, and noted that Hill had followed Thomas to a second job and later had personal contacts with Thomas, including giving him a ride to an airport—behavior which they said would be inexplicable if Hill's allegations were true.^[7]^[9]^[13]^[20] Hill countered that she came forward because she felt an obligation to share information on the character and actions of a person who was being considered for the Supreme Court.^[13] She testified that after leaving the EEOC, she had had two "inconsequential" phone conversations with Thomas, and had seen him personally on two occasions; once to get a job reference and the second time when he made a public appearance in Oklahoma where she was teaching.^[5]

Doubts about the veracity of Hill's 1991 testimony persisted long after Thomas took his seat on the Court. They were furthered by American Spectator writer David Brock in his 1993 book The Real Anita Hill,^[14] though he later recanted the claims he had made, described his book as "character assassination", and apologized to Hill.^[21]^[22] After interviewing a number of women who alleged that Thomas had frequently subjected them to sexually explicit remarks, Wall Street Journal reporters Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson wrote a book which concluded that Thomas had lied during his confirmation process.^[19]^[23] Time magazine however, remarked in 1994 that "Their book doesn't quite nail that conclusion."^[14] In 2007, Kevin Merida, a coauthor of another book on Thomas, remarked that what happened between Thomas and Hill was "ultimately unknowable" by others, but that it was clear that "one of them lied, period."^[24]^[25] Writing in 2007, Neil Lewis of The New York Times remarked that, "To this day, each side in the epic he-said, she-said dispute has its unmovable believers".^[26]

In 2007, Clarence Thomas published his autobiography, My Grandfather's Son, in which he revisited the controversy, calling Hill his "most traitorous adversary" and saying that pro-choice liberals who feared that he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if he were seated on the Supreme Court used the scandal against him.^[26] He described Hill as touchy and apt to overreact, and her work at the EEOC as mediocre.^[26]^[27] He acknowledged that three other former EEOC employees had backed Hill's story, but said they had all left the agency on bad terms.^[27] He also wrote that Hill "was a left-winger who'd never expressed any religious sentiments whatsoever ... and the only reason why she'd held a job in the Reagan administration was because I'd given it to her."^[28] Hill denied the accusations in an op-ed in the New York Times saying she would not "stand by silently and allow [Justice Thomas], in his anger, to reinvent me."^[1]^[29]

In October 2010, Thomas's wife Virginia, a conservative activist, left a voicemail at Hill's office asking that Hill apologize for her 1991 testimony. Hill initially believed the call was a hoax and referred the matter to the Brandeis University campus police who alerted the FBI.^[18]^[30] After being informed that the call was indeed from Virginia Thomas, Hill told the media that she did not believe the message was meant to be conciliatory and said, "I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."^[18] Virginia Thomas responded that the call had been intended as an "olive branch".^[18]

Effects

Public interest in, and debate over, Hill's testimony is said to have launched modern-day public awareness and open discussion of the issue of workplace sexual harassment in the United States with the ultimate result that the behavior is less tolerated today.^[3]^[31] Shortly after the Thomas confirmation hearings, President George H. W. Bush dropped his opposition to a bill giving harassment victims the right to seek federal damage awards, back pay and reinstatement, and the law was passed by Congress.^[31]^[32] One year later, harassment complaints filed with the EEOC were up 50 percent and public opinion had shifted in Hill's favor.^[32] Private companies also started training programs to deter sexual harassment.^[31]

The manner in which the all male Senate Judiciary Committee challenged and dismissed Hill's accusations of sexual harassment angered women politicians and lawyers.^[33] According to D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Hill's treatment by the panel also contributed to the large number of women elected to Congress in 1992, "women clearly went to the polls with the notion in mind that you had to have more women in Congress", she said.^[1] In their anthology, All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave, editors Gloria T. Hull, Patricia Bell Scott and Barbara Smith described black feminists mobilizing "a remarkable national response to the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas controversy.^[34]

In 1992 a feminist group began a nationwide fundraising campaign and then obtained matching state funds to endow a professorship at the University of Oklahoma Law School in honor of Hill.^[10]^[35] Conservative Oklahoma state legislators reacted by demanding Hill's resignation from the university, then introducing a bill to prohibit the university from accepting donations from out-of-state residents, and finally attempting to pass legislation to close down the law school.^[10] E. Z. Million, a local conservative activist and business consultant, organized protests and compared Hill to the assassin of President Kennedy.^[10]^[35] Certain officials at the university attempted to revoke Hill's tenure.^[36] After five years of pressure, Hill resigned.^[10]

Later career

Hill accepted a position as a visiting scholar at the Institute for the Study of Social Change at University of California, Berkeley in January 1997,^[37] but soon joined the faculty of Brandeis University—first at the Women's Studies Program, later moving to the Heller School for Social Policy and Management. In 2011, she also took a counsel position with the Civil Rights & Employment Practice group of the plaintiffs' law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.^[8]

