I am attaching the lengthy, but fascinating, written transcripts of both Anita Hill’s testimony and Clarence Thomas’s rebuttal.
After you have read Ch. 7 and understood how “framing” can be used in persuasion:
– Read those transcripts.
– Then, analyze the transcripts, especially in relation to Ch. 7, but feel free to include connections with Chapter 6, as well.
Specific Instructions: Your analysis should be typed in Times New Roman 12-point, double-spaced, in proper essay format, and proofread. Where you quote the textbook OR the transcript, be sure to cite and use quotation marks, etc. Do NOT search for any other sources of information related to Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas (no google searches, internet material, classmates, etc.). For this assignment, you’ll have all you need in the textbook and the transcripts to make fine connections!
The assignment is to conduct an analysis essay, using the key concepts in chapter 7 and relating them to Anita Hill’s testimony and Clarence Thomas’s Rebuttal. The ONLY sources you are using are the ones provided – ONLY SOURCE THE ones provided. USE quotations of each.
This is chapter 7: Metaphors as Frames
Frames typically derive their power from one or more metaphors. Like its close cousin the sim-ile, a metaphor is a comparison of sorts, a way of seeing one thing in terms of something else (Burke, 1945/1969). Metaphors are non-literal comparisons, however, and for that reason they tend to be more powerful than simile expressions. In the hands of a creator of metaphors, for example, “love” is not “like a red, red rose”: it becomes a red, red rose. Some metaphors serve only to add force or drama or life to a description (screaming headlines, yellow journalism), but others serve also as framing devices by which to direct or redirect thought on a matter.
For each of us, there exist areas where metaphors work to frame how we experience life, involving things such as government, politics, corporations, and the law. What is perhaps most interesting about the frames in these areas is how taken for granted they are. We generally don’t even notice them, and they thereby often exercise persuasive power over us without our noticing it has hap pened. The following examples help to put the usefulness of metaphors in persuasion in context. An issue frame takes an ambiguous situation and applies a frame to define it. Often, framers using this style of discourse begin by saying “The issue is…” hinting that what follow wil be objective reality. This category of framing is persuasive in that it limits the scope of the discourse; it prescribes what can be said.
A final category of frame is the meta frame. This category of framing transforms the waya message is understood. The catfish metaphor presented earlier, as used by the attorney for the small company, exemplifies this configuration, as does the Clarence Thomas case study that will come later in the chapter. “Frames” as Metaphors
Paradoxically, just as metaphors are frames, so the term frame, when applied to language, is itself metaphorical. The metaphor of a linguistic frame is at least partially visual, conjuring up images of the way the subject in a photo is “framed” (a president photographed in his office with the American flag behind him versus that same president in a photo with his family), frames in a motion picture (e.g., a battle between cowboys and Indians, first seen from the perspective of the cowboys, then from the perspective of the Indians), building frames (ver-bal “constructions”) and picture frames (e.g., gilt edged versus unadorned). Just as there are frames around pictures, so may there be talk about frames as frames of frames.
Frames do not come in a “one size fits all” container, though. Different types of frames do different work. In any prolonged dispute, we should be able to identify a variety of types of framing/reframing.
One category of frames is an argument frame. For example, when the pessimist and the optimist argue about whether the glass is half full or half empty, they are debating one reality, but seeing it differently. Or, when the American ambassador to the United Nations says that France’s threat of a veto has made the United Nations “irrelevant,” the French ambassador says “Au contraire,” arguing instead that France’s veto threat has helped to make the U.N. “rel-evant” for the first time in many years.
A perceptual frame presents the same reality, but different perspectives. This category of Traming is persuasive in that it broadens the scope of the discourse; encouraging participants to think about things in new and different ways. We need to “step outside the box” to solve the nine dot problem. The dots on the page do not change. One must see them differently, expanding ones imagination beyond the imaginary enclosures the dots suggest, to solve the problem. Cultural Frames and Verbal Repertoires
This last notion-of cultural frames is particularly interesting. On many a social or politica issue, the culture seems to supply competing aphorisms. Should the college student take a risk and go on a date with that attractive classmate who’s just transferred into the university?
