The Anita Hill/ Clarence Thomas Hearings - Case Study Example

The Anita Hill/ Clarence Thomas Hearings Sexual harassment is a private nuisance, unfair labor practice, or in some s, a civil wrong which may be the basis for a lawsuit against the individual who made the advances and against the employer who did not take steps to halt the harassment (Legal Dictionary). The specific aspects of this legal definition to which Anita Hill alleged that Clarence Thomas was in violation of was “repeated unpleasant, degrading sexual remarks,” which were directed towards her while she was in his employ. Anita Hill articulated that her primary intent for coming forward was to expose Clarence Thomas as a contradiction and a sexist, whose character, based on her personal dealing with him, did not warrant him to sit in judgment of pertinent and crucial issues which would ultimately impact the lives of every American. Ms. Hill felt that her testimony would serve as that all important expose, which would preclude the U. S. Senate from making a huge mistake, which she and all other Americans would be relegated to endure throughout the tenure of Clarence Thomas as an associate justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. “Yet, the Anita Hill – Clarence Thomas controversy had other long-term consequences beyond Justice Thomas’ life-term term of the Supreme Court. Foremost, national awareness about sexual harassment in the workplace heightened considerably”(Hill-Thomas) For this paper, I will focus on how a newfound public awareness of gender discrimination, sexual harassment in the workplace, and the need for women to be in Congress have impacted the American Society as a result of the Anita Hill/ Clarence Thomas Hearings. Many ironies exist in underlying the historical confrontation between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. One of which was that Thomas was tasked to head up the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission subsequent to the alleged infractions, and the EEOC was the very agency charged with monitoring the existence of sexual harassment, among other work-place inequalities. Prior to 1964, women in the workplace simply endured the offences and the abuse in order to keep their jobs. Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, natural origin and sex, the Act did not mention sexual harassment either in the law or its legislative history. In 1974 in Barnes v. Train, 13 FEP cases 123 (D.D.C.), Ms. Barnes made a claim that she was retaliated against because she rejected her bosses sexual advances. A trial court decided that the male supervisor, merely solicited his subordinate because he found her “attractive”, and then retaliated because he was rejected. There was no reprimand from the court or the company and no fine, resulting from his actions. The all male court and company acquiesced to the male treatment of women, albeit was deemed offensive by the female.(Law) This disregard for females persisted unchecked in the workplace until 1977 when in Williams v. Saxbe, 413F. Supp. 654, 12 FEP cases 1093 (D.D.C.), the court ruled that humiliation and termination of a female employee by her male supervisor because she rejected his sexual advances, if proven, would be sex discrimination. The court went on to add that it would be an artificial barrier to employment placed before one gender and not the other.(Law) On the basis of Williams v. Saxbe, Barnes v. Train was overturned, and the momentum for women’s rights in the workplace began to take on speed. In 1980 the EEOC issued guidelines interpreting the law to forbid sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination. Then in 1983, one year after Clarence Thomas became Director of the EEOC, the case of Katz v. Dole 709 F 2nd 251, 31 FEP cases 1521 (4th Cir), initiated the beginning of sexual harassment cases in the workplace. The case involved an employer that forbade sexual harassment and was held liable for the sexist name calling of a female air traffic controller because it failed to take corrective action when the employee complained.