Professor, before I begin my questioning, I notice there are a number of people sitting behind you. Are any of them your family members you would like to introduce?
MS. HILL: Well, actually my family members have not arrived yet. Yes, they have. They are outside the door, they were not here for my statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will make room for your family to be able to sit.
MS. HILL: It is a very large family, Senator.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we will begin but attempt to accommodate as quietly as we can what may be an unusual arrangement. I might ask, is everyone who is sitting behind you necessary to sit behind you and maybe they could stand and let your family sit? I would assume the reason why--to make it clear--the reason why your family is not here at the moment is that you did not anticipate coming. So if those who are not absolutely necessary, would stand with the rest of our staffs and let family members come in.
And we will try to get a few more chairs, if possible, but we should get this underway. We may, at some point, Professor Hill, attempt to have to accommodate either your counsel and/or your family members with chairs down the side here. They need not all be up front here, we cannot completely reconfigure this situation, okay?
Fine, we can put them in the back, as well.
Now, there are two chairs on the end here, folks. We must get this hearing moving. There are two chairs on the end here. We will find everyone a seat but we must begin.
Now, Professor Hill, at the risk of everyone behind you standing up, would you be kind enough to introduce your primary family members to us.
MS. HILL: I would like to introduce, first of all, my father, Albert Hill.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hill, welcome.
MS. HILL: My mother, Erma Hill.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Hill.
MS. HILL: My mother is going to be celebrating her 80th birthday on the 16th.
THE CHAIRMAN: Happy birthday, in advance.
MS. HILL: My sister, my eldest sister, Elreatha Lee is here; my sister Jo Ann Fennell, my sister Coleen Gilcrist, my sister Joyce Baird.
THE CHAIRMAN: I welcome you all. I am sorry?
MS. HILL: My brother, Ray Hill.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Professor.
MS. HILL: I would also--I am sorry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Please?
MS. HILL: I would also like to introduce my counsel at this time?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that would be appropriate.
MS. HILL: Mr. Gardner, Ms. Susan Roth, and Mr. Charles Ogeltree.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Now, professor, thank you for your statement and your introductions and I think it is important that the committee understand a little more about your background and your work experience before we get into the specific allegations that you have made in your statement.
I understand, as you have just demonstrated, you come from a large family and I have been told that you have indicated that you are the youngest in the family, is that correct?
MS. HILL: Yes, I am.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, I assume, like all families, they have been a great help and assistance to you. Let me ask you tell me again your educational background for the record?
MS. HILL: I went to primary, elementary and secondary school in Okmulge County, and Morris High School, Morris Jr. High and Erim Grade School in reverse order. I went to Oklahoma State University starting in 1973 and graduated in 1977 from Oklahoma State University with a degree in psychology and in 1977 I began attending Yale Law School. I graduated, received my J.D. degree from there in 1980.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, what was your first job after graduation from law school?
MS. HILL: I worked at the firm of Wald, Harkrader & Ross.
THE CHAIRMAN: How did you acquire the job--that is a Washington law firm?
MS. HILL: That is a Washington, D.C. law firm.
THE CHAIRMAN: And how did you acquire that job?
MS. HILL: Through the interviewing process. The first interview took place at Yale Law School. I was interviewed for that job. I don't remember the names of the interviewers. I was called to Washington for an interview in the office, of Wald, Harkrader & Ross, I was interviewed by a number of people and I accepted an appointment with them.
Now, I will say that that interview process was proceeded by work that I had done with them as a summer associate, and so the interview process the second time around was really, actually I will say that the interview process took place before the summer associate and then at the end of that summer associateship I was asked to work there full time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Who was your immediate supervisor when you were at that law firm?
MS. HILL: Well, a number of individuals. I worked with a number of different attorneys on different projects.
THE CHAIRMAN: So, it would the budget you we are working on?
MS. HILL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, what type of work did you do while you were at the law firm? Was it specialized, or did you do whatever was asked by any of the partners?
MS. HILL: Well, since I worked there for only one year, I was a fairly new associate, most of my work was basically what was available and when I had time available to do it. However, I did some Federal Trade work, I did some environmental law work there, and I participated in the drafting of a manual on banking law while I was there.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, did you decide you wanted to leave that law firm, or was it suggested to you?
MS. HILL: It was never--
THE CHAIRMAN: Did someone approach you and say there's another job you might like, or did you indicate that you would like to leave the law firm to seek another job?
MS. HILL: I was interested in seeking other employment. It was never suggested to me at the firm that I should leave the law firm in any way.
THE CHAIRMAN: How old were you at this time?
MS. HILL: At the time, I was 24 years old.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, were you dissatisfied at the law firm? Why did you want to leave?
MS. HILL: Well, I left the law firm because I wanted to pursue other practice, in other practice other than basically the commercial practice, civil practice that was being done at the law firm. I was not dissatisfied with the quality of the work or the challenges of the work. I thought that I would be more personally fulfilled if I pursued other fields of the law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, again, were you approached as to the opportunity at the Department of Education, or were you aware that there was a potential opening and you sought it out?
MS. HILL: I spoke only with Clarence Thomas about the possibility of working at the--
THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. How did you get to Clarence Thomas, that is my question?
MS. HILL: I was introduced to him by a mutual friend.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was the mutual friend a member of the law firm for which you worked?