Perhaps yes. After al, “nothing entured, nothing gained” and “love is all you need.” On the other hand, “love hurts,” and you should “look before you leap.”
These are just a sampling of the seemingly opposed traming expressions that pass for the coserved sense ot Western culture. They are seemingly opposed because as Billig (1987) has observed, the aphorisms don’t directly contradict one another when taken literally. Moreover, the are typically invoked selectively, as needed, to make a point or craft an image, and they
are persuasive.In this respet they are like the lines of argument that the ancient Greek and Roman rhetoricians taught would-be orators and that law schools stil teach prospective lawyers today. For example, the lawyers wishing to prove that the defendant could have murdered his wife in the time he had available could turn to Aristotle’s Rhetoric (Cooper, 1932) for lines of argument-called topoi-that can be used in establishing possibility. At the same time, Aris-totl’s Rhetoric would also provide ways to establish impossibility-for example, that the defendant’s alibi was ironclad.
People hold in their heads not just seemingly opposed aphorisms and lines of argument but entire repertoires of verbal response that they invoke, depending on what they take to be the relevant frame in a given situation. Americans are willing to support “preventing Medicare from going bankrupt by reducing the annual rate of increase in Medicare funding.” But they are strongly opposed to “cutting back on Medicare spending.” Or, they support a “culture of life” while also supporting “the death penalty.”
Americans are able to shift repertoires, especially when competing cultural myths about what it means to be an American are called into play. As reflected in decades-long controversies about taxes, affirmative action, and universal health care, Americans tend to shift between the two dominant cultural frames of “self-reliance” and “equality.” Let a politician emphasize either frame, and people tend to nod their support for it, at least until they hear another politician evoking the competing frame. The frames are not easily reconciled; thus, public opinion tends to be divided on such issues as welfare and affirmative action, with many people registering ambivalence and with pronounced shifts in expressed attitudes depending on how questions are worded or to whom they are talking or listening (Edelman,
1971; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). When efforts are made to reconcile the two frames, confusion frequently results.
Faced with challenges to their positions, proponents and opponents of affirmative action (or welfare, or government-subsidized health insurance) engage in spin control. Correspond-ingly, they reframe incoming information or opposing arguments in an effort to make them fit with their positions. Supporters of affirmative action insist that they are not opposed to self-reliance; they simply want to “help minorities help themselves.” Opponents of affirmative action declare that they are not opposed to equality, but the equality that is most truly
“American,” they insist, is “equality of opportunity.” Similarly, although opponents of affirmative action castigate it as “preferential treatment,” supporters call it “compensatory treat-ment.” Each group, meanwhile, invokes rival sayings, mottos, slogans, and catchphrases that have been woven throughout centuries into the fabric of the culture (Billig, 1987). “God helps those who help themselves,” says the champion of self-reliance. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” says the egalitarian. And so the battle of competing frames goes on.
Over the past 25 years, one of the most interesting researchers on the persuasive power of framing and metaphors is linguist George Lakoff, who developed a detailed analysis comparing and extending two competing frames. Lakoff argues that Americans metaphorically con-cive of politics and policy through the framework of the “family,” with two frames competing for attention: the strict father frame and the nurturant parent frame. The “strict father” trame emphasizes discipline and self sufficiency, where the “nurturant parent” frame focuses ontainess and cooperation (Lakoff 1996, 2004, 2006; Lakoff & Wehling, 2012). He notes that most of us are “bi conceptual” in that we engage both frames and apply them to particular parts of our lives. For example, a professor may use the strict father model with her students, expecting them to be responsible and disciplined when it comes to their school work, and at the same time use a nurturant parent model at home with her children. Metacommunication is communication about communication. Two types of metacommunica-tion are (1) reflexive and (2) responsive.