(Law) The new classification (sexual harassment), began to take on a broader scope in 1985 when the addition of physical violence was classified as sexual harassment. In a case brought before the U. S. Appeals Court (D. C. Circuit), In McKinney v. Dole, the court said, “even if the conduct is not overly sexual; all that is necessary is that the unwelcome conduct be on the basis of the victims gender. In 1986, the U. S. Supreme Court heard its first sexual harassment case in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 447 U. S. 57, 40 FEP cases 1822. In this case before the U. S. Supreme Court, a woman who allegedly had sex with her boss a number of times, because she feared losing her job if she did not, sued for sexual harassment. The Supreme court held, “it is not whether the employee’s conduct was voluntary but whether the boss’s conduct was unwelcome. Additionally, the U. S. Supreme Court held that an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment committed by supervisors if it knew or should have known about the conduct, and did nothing to correct it. In this Supreme Court ruling the court established the responsibility for the duty of care among employers. In 1990, the EEOC issued a policy statement saying that sexual favoritism do not violate Title VII, but sexual favoritism does violate the law if advances are unwelcome or favoritism is so widespread that it has become an unspoken condition of employment”(EEOC) Women in general were upset that the erstwhile polished and accomplished men either refused or could not discern the difference between general banter and sexual harassment. Moreover, African American women were left to suffer an affront to their dignity, as if their gender status was less important because of their race. Collectively, the Hill-Thomas controversy increased the female involvement in politics. The groundswell of female participation was so obvious and pervasive until 1992 was declared as the “Year of the Women.” Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority Foundation makes the point that, “the feminist movement had already come out against Clarence Thomas on the basis of ideology” (Smeal). It was the prevailing opinion among feminists that, given Thomas’ conservative position which was parallel to the position of George Bush (41), that Thomas would provide the swing vote needed, for overturning Roe v. Wade. “Indeed many feminists groups refer to Anita Hill as the mother of a new wave of awareness of gender discrimination, particularly given the attacks on her credibility that she withstood from the white male senators”( Hill-Thomas hearings). Harriett Woods, then president of the National Women’s Caucus commented that, “Anita Hill focused attention on the fact that there were no women in the Senate Panel making decisions about peoples lives”(Woods) “As is true for so many cultural memories in the United States, the televised Hill-Thomas hearings etched some clear and unforgettable images into the minds of the American public”(Beasley) The hearings served as a wake up call for women and they rose from their over extended slumber and mobilized the majority gender to get up off of their apathy and vote! Women decided for the first time since the XXIII amendment, that they would pursue their constitutional mandate with a decided and unified platform. Traditionally, mid term elections are not the most productive of times for the party which occupies the oval office. This pattern did not run counter to its historical path in 1992, and it set precedents along with presenting some record breaking accomplishments. Much of this was spearheaded by the efforts of women making themselves available for public office and their sisters rising up to support them. The media heralded the 1992 election year as the “Year of the woman,” when a record number of women ran for public office and won. In the U. S. Senate, eleven women ran and won five seats—including one incumbent candidate. In the House of Representatives, twenty four women won seats. Albeit Anita Hill was summoned before the all male judiciary committee to convey the nature and brand of sexual harassment she had earlier conveyed to friends and later to the FBI, the actual hearings took on a tenor which ran counter to its purpose. Anita Hill in a reflective article titled “Anita Hill Revisited After Ten Years”, gave this account of the proceedings. “If you think about the way the hearings were structured, the hearings were really about Thomas’ race and my gender, in reality my race and Thomas’s gender were more relevant.” (Hill Revisited) No question that an inordinate number of women viewed the manner in which Anita Hill was interrogated and challenged by the Senators, as an affront to their gender. “To Hills sympathizers, the memory of a lone woman reluctantly speaking out about past painful experiences to a room full of bewildered and unsympathetic men, may have been reason why an unprecedented number of women were elected in the subsequent congressional elections”(Beasley) Professor Darlene Clark Hine reminds us that African American women would not have been in the same position of white women ( i.e., Patricia Bowman, Gennifer Flowers, or Paula Jones) she states, “the magnitude of her courage to tell her story revealed most effectively when viewed against the historical reluctance of Black women to draw attention to their inner lives. Because of the inter play of racial animosity, class tensions, gender role differentiation, and regional economic