MS. HILL: Yes, and his name is Gilbert Hardy. He was a member of the firm for which I worked, Wald, Harkrader & Ross.
THE CHAIRMAN: You had expressed to Mr. Hardy that you would like to move into government or move out of the practice? Were you specific in what you wanted to do?
MS. HILL: I told him only that I was interested in pursuing something other than private practice.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, some of the activities of the Office of Civil Rights at the time were pretty controversial. We heard testimony, in fact, about the fact the office was under court order to change its practice for carrying out its duties, and some have suggested that Mr. Thomas had done an exemplary job in changing things, and some have suggested otherwise.
Did the controversy surrounding the office detract from your interest in taking this job, or did you consider it?
MS. HILL: I certainly considered it. I considered the fact that there was talk about abolishing the office. I considered all of those things, but I saw this as an opportunity to do some work that I may not get at another time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you think this was as good job?
MS. HILL: Pardon me?
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you view this as a good job, or did you view this as an intermediate step?
MS. HILL: I viewed it as a good job, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you describe for the committee your duties, initial duties when you arrived at the Department of Education, in the civil rights area? What were your duties?
MS. HILL: My duties were really special projects and special research. A lot of the special projects involved commenting on Office for Civil Rights policies, it involved doing research on education issues as they related to socioeconomic factors, and so forth.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was Judge Thomas your direct supervisor? Did you report to anyone else but Judge Thomas at the time?
MS. HILL: I reported only to Judge Thomas.
THE CHAIRMAN: So, the Department of Education, your sole immediate supervisor was Judge Thomas?
MS. HILL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And what was your title?
MS. HILL: Attorney advisor.
THE CHAIRMAN: Attorney advisor. Now, did you have reason to interact with Judge Thomas in that capacity very often during the day?
MS. HILL: We interacted regularly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you attend meetings with Judge Thomas?
MS. HILL: I would attend some meetings, but not all of the meetings that he attended.
THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you would be willing to describe to the committee what a routine work day was at that phase of your career in working with Judge Thomas.
MS. HILL: Well, it could--I am not sure there was any such thing as a routine work day. Some days I would go in, I might be asked to respond to letters that Judge Thomas had received, I might be asked to look at memos that had come from the various offices in the Office for Civil Rights.
If there was as meeting which Judge Thomas needed to attend, that he wanted someone there to take information or to help him with information, I might be asked to do that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Where was your office physically located relative to Judge Thomas' office?
MS. HILL: His office was set up down the hall from mine. Inside his set of offices, there was a desk for his secretary and then his office was behind a closed door. My office was down the hall, it was separated from his office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you describe to us how it was that you came to move over to the EEOC with Judge Thomas?
MS. HILL: Well, my understanding of--I did not have much notice that Judge Thomas was moving over to the EEOC. My understanding from him at that time was that I could go with him to the EEOC, that I did not have--since I was his special assistant, that I did not have a position at the Office for Education, but that I was welcome to go to the EEOC with him.
It was as very tough decision, because this behavior occurred. However, at the time that I went to the EEOC, there was as period-- or prior to the time we went to the EEOC, there was as period where the incidents had ceased, and so after some consideration of the job opportunities in the area, as well as the fact that I was not assured that my job at Education was going to be protected, I made a decision to move to the EEOC.
THE CHAIRMAN: Were you not assured of that, because you were a political appointee, or were you not assured of it because--tell me why you felt you weren't assured of that.
MS. HILL: Well, there were two reasons, really. One, I was a special assistant of a political appointee, and, therefore, I assumed and I was told that that position may not continue to exist. I didn't know who was going to be taking over the position. I had not been interviewed to become the special assistant of the new individual, so I assumed they would want to hire their own, as Judge Thomas had done.
In addition, the Department of Education at that time was scheduled to be abolished. There had been a lot of talk about it, and at that time it was truly considered to be on its way out, and so, for a second reason, I could not be certain that I would have a position there.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, when you moved over to EEOC, can you recall for us, to the best of your ability, how that offer came about? Did you inquire of Judge Thomas whether or not you could go to EEOC? Did he suggest it? Do you recall?
MS. HILL: I recall that when the appointment at the EEOC became firm, that I was called into his office, and I believe Diane Holt was there, too, and--
THE CHAIRMAN: Diane Holt, his personal secretary?
MS. HILL: Diane Holt was his secretary at Education. We were there and he made the announcement about the appointment and assured us that we could go to the EEOC with him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, when you went to EEOC, what were your duties there at EEOC?
MS. HILL: Well, my duties were really varied, because it was a much larger organization, there were so many more functions of the organization, my primary duties were to be the liaison to the Office of Congressional Affairs and the Office or Review and Appeals, so that I reviewed a number of the cases that came up on appeal, to make certain our office had given proper consideration, I acted as a liaison to the press sometimes for the Chairman's office, through Congressional Affairs and Public Relations. I had some additional responsibilities as special projects came along.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you have as much occasion to interact personally with Judge Thomas at EEOC as you had with him at the Department of Education?
MS. HILL: No, no. We were much busier. We were all much busier and the work that we did was work that did not necessarily require as much interaction. A lot of times, at the Education Department, the work required some--there were policy decisions that were to be made and we were trying to do an evaluation of the program, so there was more interaction at that time. At EEOC, there were just projects that had to get out, and so there was less of an opportunity for interaction.