Reflexive Metacommunication
Reflexive metacommunication interprets, classifies, or comments on one’s own messages.
Much of this is done nonverbally. But consider the following response by then President Richard Nixon when a reporter asked why he held press conferences irregularly: “It’s not that I’m afraid to do it. I have to determine the best way of communicating, and also, and this will sound self-serving, and is intended to be, I have to use the press conference” [italics added] (Cohen,
1988). The reporter supplied the substantive frame: Why do you hold press conferences irregu-larly? Nixon merely stayed in frame when he answered that question directly. But he went
“meta” to himself when he said “and this will sound self-serving,” and he went “meta-meta” when he said, “and is intended to be.”
Reflexive metacommunication at the beginning of a speech or essay can be highly persuasive because it “frames” the message to come in the way that the speaker wants it to be heard.
The persuader generally classifies the message, indicating the purpose or purposes of the com-munication, previews the upcoming substantive message, and metacommunicates explicitly as well as implicitly about themselves in relation to the audience. The strategic character of these framing opportunities is revealed by comparing what is said with what could have been said.
For example, Congressman Fudge has returned to his home district to address an audience o business leaders and to consult privately with a few of them regarding what they want from him, He also wants to seek their general support for his legislative priorities. His subject is a national sales tax, which many in his audience oppose but which he is inclined to support. fudge decides he wo’t get into an open confrontation with the many sales tax opponents in his audience. Instead, he introduces his speech as a discussion of options for raising federal revenues to support needed programs.”
Rather than stating overtly that he wants the audience’s support for the tax, he says that he hends to “inform” them of recent research by his stat on revenue enhancement.” Rather than organizing his speech around the benefits of a national sales tax and the costs of not cleating one he declares that he first wants to ‘explore” alternatives with them. All these aro Hen, manauyers hat fuge esti aning about his own subsequent talk, and they work to Set the boundaries for what its into the discussion and what does not. Framing the News
News reporters may frame projections of the future as rosy or dour by the sources they cite.
Like persuaders generally, they invite consideration of some facts and not others through their use of issue frames.
“At issue” (or “the issue”) said the advocate at the decision point for invading Iraq, “is whether we can risk delay given the strong likelihood that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.” “At issue” said the opponent of invasion “is whether we can risk going into Irag when the evidence on WMDs is weak and when we have no plan for getting out of iraq once we go in.” Even as reporters strive to be “objective,” the news comes to us encased in a frame, and the frame influences what we conclude about the story. For examuse recall the news stories during the Covid-19 pandemic. Now, imagine that the United States is anticipating an outbreak of another disease that will kill 600 people. The government is planning a program to reduce the casualties and the media wants to report on the story. Researchers have found that the way the information gets framed influences whether viewers will support the governments proposal or not.
Consider these two statements:
1
2
“It Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.”
I Program B is adopted, there is a one-third arenability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved.” In fact, the statements are saying the same thing but framed differently. And when these options were tested on research subjects, 72% supported option A whereas only 28% sup~ ported option B. When a situation is framed in terms of potential gains (200 saved), it seems that people don’t want to gamble.
But now, look at these two statements:
1 “If Program A is adopted, 400 people will die.”
2 “If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die.”
In this scenario, the research outcome was reversed: 22% preferred option A, and 78% preferred option B. When a situation is framed in terms of potential losses (400 die), people are more persuaded to take risks (Tversky & Kahneman, 2004).
The point here is that, in an instance like this, there is no deliberate bias and no shading of the facts. Yet, research demonstrates that the frame that is selected matters, and influences greatly how we take in the story and are persuaded to respond to it.
