Helga Benson      
Fall 1994
Paper
   

The Inconsistencies of Anita Hill's Testimony

The testimony which Anita Hill gave to the Senate Judiciary
Council in October 1991, contained several alarming
inconsistencies.  These inconsistencies range from conflicts
between her testimony and her actions to a flat out change 
of testimony.  According to Jacob Cohen (1993, p. 47), " Ms. Hill
has lied over and over, in small ways and large, and
therefore...she lied egregeriously about the dirty talk, thereby
activating an already latent conspiracy against Thomas, in order to
keep him off the Supreme court."  The inconsistencies in her
testimony serve to raise doubts about the credibility of Anita
Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas. 
Professor Hill went to lengths to describe the type of
harassment that allegedly occurred during her career at the Office
of Education.  Yet, when Thomas was offered a position at the EEOC,
Anita Hill readily agreed to follow him there, despite the fact
that she had tried "eliminating opportunities to engage in extended
conversations [with Thomas]" (Hill, 1991).  It would seem that
Thomas' departure from the Office of Education would be the perfect
opportunity for Hill to escape the torment she was allegedly
experiencing.  Yet, she followed him to become his assistant at the
EEOC.

According to Hill, this transition was made because she "had
no alternative job.  While [she] might have gone back to private
practice, perhaps in [her] old firm or another, [she] was dedicated
to civil rights work and [her] first choice was to be in that
field" (Hill, 1991).  However, in the face of harassment that had 
allegedly occurred, other options were open. Senator Orrin Hatch
suggests several options she could have taken, rather than moving
with Thomas.

If she was uncertain about her ability to stay at the
Department of Education, why didn't she make any inquiry with the
designated replacement of Thomas, who came on board while she was
still there?...If she didn't want to talk to that designated
replacement, then  why didn't she call anyone in the personnel
office or anywhere else...to  find out what her rights were at the
Department of Education?  (Hatch, 1991).

In her testimony, Professor Hill mentioned that after she left
EEOC to teach at Oral Roberts University, she "had minimal contact
with Judge Clarence Thomas" (Hill, 1991).  However, telephone logs
show that Anita Hill had called Judge Thomas eleven times.
According to Senator Arlen Specter (1991), "There were a series of
calls which Professor Hill had made to Judge Thomas, and she
initially denied having made the calls.  And then, when confronted
with the telephone logs, she conceded that, in fact she had made
the calls."  This is a disturbing change of testimony on Hill's
part.  If she lied about her calls to Thomas, how can she be
trusted to tell the truth about other aspects of the case?

In Hill's testimony, she states, "I felt I had a duty to
report...I felt that I had to tell the truth" (Hill, 1991).  It
seems strange that she didn't feel the duty to report the
harassment ten years ago, when the events reportedly occurred.  In
the words of Senator Hatch (1991), "Why did she wait ten years 
and why should it suddenly arise on the weekend before the final
vote was to take place?" 

Another troubling aspect of Hill's testimony is the fact that
it contains several startling similarities to other things.  In her
statement to the Senate, Hill comments, "He [Thomas] got up from
the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get
the Coke, looked at the can and asked, 'Who has pubic hair on my
Coke?'" (Hill, 1991).  Upon hearing this, Senator Hatch  "held up
a copy of the Exorcist and began reading, 'Oh Burk, sighed Sharon. 
In a guarded tone, she described an encounter between the Senator
and the director.  Dennings had remarked to him, in passing, said
Sharon, that there appeared to be an alien pubic hair floating
around in my gin'" (Brock, 1993, p. 353).  The similarity between
the passage and the statement is surprising.  

An even closer similarity is that between Hill's case and
Carter v. Sedgwick County, Kansas, a case tried in 1988.  In this
case, Ms. Carter charged Sedgwick County with racial and sexual
harassment.  The case was tried successfully for Ms. Carter. 
According to Brock (1993, p. 353), "Hill also testified that Thomas
had discussed with her a film 'depicting an individual with a large
penis,' whom she identified as Long Dong Silver."  According to an
article published in the Kansas City Star, Ms. Carter claimed that
"supervisors harassed her by, among other things, pinning up a
photo of the porn star [Long Dong Silver] and placing a plastic
phallus on her pop can.  Carter said she was surprised by the
similarities when Hill started building her case.  'The more I
heard, the more I thought her case was similar to mine,' she said"
(Brock, 1993, p. 354).  

It is highly likely that Anita Hill, "could have easily come
across this case from the judicial circuit that included Oklahoma,
where she taught" (Brock, 1993).  And, seeing the amazing
similarities, not only about Long Dong Silver, but about 
the pop can as well, it would seem likely that Hill could have
easily borrowed information from this successful sexual harrassment
case, to make her own seem more believable.

The consequences of Anita Hill's testimony were amazing.  It
clouded the reputation of a man who had been highly regarded and
respected.  It raised the awareness of an entire country about the
horrors of sexual harassment.  Yet, if there are so many
inconsistencies in Ms. Hill's testimony, how can we be so sure she
was telling the truth?  If she lied about certain aspects of the
case, such as the telephone logs, how can we know that she was not
lying about the other aspects of the case? We as spectators of this
dramatic case which is yet unfolding may never know the whole
truth.  All we can do is look at all sides of the story, keeping in
mind the shortcomings of Hill's testimony, and decide for
ourselves.


References

Brock, David. (1993). The real Anita Hill: the untold story. New
York: Free Press.

Cohen, Jacob. (1993). Truth and consequences. National Review, 45,
47-50.

Hatch, Orrin. (1991). Remarks of Senator Orrin Hatch during senate
debate on the nomination of Judge Thomas to be an associate Justice
of the Supreme Court. Black binder.

Hill, Anita. (1991). Statement of Professor Anita J. Hill to the
Senate Judiciary Comittee. Black binder.

Specter, Arlen. (1991). Remarks of Senator Arlen Specter during
senate debate on the nomination of Judge Thomas to be an associate
Justice of the Supreme Court. Black binder.