THE CHAIRMAN: Who was your immediate supervisor at EEOC?
MS. HILL: At the EEOC, initially, Clarence Thomas was my immediate supervisor. After a period, Allyson Duncan was appointed to be the Director of the staff. Initially, the staff consisted of two special assistants, myself and Carleton Stewart. The staff eventually grew to a larger number of assistants, and Allyson Duncan was brought up from the Legal Counsel's Office to take control of that situation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, how long were you at EEOC with Judge Thomas before Allyson Duncan became the chief of staff?
MS. HILL: I don't recall.
THE CHAIRMAN: Once she became the chief of staff, was she the person who gave you assignments most often and to whom you reported most often?
MS. HILL: That's right. Occasionally, at the staff meeting assignments would be given out, but that was held only one day a week, so during the rest of the week when things came up, Allyson was in charge of giving out assignments.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, did the Judge's chief of staff report directly to him, or did she have an intermediate supervisor?
MS. HILL: No, she reported directly to him, as I understand.
THE CHAIRMAN: Who prepared your performance evaluation?
MS. HILL: I understood that Judge Thomas prepared the performance evaluations.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did the chief of staff, to the best of your knowledge, have the power to fire you?
MS. HILL: Not to my knowledge.
THE CHAIRMAN: Who had that power?
MS. HILL: Judge Thomas.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was there anyone else at EEOC that you believe possessed that power?
MS. HILL: No, not for that office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was Judge Thomas still then your ultimate boss and the boss of the entire office?
MS. HILL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, was there any routine work day at EEOC that you could describe for the committee?
MS. HILL: Actually, most of the work that we did, unlike at Education, most of the work was responding to internal memos, instead of responding to things that had come from outside. There were many more of those, because there were many more offices, and so each of us were responsible for a certain area, would respond to a memo or write up a memo to be sent to the Chairman for his response.
We also had hearings and there was always a special assistant who was assigned to sit in the Commission hearings, and so some days, if we were having hearings, well, one of the special assistants--very often it was me--would sit in the hearing to provide the Chairman with information.
During the days of the week that we were not having hearings, we had to prepare the Chairman for the hearings themselves, so that we had to go through the files on the hearings and the records and brief the Chairman on those or write memos that briefed the Chairman on them.
THE CHAIRMAN: Professor, you have testified that you had regular contact with Judge Thomas at the Department of Education and you have just described the extent of your contact with Judge Thomas at EEOC, and you have described your professional interaction with him.
Now, I must ask you now to describe once again, and more fully, the behavior that you have alleged he engaged in while your boss which you say went beyond the professional conventions and were unwelcome to you. Now, I know these are difficult to discuss, but you must understand that we have to ask you about them.
Professor, did some of the attempts at conversation you have described in your opening statement occur in your office or in his office?
MS. HILL: Some occurred in his office, some comments were made in mine. Most often they were in his office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did all of the behavior that you have described to us in your written statement to the committee and your oral statement now and what you have said to the FBI, did all of that behavior take place at work?
MS. HILL: Yes, it did.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, I would like you to go back--
MS. HILL: Let me clarify that. If you are including a luncheon during the workday to be at work, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am just trying to determine, it was what you described and what you believe to be part of the workday?
MS. HILL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, I have to ask you where did each of these events occur? If you can, to the best of your ability, I would like you to recount for us where each of the allegations that you have mentioned in your opening statement, each of the incidents occurred, physically where they occurred.
MS. HILL: Well, I remember two occasions these incidents occurred at lunch in the cafeteria--
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you remember which of those two incidents were at lunch, professor?
MS. HILL: The--
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask this, as an antecedent question: Were you always alone when the alleged conversations would begin or the alleged statements by Judge Thomas would begin?
MS. HILL: Well, when the incidents occurred in the cafeteria, we were not alone. There were other people in the cafeteria, but because the way the tables were, there were few individuals who were within the immediate area of the conversation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those incidents that occurred other than in the cafeteria, those incidents occurred in his office. Can you tell me what incidents occurred, of the ones you described to us, occurred in his office?
MS. HILL: Well, I recall specifically that the incident about the Coke can occurred in his office at the EEOC.
THE CHAIRMAN: And what was that incident again?
MS. HILL: The incident with regard to the Coke can, that statement?
THE CHAIRMAN: Once again for me, please?
MS. HILL: The incident involved his going to his desk, getting up from a work table, going to his desk, looking at this can and saying, "Who put public hair on my coke?"
THE CHAIRMAN: Was anyone else in his office at the time?
MS. HILL: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was the door closed?
MS. HILL: I don't recall.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other incidents that occurred in his office?
MS. HILL: I recall at least one instance in his office at the EEOC where he discussed some pornographic material and he brought up the substance or the content of pornographic material.
THE CHAIRMAN: Again, it is difficult, but for the record, what substance did he bring up in this instance in EEOC in his office? What was the content of what he said?
MS. HILL: This was a reference to an individual who had a very large penis and he used the name that he had referred to in the pornographic material--
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you recall what it was?
MS. HILL: Yes, I do. The name that was referred to was Long John Silver.
THE CHAIRMAN: Were you working on any matter in that context, or were you just called into the office? Do you remember the circumstances of you being in the office on that occasion?