Over the years, Hill has provided commentary on gender and race issues on national television programs, including 60 Minutes, Face the Nation and Meet the Press^[3]^[8] She has been a speaker on the topic commercial law of law as well as race and women's rights.^[8] She is also the author of articles that have been published in The New York Times and Newsweek.^[3]^[8] and has contributed to many scholarly and legal publications in the areas of international commercial law, bankruptcy, and civil rights.^[8]^[38]

In 1995, Hill co-edited Race, Gender and Power in America: The Legacy of the Hill-Thomas Hearings with Emma Coleman Jordan.^[3]^[39] In 1997, Hill published her autobiography, Speaking Truth To Power,^[40] in which she chronicled her role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation controversy^[3]^[6] and wrote that creating a better society had been a motivating force in her life.^[4] In 2011, Hill’s second book, Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding Home was published. ^[41] In it, she focuses on the sub-prime lending crisis that resulted in the foreclosure of many homes owned by African-Americans^[13] and she calls for a new understanding about the importance of home and its place in the American Dream.^[6]

Awards and honors

In 2005, Hill was selected as a Fletcher Foundation Fellow. In 2008, she was awarded the Louis P. and Evelyn Smith First Amendment Award^[42] by the Ford Hall Forum. She also serves on the Board of Trustees for Southern Vermont College which is located in Bennington, Vermont.^[43]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Krissah Thompson (October 6, 2011). "For Anita Hill, the Clarence Thomas hearings haven’t really ended". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-anita-hill-the-clarence-thomas-hearings-havent-really-ended/2011/10/05/gIQAy2b5QL_story.html. Retrieved October 26, 2011.
^ "Faculty and Researchers, Anita Hill". Brandeis University. http://www.heller.brandeis.edu/faculty/guide.php?emplid=e69d2f368b67d963832f9d1d8a5b8a07c6e976d5. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k "Hill, Anita F. (1956-)". Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Oklahoma Historical Society. http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/H/HI005.html. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
^ ^a ^b "Then & Now: Anita Hill". CNN.com. June 19, 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/cnn25.tan.anita.hill/. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g "Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on The Nomination of Clarence Thomas to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Hill, Anita F. Testimony and prepared statement". U.S. Government Printing Office. October 11, 12, and 13, 1991. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/41-124.pdf. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Anita Hill’s book on gender, race and home creating a stir", “BrandeisNOW”, 30 September 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Roberto Suro (October 8, 1991). "The Thomas Nomination; A Law Professor Defends Integrity". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/08/us/the-thomas-nomination-a-law-professor-defends-integrity.html?ref=anitahill. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f "Attorneys: Anita F. Hill, Of Counsel". Cohen Milstein. http://www.cohenmilstein.com/attorneys.php?PeopleID=80. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
^ ^a ^b "The Thomas Nomination - Woman at Center of Furor Seeks Quiet of Law Classes". The New York Times. October 9, 1981. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/09/us/the-thomas-nomination-woman-at-center-of-furor-seeks-quiet-of-law-classes.html?ref=anitahill. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Jo Thomas (November 13, 1996). "Anita Hill Plans to Leave Teaching Post in Oklahoma". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/13/us/anita-hill-plans-to-leave-teaching-post-in-oklahoma.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c Joel Siegel (October 24, 2011). "Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing 'Empowered Women' and Panel Member Arlen Specter Still Amazed by Reactions". ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/US/clarence-thomas-anita-hill-supreme-court-confirmation-hearing/story?id=14802217.
^ ^a ^b Jeffrey Toobin (September 18, 2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Doubleday. pp. 30–32. ISBN 978-0-385-51640-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=alR-oZEbPFUC&q=clarence+thomas+qualified#v=snippet&q=clarence%20thomas%20qualified&f=false.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Cynthia Gordy (October 18, 2011). "Anita Hill Defends Her Legacy". The Root. http://www.theroot.com/views/anita-hill-ponders-her-legacy?page=0%2C0. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Richard Lacayo (November 14, 1994). "Strange Justice: A Book on Clarence Thomas". Time. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981809,00.html. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
^ Douglas Frantz and Sam Fulwood III (October 17, 1991). "Senators' Private Deal Kept '2nd Woman' Off TV : Thomas: Democrats feared Republican attacks on Angela Wright's public testimony. Biden's handling of the hearing is criticized.". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-17/news/mn-911_1_angela-wright. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
^ Martin Tolchin (October 14, 1991). "The Thomas Nomination; Hill Said To Pass A Polygraph". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/14/us/the-thomas-nomination-hill-said-to-pass-a-polygraph-test.html. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
^ "Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, Testimony of Clarence Thomas, October 11, 1991". Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new-yitna?id=UsaThom&images=images/modeng&data=/lv6/workspace/yitna&tag=public&part=24. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Jess Bravin (October 20, 2010). "Justice's Wife Seeks Apology From His Accuser". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562993761893962.html. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ ^a ^b Margaret Carlson (July 9, 2001). "Smearing Anita Hill: A Writer Confesses". Time. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,167355,00.html. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
