Courts

We Cannot Allow What Happened To Anita Hill To Happen To Christine Blasey Ford

Regardless of outcome, this situation will renew and further energize conversations about sexual harassment and sexual violence.

By  
on

Anita Hill (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Time)

As  I read Kathryn Rubino’s post about the upcoming Supreme Court hearing, which may not happen as scheduled,  I couldn’t shake the persistent feeling of deja vu.

Much of ATL’s readership is too young to remember the Supreme Court nomination hearings of Clarence Thomas back in 1991, but I am not. There are lots of men and women, like me, of a certain age, who remember well. Some memories are indelible, and Professor Hill’s testimony is one of them for me.

Not only am I old enough to remember, I remember the hearings in painfully exquisite detail. I had been practicing for about 15 years then, and while you can all make jokes about failing senior memories, I remember much about how Professor Hill was treated.

I remember the courage of the University of Oklahoma law professor who had accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in the workplace. The hearings were on radio and television, and I remember being riveted, listening to my transistor radio (remember those, dinosaurs?) with headphones while researching in the law library close to my office.

I remember the derision and treatment of her and her testimony by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by then Senator Joe Biden. I remember seeing the smirks of the all-male, all-white committee as Professor Hill testified, her reputation and career on the line.

It wasn’t all that long ago and only now, almost three decades later, is there any serious conversation about sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, retaliation, and power imbalances in the workplace, and we are still far from those conversations no longer being needed. But it took a long time, way too long, to get to where we are today, and it’s not over yet, not by a long shot.

Sponsored

Back in 1991, conversations about sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and other similar topics had not entered the American conversation in any real way. Women were afraid to come forward for fear of retaliation, including losing their jobs, losing promotional opportunities, and losing chances to work on intellectually challenging matters, among other consequences. (Sound familiar?) It’s somewhat better now, but we’re not there yet. The workplace is not a level playing field.

Even after Professor Hill’s testimony, the conversation was much more about her than anything or anyone else. Only now, almost 30 years later, is the topic of conversation in this area starting to shift and focus not on the women but the people and the the situations that permit workplace situation harassment to flourish.

I can still see Biden’s smirking and smiling along with other committee members during the hearing, and not in a good way. He now says that he owes Ms. Hill an apology. Of course, he didn’t say that until December 2017 as the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements had already gained steam amid recognition that these were issues that could no longer be ignored or swept under the rug, or that the claims of women should be taken seriously.

However, Professor Hill, now teaching at Brandeis University, didn’t think that it was an apology, but more of an “I’m sorry if you were offended.”

Professor Hill had every right to be offended, and much more than that. The all-white, all-male Judiciary Committee did not take her testimony seriously, based on some of the questions and comments made to her. Professor Hill remained poised and composed and never lost her temper when many women were (and still are) outraged at the way she was treated.  I still am.

Sponsored

Of course, none of those members would have had any understanding of what Ms. Hill said happened or the consequences for coming forward under the klieg lights of publicity. It’s hard enough in a private setting, but in public? None of them understood what Professor Hill was talking about. They were clueless.

In those times, most sexual harassment matters, if there were claims, were quietly resolved out of the glare of the spotlight. It wasn’t until later in the 1990s when the Baker McKenzie firm got nailed that conversations about sexual harassment in the workplace really began, albeit initially in hushed tones.

Way back in 1991, social media was a term that didn’t even exist. So, no one could tweet, Facebook, text, or communicate their views in any ways other than the quaint old-fashioned ones of talk radio, letters to the editor, and other late 20th century means of public discourse. Email was not prevalent, and websites were essentially nonexistent. I wonder what it would have been like had there been such methods and whether the fierce, partisan discussions of “she said, he said” would have taken a different turn and led to a different result. We will never know.

In contrast to Professor Hill’s testimony, which was about sexual harassment in the workplace, this testimony will focus on a different but equally important topic: sexual assault. This hearing should be different as there are four women now on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hopefully, the gentlemen members will be on their best behavior.

It will be fascinating to see what effect social media will have, and whether it has any influence on what is to come. What we do know is that regardless of outcome and regardless of which side people take, this situation will renew and further energize conversations about sexual harassment and sexual violence, all for the good.

I think it still takes tremendous courage to come forward, as women (and some men) have come forward in the #MeToo and # TimesUp movements and speak their truth to power. I hope we have come a long way since 1991. However, given the consequences to date set forth in the letter from Dr. Blasey Ford’s lawyers, I am not sure.

The philosopher George Santayana said that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again.

old lady lawyer elderly woman grandmother grandma laptop computerJill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for more than 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Topics

, , , , , ,