MS. HILL: Very often, I went in to report on memos that I had written. I'm sure that's why I was in the office. What happened generally was that I would write a note to Clarence Thomas and he would call me in to talk about what I had written to him, and I believe that's what happened on that occasion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let's go back to the first time that you alleged Judge Thomas indicated he had more than a professional interest in you. Do you recall what the first time was and, with as much precision as you can, what he said to you?
MS. HILL: As I recall, it either happened at lunch or it happened in his office when he said to me, very casually, you are to go out with me some time.
THE CHAIRMAN: You ought to or you are to?
MS. HILL: You ought to.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was that the extent of that incident?
MS. HILL: That was the extent of that incident. At that incident, I declined and at that incident I think he may have said something about, you know, he didn't understand why I didn't want to go out with him, and the conversation may have ended.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you describe for the committee how you felt at that time when he asked you out? What was your reaction?
MS. HILL: Well, my reaction at that time was a little surprised, because I had no indicated to him in any way that I knew that I was interested in dating him. We had developed a good working relationship, it was cordial and it was very comfortable, so I was surprised that he was interested in something else.
THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to the other incidents--and my time is running down, and I will come back to them--but with regard to the other incidents that you mentioned in your opening statement, can you tell us how you felt at the time? Were you uncomfortable, were you embarrassed, did it not concern you? How did you feel about it?
MS. HILL: The pressure to go out with him I felt embarrassed about because I had given him an explanation, that I thought it was not good for me, as an employee, working directly for him, to go out. I thought he did not take seriously my decision to say, no, and that he did not respect my having said, no, to him.
I--the conversations about sex, I was much more embarrassed and humiliated by. The two combined really made me feel sort of helpless in a job situation because I really wanted to do the work that I was doing, I enjoyed that work. But I felt that that was being put in jeopardy by the other things that were going on in the office. And so, I was really, really very troubled by it and distressed over it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you tell the committee what was the most embarrassing of all the incidents that you have alleged?
MS. HILL: I think the one that was the most embarrassing was this discussion of pornography involving women with large breasts and engaged in a variety of sex with different people, or animals. That was the thing that embarrassed me the most and made me feel the most humiliated.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you can, in his words--not yours--in his words, can you tell us what, on that occasion, he said to you? You have described the essence of the conversation. In order for us to determine--well, can you tell us, in his words, what he said?
MS. HILL: I really cannot quote him verbatim. I can remember something like, you really ought to see these films that I have seen or this material that I have seen. This woman has this kind of breasts or breasts that measure this size, and they got her in there with all kinds of things, she is doing all kinds of different sex acts. And, you know, that kind of, those were the kinds of words. Where he expressed his enjoyment of it, and seemed to try to encourage me to enjoy that kind of material, as well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did he indicate why he thought you should see this material?
MS. HILL: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Why do you think, what was your reaction, why do you think he was saying these things to you?
MS. HILL: Well, coupled with the pressures about going out with him, I felt that implicit in this discussion about sex was the offer to have sex with him, not just to go out with him. There was never any explicit thing about going out to dinner or going to a particular concert or movie, it was, "we ought to go out" and given his other conversations I took that to mean, we ought to have sex or we ought to look at these pornographic movies together.
THE CHAIRMAN: Professor, at your press conference, one of your press conferences, you said that the issues that you raised about Judge Thomas, you referred to as "an ugly issue". Is that how you viewed these conversations?
MS. HILL: Yes. They were very ugly. They were very dirty. They were disgusting.
THE CHAIRMAN: Were any one of these conversations--this will be my last question, my time is up--were any one of these conversations other than being asked to go out, were any one of them repeated more than once? The same conversation, the reference to--
MS. HILL: The reference to his own physical attributes was repeated more than once, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, again, for the record, did he just say I have great physical attributes or was he more graphic?
MS. HILL: He was much more graphic.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you tell us what he said?
MS. HILL: Well, I can tell you that he compared his penis size, he measured his penis in terms of length, those kinds of comments.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
My time is up, under our agreement. By the way, I might state for the agreement, once again we have agreed that we will go back and forth half-hour conversation on each side, at which time when the principals finish asking questions, that members have not been designated to ask questions, since all have been keenly involved and interested in this on both sides, will have an opportunity to ask questions for five minutes.
But let me now yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter.
SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Hill, I have been asked to question you by Senator Thurmond, the ranking Republican, but I do not regard this as an adversary proceeding.
MS. HILL: Thank you.
SENATOR SPECTER: My duties run to the run to the people of Pennsylvania, who have elected me, and in the broader sense, as a United States Senator to constitutional government and the Constitution.
And my purpose, as the purpose of the hearing, generally, is to find out what happened.
MS. HILL: Certainly.
SENATOR SPECTER: We obviously have a matter of enormous importance from a lot of points of view. The integrity of the Court, it is very important that the Supreme Court not have any member who is tainted or have a cloud. In our society we can accept unfavorable decisions from the Court if we think they are fairly arrived at.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator, excuse me for interrupting but some of our colleagues on this end, cannot hear you. Can you pull that closer? I know that makes it cumbersome.
SENATOR SPECTER: I have tried that carefully to avoid that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it worked.
SENATOR SPECTER: You can hear me all right, can you not, Professor Hill?
MS. HILL: Yes, I can.