variations, black women developed a politics of silence and adhered to a cult of secrecy” (Hine). Louise Ella Bell in her piece, “Myths, Stereotypes, and realities of Black Women: A Personal Reflection”, picks up on this phenomena of silence and she says, “this secrecy and resulting silence is brought forth by the stark reality of the history of African American women and the courts. The fact that women of color have no credibility in a courtroom. This court room credibility has not gone unnoticed by scholars. Documented jury and judicial attitudes concerning the veracity of African American women reveal that certain stereotypes are persistent, and these extra-legal factors inhibit not only the African American female victim at trial, but African American women in all walks of life.(Bell) As is the manner of sisterhood (factoring out race), many women viewed the circumstances of Ms. Hill as one which they could identify. Ms. Hill was an accomplished female, of which only about 2% of the women in this country had attained her statue at the time. If given all of her personal and professional accomplishments, not to mention her (actual) personal credibility, that she could be treated with such disdain, then how about the masses of women who are not Yale educated lawyers? “Hills’ televised testimony, given before a panel of 15 white male senators became a highly publicized lightening rod for the nation’s emotions and attitudes about sexism and racism.” (Palmer 2002) A total of twenty-two states have since the hearing, enacted sexual harassment policies which runs from the minimum of notification to zero tolerance for the activity. Some have also provided the provision of steps on how to avoid committing the infraction, to informing one who feels they have been victimized on who, what, when and where they can turn to report and have the violation rectified. The state of Maine is one of several states which has responded appropriately to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the duty of care placed upon employers. Not only does Maine have one of the most extensive sexual harassment policies, the state also stipulates that employers with 15 or more employees located or doing business in Maine must conduct a prescribed education and training program for all new employees within one year of commencement of employment. Other states with similar educational programs include California and Vermont, where employers must conduct additional training for managers and supervisors within one year of commencement of employment. The remaining states depend solely on the federal law for guidance and compliance. Subsequent to the testimony of Anita Hill before the Senate judiciary committee in 1991 sexual harassment cases more than doubled, from 6,127 to 15,342 in 1996. Over the same period, awards to victims under federal law nearlt quadrupled from $7.7 million to $27.8 million”(EEOC). Anita Hill gave testimony before a senate Judiciary committee that her former employer, Clarence Thomas in numerous occasions requested her to date him, but she had a standing policy not to date anyone from her workplace, so she was compelled to turn him down. She also told the members of the committee and the world that Thomas initiated conversations which centered around the viewing of pornographic movies, that he on one occasion in her presence made a passing remark that someone had placed a pubic hair in his soft drink. Additionally, he was boastful on one occasion about the size of his penis and revealed in the fact of the pleasure he brought to his lovers. He even explicitly discussed oral sex in her presence. Thomas’ response of outrage and denial of Hills’ allegations, calling the hearings “a national disgrace…a high tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves.” Many observers from the African American community (the likes of the NAACP, Urban League etc.), viewed it ironic that Clarence Thomas would resort to seeking refuge in holding out the “race” card. Thomas, a man by most accounts had systematically condemned other African Americans for blaming their woes on the system, regarding their lack of opportunity or position. He had been up until this point in time, a conservative African American who did not believe in affirmative action, and firmly believed that as a black man in America, he had achieved all of his accomplishments solely on his own accord. He believed himself to be an island. Something no man has ever been successful in accomplishing. Nevertheless, when he went on his racial lynching tirade, he effectively turned the table on his inquisitors and caused the senators to think twice about being accusatory or condemning on the basis of allegations made by a woman. The media labeled the hearings as an example of “he said, she said,” weary