Back to News & Commentary

How the Clarence Thomas Confirmation Hearings Changed How America Talks 勛圖眻畦 Sexual Harassment

Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas
Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas
Gillian Thomas,
Senior Staff Attorney,
勛圖眻畦 Women's Rights Project
Share This Page
April 15, 2016

This conversation originally appeared at .

On Saturday, HBO will premiere the film "Confirmation" starring Kerry Washington as Anita Hill and Wendell Pierce as then-judge, nowSupreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The movie recreates the three days of Supreme Court confirmation hearings that riveted the country in October 1991, launching a national conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace and helping to lead to . Twenty-five years later, these hearings still resonate as one of the greatest political, sexual, and racial dramas in modern history. Slate senior legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick recently spoke with Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney with the 勛圖眻畦 Womens Rights Project and author of , about Confirmation. (The two writers were also college roommates, graduating in 1990.)

An edited transcript of their exchange is below.

Gillian: When Anita Hill appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, we were just a year and a half out of college. I had heard the term sexual harassment and knew vaguely that it was against the law, but I hadnt had much experience in the workplace, and I hadnt started law school yet. I think the closest I had come to seeing harassment in action was Dabney Coleman in 9 to 5. Which, as we all know, has a happy endingin that it does not have a happy ending for Dabney Colemanso it hadnt taught me much about how harassment plays out in real life.

But even by then, Id experienced enough sexism that I instinctively believed Hill. And I recall my reaction when I read Sen. Arlen Specters explanation for why he hadnt been troubled by the allegations: because Hill didnt claim that . I was enraged by Specters setting the bar that high. It was one of so many examples of the committees cavalier attitude toward harassment.

That attitude was especially galling when you consider that the Hill hearings happened five years after the Supreme Court had found sexual harassment to be illegal, in 1986s . Contrary to Specters suggestion, the court didnt limit unlawful harassment to physical advances or to threats to fire the victim if she didnt comply. The conduct only had to be The really ironic bit was that the court was endorsing the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Thomas was chair of the EEOC when Vinson was decided. But Vinson just didnt prompt the kind of national dialogueor national group therapythat the HillThomas hearings did.

Dahlia: I have to confess that watching Confirmation was as brutalizing as watching the documentary, , was for me two years ago. and came away amazed that she is still toiling away on sexual harassment law and still certain that she did the right thing in 1991, despite the fallout for her career and personal life. Like yours, my memories of October 1991 are of being riveted to the TV screen, shaken by the almost preternatural confidence Hill showed under pressure, and my mounting frustration that the men on the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed incapable of understanding what she was talking about, much less supporting her or knowing how to even question her.

In Confirmation, Kerry Washington captures that controlled, reluctant, dignified Hill perfectly. There is a whole heck of a lot of Olivia Pope happening here, but what Washington grasps so firmly is that Hill has no emotional margin in which to maneuverto evince anger, as Thomas does, will destroy her. As Hill told me when I interviewed her about it, He had a race, and I had a gender.

Reading the account in your book of the Vinson case raised several chilling parallels that presaged the Hill testimony. Can you talk a bit more about the case and all the ways Vinson was a harbinger of things to come?

To continue reading this conversation, click .

Learn More 勛圖眻畦 the Issues on This Page