SENATOR SPECTER: Okay. But I was just saying about the importance of the Court where there should be a feeling of confidence in fairness the decisions, as we parties can take unfavorable decisions if they think they are being treated fairly. I think this hearing is very important to the Senate and to this committee, because by 20-20 hindsight we should have done this before. And obviously it is of critical importance to Judge Thomas, and you, whose reputations and careers are on the line.
It is not easy to go back to events which happened almost a decade ago to find out what happened, very, very difficult to do. I would start, Professor Hill, with one of your more recent statements, at least according to a man by the name of Carl Stewart, who says that he met you in August of this year, ran into you at the American Bar Association Convention in Atlanta, where Professor Hill stated to me in the presence of Stanley Grayson, "How great Clarence's nomination was, and how much he deserved it."
We went on to discuss Judge Thomas and our tenure at EEOC for an additional 30 minutes or so. There was no mention of sexual harassment or anything negative about Judge Thomas, he stated during that conversation and there is a statement from Stanley Grayson corroborating what Carlton Stewart has said.
My question is, did Mr. Stewart accurately state what happened with you at that meeting?
MS. HILL: As I recall at that meeting, I did see Carlton Stewart and we did discuss the nomination. Carlton Stewart was very excited about the nomination. And said, I believe that those are his words, how great it was that Clarence Thomas had been nominated. I only said that it was a great opportunity for Clarence Thomas. I did not say that it was a good thing, this nomination was a good thing.
I might add that I have spoken to newspaper reporters and have gone on record as saying that I have some doubts and some questions about the nomination. I, however, in that conversation where I was faced with an individual who was elated about the probabilities of his friend being on the Supreme Court, I did not want to insult him or argue with him at that time about the issue. I was very passive in the conversation.
SENATOR SPECTER: Excuse me?
MS. HILL: I was very passive in the conversation.
SENATOR SPECTER: So that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Grayson are simply wrong when they say, and this is a quotation from Mr. Stewart that you said, specifically, "how great his nomination was, and how much he deserved it." They are just wrong?
MS. HILL: The latter part is certainly wrong. I did say that it is a great opportunity for Clarence Thomas. I did not say that he deserved it.
SENATOR SPECTER: We have a statement from former dean of Oral Roberts Law School, Roger Tuttle, who quotes you as saying that, laudatory comments about Judge Thomas, "is a fine man and an excellent legal scholar." In the course of three years when Dean Tuttle knew you at the law school, that you had always praised him and had never made any derogatory comments. Is Dean Tuttle correct?
MS. HILL: During the time that I was at Oral Roberts University I realized that Charles Kothe, who was a founding dean of that school, had very high regards for Clarence Thomas. I did not risk talking in disparaging ways about Clarence Thomas at that time.
I don't recall any specific conversations about Clarence Thomas in which I said anything about his legal scholarship. I do not really know of his legal scholarship, certainly at that time.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, I can understand it if you did not say anything, but Dean Tuttle makes the specific statement. His words are, that you said, "The most laudatory comments."
MS. HILL: I have no response to that because I do not know exactly what he is saying.
SENATOR SPECTER: There is a question about Phyllis Barry who was quoted in the New York Times on October 7th, "In an interview Ms. Barry 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."
You were asked about Ms. Barry at the interview on October 9th and were reported to have said, "Well, I don't know Phyllis Barry 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. Barry together and that you knew each other very well.
MS. HILL: I would disagree with that. Ms. Barry 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 might add, that at the time that I had an active social life and that I was involved with other people.
SENATOR SPECTER: Did Ms. Anna Jenkins and Ms. J.C. Alvarez, who both have provided statements attesting to the relationship between you and Ms. Barry, a friendly one. Were Ms. Barry would have known you, were both Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Alvarez co-workers in a position to observe your relationship with Ms. Barry?
MS. HILL: They were both workers at the EEOC. I can only say that they were commenting on our relationship in the office. It was cordial and friendly. We were not unfriendly with each other, but we were not social acquaintances. We were professional acquaintances.
SENATOR SPECTER: So that when you said, Ms. Barry doesn't know me and I don't know her, you weren't referring to just that, but some intensity of knowledge?
MS. HILL: Well, this is a specific remark about my sexual interest. And I think one has to know another person very well to make those kinds of remarks unless they are very openly expressed.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, did Ms. Barry observe you and Judge Thomas together in the EEOC office?
MS. HILL: Yes, at staff meetings where she attended and at the office, yes.
SENATOR SPECTER: Let me pick up on Senator Biden's line of questioning. You referred to the "oddest episode I remember" then talked the coke incident. When you made your statement to the FBI, why was it that that was omitted if it were so strong in your mind and such an odd incident?
MS. HILL: I spoke to the FBI agent and I told them the nature of comments, and did not tell them more specifics. I referred to the specific comments that were in my statement.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, when you talked to the FBI agents, you did make specific allegations about specific sexual statements made by Judge Thomas.
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR SPECTER: So that your statement to the FBI did have specifics.
MS. HILL: Yes.
SENATOR SPECTER: And my question to you, why, if this was such an odd episode, was it not included when you talked to the FBI?
MS. HILL: I do not know.
SENATOR SPECTER: I would like you to take a look, if you would, at your own statement in the first full paragraph of page five, on the last line and ask you why that was not included in your statement to the FBI?