^ "The Thomas Nomination; Questions to Those Who Corroborated Hill Account". The New York Times. October 29, 1991. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/29/us/the-thomas-nomination-questions-to-those-who-corroborated-hill-account.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
^ Alex Kuczynski and William Glaberson (June 27, 2001). "Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill in Bid to Aid Justice Thomas". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html. Retrieved October 14, 2011.
^ By 2004, Brock had made a political about face from conservative to liberal and he founded the progressive media watchdog organization Media Matters for America
^ Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer (1994). Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-63318-4.
^ Michael Scherer (October 20, 2010). "'Good Morning Anita Hill, It's Ginni Thomas'". Time. http://swampland.time.com/2010/10/20/good-morning-anita-hill-its-ginni-thomas/. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher (April 23, 2007). "Live Q & A - Books:Supreme Discomfort". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/22/DI2007042200950.html. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c Neil A. Lewis (September 30, 2007). "In New Book, Justice Thomas Weighs In on Former Accuser". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/washington/30thomas.html. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ ^a ^b Associated Press staff (September 28, 2007). "16 years later, Thomas fires back at Anita Hill". MSNBC.com. Associated Press. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21038082/. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ Clarence Thomas (October 2007). My Grandfather's Son. Harper Perennial. p. 250. ISBN 0-06-056555-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=7hAEZz1Xx8wC&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=only+reason+why+she%27d+held+a+job+in+the+Reagan+administration+was+because+I%27d+given+it+to+her&source=bl&ots=_A7J14xAnB&sig=TzYODKbiJxvLoeIu3C3ki9hTsfE&hl=en&ei=gsKmTsyhCaSQsAKkxqDMDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=only%20reason%20why%20she%27d%20held%20a%20job%20in%20the%20Reagan%20administration%20was%20because%20I%27d%20given%20it%20to%20her&f=false. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ Anita F. Hill (October 2, 2007). "The Smear This Time". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
^ Savage, Charlie (2010-10-19). "Clarence Thomas's Wife Asks Anita Hill for Apology". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20thomas.html?hp. Retrieved 2010-10-20.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Sexual Harassment 20 Years Later". The New York Times. October 21, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opinion/sexual-harassment-20-years-later.html?scp=1&sq=anita%20hill&st=Search. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ ^a ^b Jill Smolowe (October 19, 1992). "Anita Hill's Legacy". Time. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976770,00.html. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
^ Maureen Dowd (October 8, 1991). "The Thomas Nomination: The Senate and Sexism; Panel's Handling of Harassment Allegation Renews Questions About an All-Male Club". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/08/us/thomas-nomination-senate-sexism-panel-s-handling-harassment-allegation-renews.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. Retrieved October 28, 2011.
^ Gloria T. Hull (Ed.), Patricia Bell Scott (Ed.), Barbara Smith (Ed.) (2000). But Some Of Us Are Brave: All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men: Black Women's Studies. Feminist Press at CUNY. p. xvi.
^ ^a ^b Jessica Seigel (May 3, 1993). "Fund, book Spark New Anita Hill Controversy". Chicago Tribune. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-05-03/news/9305030068_1_real-anita-hill-professorship-sabbatical. Retrieved October 23, 2011.
^ Anita Hill (October 12, 2011). "The Stories I Carry With Me". Time. http://ideas.time.com/2011/10/12/anita-hill-the-stories-i-carry-with-me/. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
^ "Anita Hill to be visiting scholar at UC Berkeley during spring 1997 to work on book, give seminars". The Regents of the University of California. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/hill.html. Retrieved 2007-10-03.
^ "Biography of Anita Hill". All American Speakers. http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Anita-Hill/722. Retrieved October 27, 2011.
^ Anita F. Hill, (Ed), and Emma Coleman Jordan (Ed.) (October 1995). Race, Gender and Power in America: The Legacy of the Hill-Thomas Hearings. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-508774-7.
^ Anita Hill (September 17, 1997). Speaking Truth to Power. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-47625-6.
^ Anita Hill (October 4, 2011). Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding Home. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-1437-0.
^ "First Amendment Award History". Ford Hall Forum at Suffolk University. http://www.fordhallforum.org/about/firstamendment. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
^ "Board of Trustees". Southern Vermont College. http://www.svc.edu/about/board.html. Retrieved October 28, 2011.

External links

Faculty profile at Brandeis University
Booknotes interview with Hill on Speaking Truth to Power, January 23, 1997.
Audio lecture: Anita Hill discusses Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding Home on October 4, 2011, on Forum Network.

Persondata
Name	Hill, Anita
Alternative names
Short description	Law professor; witness in Clarence Thomas controversy
Date of birth	July 30, 1956
Place of birth	Morris, Oklahoma
Date of death
Place of death

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Donate to Wikimedia

Help us answer these

Where is anita hill today?

What did anita hill accuse Thomas of?

What does anita hill look like?

Did anita hill have a degree?

Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:

Copyrights:

Cite

Wikipedia on Answers.com This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article Anita Hill. Read