about whether the hearings could reveal the truth. The truth. What truth? Who’s truth? There were many truths which the hearing revealed. The case revealed that gender discrimination and inequality has permeated the highest offices in the land. In the minds eye of this author,the truth was about how men speak of balance and fair play, and of assessing each case based on the merits. The truth was revealed that, this is a fallacy among these men, and that statements such as this are mere sound bites. The truth is that white men do not value the sexuality of African American women, and women of color, as they would and do that of white women. Either the media has missed the whole point, of what the truth is,or they have also acquiesced to the race-gender fraud. The truth was told and revealed. The truth on the media assessment is that most if not all of them, could not see the forest for the trees. The Hill-Thomas testimony goes a long way in pointing out how the media can sway the thought process of some viewers. For example, David Brock contributed a number of news stories on the hearings and later wrote a book titled, “The Real Anita Hill” which cast Anita Hill in the light of a lying Jezebel-Sapphire, and paints Clarence Thomas as the victim of a conspiracy. The book was a best seller, in spite of his fallacious assertions. Brock now admits that he covered up certain details of Thomas’ character, i.e., “that Thomas was an habitual consumer of pornographic videos, just as Anita Hill claimed”.( Novak CNN). In some respects, Simone de Bearvoirs’s observation, “He is the subject, he is the absolute – she is the other,” sums up why the self is such an important issue for feminism. To be the other is to be the non-subject, the non-person, the non-agent in short, the mere body. In law, in customary practice, and in cultural stereotypes, women’s selfhood has been systematically subordinated, diminished and belittled, when it has not been outright denied. Since women have been cast as lesser forms of the masculine individual, the paradigm of the self that has gained ascendancy in U. S. popular culture and in western philosophy is derived from the experience of the predominately white and heterosexual, mostly economically advantaged men who have wielded social, economic, and political power and who have dominated the arts, literature, the media and scholarship. Responding to this state of affairs, feminist philosophical work on the self has taken three main tacks (1) critique of established views of the self (2) reclamation of women’s selfhood, and (3) re-conceptualization of the self to incorporate women’s experience.” (Feminist Perspectives, rev 2004) Bibliography Barnes v. Train, 13 FEP cases 123 (D.D.C), Accessed on line on November 15,2006, from www.shsf.invisionzone.com Beasley, V., (2002) Sisters, Arte Sana, Accessed on line on Novenber 5, 2006, from www.artasana.com Bell, L., (2004) “Myths, Stereotypes, and realities of Black Women: A Personal Reflection”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40 (2004) 1464 26 October 2006, Accessed on line on November 15, 2006, from www.jab.sagepub.com Civil Rights Act 1964 Equal Employment Opportunities Commission,Accessed on line on November 5, 2006, from www.eeoc.gov Femininst Perspective on Self (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Accessed on line on November 5,2006, from www.plato.stanford.edu Hill-Thomas testimony Before Senate Judiciary Committee, October 11-13,1991 Hine, D, C., et al, Sisters Arta Sana, Accessed on line on November 5, 2006, from www.artasana.com Katz v. Dole, 709 F 2nd 251, 31 FEP case 1093 (D.D.C.), Accessed on line on November 16,2006, from www.shsf,invisionzone.com Legal Dictionary the free dictionary, Accessed on line on November 5, 2006, from www.legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 447 U. S. 57, 40 FEP cases 1822, Accessed on line on November 15, 2006, from www.shsf.invisionzone.com McKinney v. Dole, U. S. Appeals Court (D.C. Unit), Accessed on line on November 15, 2006, from www.shsf.invisionzone.com Novak, R., Anita Hill and David Brock, Accessed on line on November 15,2006, from www.cnnnews.com Palmer, B., (2002) Ten Years Later, Anita Hill Revisits the Clarence Thomas controversy, Accessed on line on November 5, 2006, from www.newsservice.stanford.edu Smeal, E., Sisters, Arta Sana, Accessed on line on November 5, 2006, from www.artasana.com The Development of U. S. Sexual Harassment Law, Accessed on line on November 15,2006, from www.shsf.invisionzone.com Williams v. Saxbe, 413R. Supp 654 12 FEP case 1093 (D.D.C.), Accessed on line on November 15, 2006, from www.shsf.invisionzone.com Woods, H., Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas Hearings, Accessed on line on November 5, 2006, from www.mth2umd.edu Read More