MS. HILL: Excuse me, my copy is not--would you refer to that passage again?
SENATOR SPECTER: Yes, of course.
Referring to page five of the statement which you provided to the committee, there is a strong allegation in the last sentence. And my question to you is, why did you not tell that to the FBI?
MS. HILL: When the FBI investigation took place I tried to answer their questions as directly as I recall. I was very uncomfortable talking to the agent about that, these incidents, I am very uncomfortable now, but I feel that it is necessary. The FBI agent told me that it was regular procedure to come back and ask for more specifics if it was necessary. And so, at that time, I did not provide all of the specifics that I could have.
SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Hill, I can understand that it is uncomfortable and I don't want to add to that, and if any of it--if there is something you want to pause about, please do.
You testified this morning, in response to Senator Biden, that the most embarrassing question involved--this is not too bad-- women's large breasts. That is a word we use all the time. That was the most embarrassing aspect of what Judge Thomas had said to you.
MS. HILL: No. The most embarrassing aspect was his description of the acts of these individuals, these women, the acts that those particular people would engage in. It wasn't just the breasts; it was the continuation of his story about what happened in those films with the people with this characteristic, physical characteristic.
SENATOR SPECTER: With the physical characteristic of--
MS. HILL: The large breasts.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, in your statement to the FBI you did refer to the films but there is no reference to the physical characteristic you describe. I don't want to attach too much weight to it, but I had thought you said that the aspect of large breasts was the aspect that concerned you, and that was missing from the statement to the FBI.
MS. HILL: I have been misunderstood. It wasn't the physical characteristic of having large breasts. It was the description of the acts that this person with this characteristic would do, the act that they would engage in, group acts with animals, things of that nature involving women.
SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Hill, I would like you now to turn to page 3 of your statement that you submitted to the committee, that we got just this morning. In the last sentence in the first full paragraph, you again make in that statement a very serious allegation as to Judge Thomas, and I would as you why you didn't tell the FBI about that when they interviewed you.
MS. HILL: I suppose my response would be the same. I did not tell the FBI all of the information. The FBI agent made clear that if I were embarrassed about talking about something, that I could decline to discuss things that were too embarrassing, but that I could provide as much information as I felt comfortable with at that time.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, now, did you decline to discuss with the FBI anything on the grounds that it was too embarrassing?
MS. HILL: There were no particular questions that were asked. He asked me to describe the kinds of incidents that had occurred as graphically as I could without being embarrassed. I did not explain everything. I agree that all of this was not disclosed in the FBI investigation.
SENATOR SPECTER: Was it easier for you because one of the FBI agents was a woman, or did you ask at any time that you give the statements to her alone in the absence of the man FBI agent?
MS. HILL: No, I did not do that. I didn't ask to disclose. I just--I did not.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, I understand from what you are saying now that you were told that you didn't have to say anything if it was too embarrassing for you, but my question to you is, did you use that at any point to decline to give any information on the ground that it was too embarrassing?
MS. HILL: I never declined to answer a question because it was too embarrassing, no. He asked me to describe the incidents, and rather than decline to make any statement at all, I described them to my level of comfort.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, you described a fair number of things in the FBI statement, but I come back now to the last sentence on page three in the first full paragraph, because it is a strong allegation, and now you have said that you had not omitted that because of its being embarrassing or you might have said even something embarrassing to the female agent. My question to you is, why was that omitted?
MS. HILL: Senator, at the time of the FBI investigation, I cooperated as fully as I could at that time, and I cannot explain why anything in specific was not stated.
SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Hill, you testified that you drew an inference that Judge Thomas might want you to look at pornographic films, but you told the FBI specifically that he never asked you to watch the films. Is that correct?
MS. HILL: He never said, "Let's go to my apartment and watch films," or "go to my house and watch films." He did say, "You ought to see this material."
SENATOR SPECTER: But when you testified that, as I wrote it down, "We ought to look at pornographic movies together," that was an expression of what was in your mind when he--
MS. HILL: That was the inference that I drew, yes.
SENATOR SPECTER: The inference, so he--
MS. HILL: With his pressing me for social engagements, yes.
SENATOR SPECTER: That that was something he might have wanted you to do, but the fact is, flatly, he never asked you to look at pornographic movies with him.
MS. HILL: With him? No, he did not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Senator yield for one moment for a point of clarification?
SENATOR SPECTER: I would rather not.
THE CHAIRMAN: To determine whether or not the witness ever saw the FBI report. Does she know what was stated by the FBI about her comments?
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am asking her about what she said to the FBI.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand. I am just asking that.
Have you ever seen the FBI report?
MS. HILL: No, I have not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to take a few moments and look at it now?
MS. HILL: Yes, I would.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's make a copy of the FBI report. I think we have to be careful. Senator Grassley asked me to make sure it doesn't pertain--maybe you could continue--only as it pertains to her. We are not at liberty to give to her what the FBI said about other individuals.
SENATOR SPECTER: I was asking Professor Hill about the FBI report.
Obviously because the portion I am questioning you about relates to their recording what you said, and I think it is fair, one lawyer to another, to ask about it.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, I would continue, because you are not asking her directly. I just wanted to know whether or not her responses were at all based upon her knowledge of what the FBI said she said. That is all I was asking.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, she has asked to see it, and I think it is a fair request, and I would be glad to take a moment's delay to--
THE CHAIRMAN: This is the FBI report as it references Professor Hill, only Professor Hill.
SENATOR SPECTER: May we stop the clock, Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we will. We will turn the clock back and give the Senator additional time. I will not ask how long to turn it back. I will leave that decision to Senator Simpson.
SENATOR SIMPSON: I will be watching the clock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Pause.]
THE CHAIRMAN: That was not to hurry you along, Professor. That was to ask for silence in the room.
The only point I wish to make is that you know what is in the report and understand the report is a summary of your conversation, not a transcription of your conversation.
[Pause.]
THE CHAIRMAN: While we have this momentary break, the Senator has 10 or more minutes remaining, and at the conclusion of his questioning we will recess for lunch for an hour and then begin with Senator Leahy.
SENATOR LEAHY: At what time?
THE CHAIRMAN: Whatever, an hour from the time we end.
SENATOR LEAHY: I see. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that part. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Have you had a chance to peruse it?
MS. HILL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MS. HILL: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now I apologize to my colleague for the interruption.
SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Hill, now that you have read the FBI report, you can see that it contains no reference to any mention of Judge Thomas' private parts or sexual prowess or size, et cetera, and my question to you would be, on something that is as important as it is in your written testimony and in your responses to Senator Biden, why didn't you tell the FBI about that?
MS. HILL: Senator, in paragraph 2 on page 2 of the report it says that he liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex. And I am not sure what all that summarizes, but his sexual prowess, his sexual preferences, could have--
SENATOR SPECTER: Which line are you referring to, Professor?
MS. HILL: The very last line in paragraph 2 of page 2.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, that says--and this is not too bad, I can read it--"Thomas liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex." Now are you saying, in response to my question as to why you didn't tell the FBI about the size of his private parts and his sexual prowess and "Long John Silver," that that information was comprehended within the statement, "Thomas liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex"?
MS. HILL: I am not saying that that information was included in that. I don't know that it was. I don't believe that I even mentioned the latter information to the FBI agent, and I could only respond again that at the time of the investigation I tried to cooperate as fully as I could, to recall information to answer the questions that they asked.
SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Hill, you said that you took it to mean that Judge Thomas wanted to have sex with you, but in fact he never did ask you to have sex, correct?
MS. HILL: No, he did not ask me to have sex. He did continually pressure me to go out with him, continually, and he would not accept my explanation as being valid.
SENATOR SPECTER: So that when you said you took it to mean, "We ought to have sex," that that was an inference that you drew?
MS. HILL: Yes, yes.
SENATOR SPECTER: 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?
MS. HILL: I do not recall. I guess--did I say that? I don't understand who said what in that quotation.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, let me go on. He said, "Keith Henderson, a 10-year friend of Hill and former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer, says Hill was advised by Senate staffers that her charge would be kept secret and her name kept from public scrutiny."
"They would," apparently referring again to Mr. Henderson's statement, "they would approach Judge Thomas with the information and he would withdraw and not turn this into a big story, Henderson says."
Did anybody ever tell you that, by providing the statement, that there would be a move to request Judge Thomas to withdraw his nomination?
MS. HILL: I don't recall any story about pressing, using this to press anyone.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, do you recall anything at all about anything related to that?
MS. HILL: I think that I was told that my statement would be shown to Judge Thomas, and I agreed to that.
SENATOR SPECTER: But was there any suggestion, however slight, that the statement with these serious charges would result in a withdrawal so that it wouldn't have to be necessary for your identity to be known or for you to come forward under circumstances like these?
MS. HILL: There was--no, not that I recall. I don't recall anything being said about him being pressed to resign.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, this would only have happened in the course of the past month or so, because all this started just in early September.
MS. HILL: I understand.
SENATOR SPECTER: So that when you say you don't recall, I would ask you to search your memory on this point, and perhaps we might begin--and this is an important subject--about the initiation of this entire matter with respect to the Senate staffers who talked to you. But that is going to be too long for the few minutes that I have left, so I would just ask you once again, and you say you don't recollect, whether there was anything at all said to you by anyone that, as USA Today reports, that just by having the allegations of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas, that it would be the instrument that "quietly and behind the scenes" would force him to withdraw his name. Anything related to that in any way whatsoever?
MS. HILL: The only thing that I can think of, and if you will check, there were a lot of phone conversations. We were discussing this matter very carefully, and at some point there might have been a conversation about what might happen.
SENATOR SPECTER: Might have been?
MS. HILL: There might have been, but that wasn't--I don't remember this specific kind of comment about "quietly and behind the scenes" pressing him to withdraw.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, aside from "quietly and behind the scenes" pressing him to withdraw, any suggestion that just the charges themselves, in writing, would result in Judge Thomas withdrawing, going away?
MS. HILL: No, no. I don't recall that at all, no.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, you started to say that there might have been some conversation, and it seemed to me--
MS. HILL: There might have been some conversation about what could possibly occur.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, tell me about that conversation.
MS. HILL: Well, I can't really tell you any more than what I have said. I discussed what the alternatives were, what might happen with this affidavit that I submitted. We talked about the possibility of the Senate committee coming back for more information. We talked about the possibility of the FBI, asking, going to the FBI and getting more information; some questions from individual Senators. I just, the statement that you are referring to, I really can't verify.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, when you talk about the Senate coming back for more information or the FBI coming back for more information or Senators coming back for more information, that has nothing to do at all with Judge Thomas withdrawing, so that when you testified a few moments ago that there might possibly have been a conversation, in response to my question about a possible withdrawal, I would press you on that, Professor Hill, in this context: You have testified with some specificity about what happened 10 years ago. I would ask you to press your recollection as to what happened within the last month.
MS. HILL: And I have done that, Senator, and I don't recall that comment. I do recall that there might have been some suggestion that if the FBI did the investigation, that the Senate might get involved, that there may be--that a number of things might occur, but I really, I have to be honest with you, I cannot verify the statement that you are asking me to verify. There is not really more that I can tell you on that.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, when you say a number of things might occur, what sort of things?
MS. HILL: May I just add this one thing?
SENATOR SPECTER: Sure.
MS. HILL: The nature of that kind of conversation that you are talking about is very different from the nature of the conversation that I recall. The conversations that I recall were much more vivid. They were more explicit. The conversations that I have had with the staff over the last few days in particular have become much more blurry, but these are vivid events that I recall from even eight years ago when they happened, and they are going to stand out much more in my mind than a telephone conversation. They were one-on-one, personal conversations, as a matter of fact, and that adds to why they are much more easily recalled. I am sure that there are some comments that I do not recall the exact nature of from that period, as well, but these that are here are the ones that I do recall.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, Professor Hill, I can understand why you say that these comments, alleged comments, would stand out in your mind, and we have gone over those. I don't want to go over them again. But when you talk about the withdrawal of a Supreme Court nominee, you are talking about something that is very, very vivid, stark, and you are talking about something that occurred within the past four or five weeks, and my question goes to a very dramatic and important event. If a mere allegation would pressure a nominee to withdraw from the Supreme Court, I would suggest to you that that is not something that wouldn't stick in a mind for four or five weeks, if it happened.
MS. HILL: Well, Senator, I would suggest to you that for me these are more than mere allegations, so that if that comment were made--these are the truth to me, these comments are the truth to me--and if it were made, then I may not respond to it in the same way that you do.
SENATOR SPECTER: Well, I am not questioning your statement when I use the word "allegation" to refer to 10 years ago. I just don't want to talk about it as a fact because so far that is something we have to decide, so I am not stressing that aspect of the question. I do with respect to the time period, but the point that I would come back to for just one more minute would be--well, let me ask it to you this way.
MS. HILL: Okay.
SENATOR SPECTER: Would you not consider it a matter of real importance if someone said to you, "Professor, you won't have to go public. Your name won't have to be disclosed. You won't have to do anything. Just sign the affidavit and this," as the USA Today report, would be the instrument that "quietly and behind the scenes" would force him to withdraw his name. Now I am not asking you whether it happened. I am asking you now only, if it did happen, whether that would be the kind of a statement to you which would be important and impressed upon you, that you would remember in the course of four or five weeks.
MS. HILL: I don't recall a specific statement, and I cannot say whether that comment would have stuck in my mind. I really cannot say that.
SENATOR SPECTER: The sequence with the staffers is very involved, so I am going to move to another subject now, but I want to come back to this. Over the luncheon break, I would ask you to think about it further, if there is any way you can shed any further light on that question, because I think it is an important one.
MS. HILL: Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Hill, the next subject I want to take up with you involves the kind of strong language which you say Judge Thomas used in a very unique setting, where there you have the Chairman of the EEOC, the Nation's chief law enforcement officer on sexual harassment, and here you have a lawyer who is an expert in this field, later goes on to teach civil rights and has a dedication to making sure that women are not discriminated against. And if you take the single issue of discrimination against women, the Chairman of the EEOC has a more important role on that question even than a Supreme Court justice--a Supreme Court justice is a more important position overall, but if you focus just on sexual harassment.
The testimony that you described here today depicts a circumstance where the Chairman of the EEOC is blatant, as you describe it, and my question is: Understanding the fact that you are 25 and that you are shortly out of law school and the pressures that exist in this world--and I know about it to a fair extent, I used to be a district attorney and I know about sexual harassment and discrimination against women and I think I have some sensitivity on it--but even considering all of that, given your own expert standing and the fact that here you have the chief law enforcement officer of the country on this subject and the whole purpose of the civil right law is being perverted right in the office of the Chairman with one of his own female subordinates, what went through your mind, if anything, on whether you ought to come forward at that stage, because if you had, you would have stopped this man from being head of the EEOC perhaps for another decade? What went on through your mind? I know you decided not to make a complaint, but did you give that any consideration, and, if so, how could you allow this kind of reprehensible conduct to go on right in the headquarters, without doing something about it?
MS. HILL: Well, it was a very trying and difficult decision for me not to say anything further. I can only say that when I made the decision to just withdraw from the situation and not press as claim or charge against him, that I may have shirked a duty, a responsibility that I had, and to that extent I confess that I am very sorry that I did not do something or say something, but at the time that was my best judgment. Maybe it was as poor judgment, but it wasn't a dishonest and it wasn't a completely unreasonable choice that I made, given the circumstances.
SENATOR SPECTER: My right light is on. Thank you very much, Professor Hill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Professor Hill.
We will adjourn until 2:15. We will reconvene at 2:15.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:15 p.m., the same day.]