Iyengar suggests that news reports can be classified (based on form of presentation) as either episodic or thematic (1991). An episodic news frame takes “the form of a case study or event-oriented report and depicts public issues in terms of concrete instances” (lyengar, 1991). The thematic news frame of the same event “places public issues in some more general or abstract context” (yengar, 1991). Thematic stories include things like reports on changes in governmental welfare expenditures or stories about the backlog in the criminal justice process. Conversely, episodic stories cover things like the bombing of an airliner or a story about an attempted murder: Such framing trends are worrisome to scholars like Bennett, who claims that the “American press is in crisis” (Bennett, 2007). We agree-the frame matters. It is troubling when framing patterns tend more toward the episodic coverage of stories and fewer stories are framed to provide analysis, context, and detail. And it is distressing when the drive for profits causes media outlets to frame the hard news as just more infotainment. The problems for journalism are vast right now, and beyond the scope of our brief analysis of how framing is present in the news.
The difference that a frame (or reframe) can make in persuading people to change their behaviors has been amply demonstrated by social psychologists (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky,
1984). Different framing tactics have been extensively studied. For instance, Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987) discovered that negatively worded messages produced greater compliance with recommendations for breast self-examinations. They found that negatively framed messages such as “Women who do not do breast self-examinations have a decreased chance of finding a tumor in the early, more treatable stage of the disease” appear to be more persua sive than one that tells women that doing breast self-examinations “have an increased chance of finding a tumor in the early, more treatable stage of the disease.” However, Levin and Gaeth
(1988) found that telling people “This beef is 75% lean” was more persuasive than saying
“This beef is 25% fat.” In their study, focusing on positive product attributes produced more
favorable ratings.
When framing a message, individuals often make a decision to focus on gain or loss in their message. Seo and Dillard (2019) explain that when the focus is on benefits, it is a
“gain-framed message.” Whereas, when the focus is on consequences of not accepting the suggestion, it is considered a “loss-framed message.” Research shows that the persuasiveness of gain framed messages versus loss-framed messages is not significant (O’Keefe & Jenson, 2006, 2007. 2008; ‘Keefe & Nan, 2012). In their research, Seo and Dillard (2019) tound that emotional imagery paired with gain framed messages (positive imagery) and loss-tramed messages (negative imagery) was more persuasive than messages without: emotional imagery.
Research has also shown that language choices frame messages to help people visualize specilic scenarios, Lottus and Palmer (1974) looked at how leading questions can influence eyewitness testimony in the courtroom. They found that using the phrase “smashed into each other” when discussing a car crash made participants estimate the cars as going taster and they were more likely to report having seen broken glass at the accident scene than. participants who were asked the question, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
Frames are ever present. To serve the public ethically, news editors and reporters should consider with care which frames they use, understanding that their choices impact the lives of the public they are called to serve. Others creating persuasive messages need to consider the benefits and consequences of types of messages presented, language used, and visual images presented.
Our decisions in framing shape the perceptions of others around a particular message. One poor framing decision can impact the view of a topic for years. Likewise, a strong framing decision can create interest and passion around a topic that can lead to personal or societal change. Reframing in Political Confrontations: “Going Meta”
Today, Clarence Thomas is known mostly as a reliably conservative justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, his path to the court was not a smooth one. During the intensely watched Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in 1991, he confronted allegations of sexual harassment from Professor Anita Hill, his former employee. Although the nomination hearings occurred over two decades ago, they are still intensely studied by scholars in many disciplines, and the issues they raised are as relevant as today’s news. Durings against Thomas in a distinctive communicative style. She engaged ought forward her charges against Thomas in a distinctive communicative style. She engaged consistently in activities that might be characterized as direct exchange-that is, she concentrated on doing what was expected of her at the hearings, according to all the explicit rules of communication and implicit “taken-for-granteds” (Hopper, 1981) for that situation. Asked a question, she answered it directly. Challenged by a follow-up to her response, she attempted to meet the challenge directly. What she did not do was “go meta.”
By contrast, in his opening statement, Thomas sought to place the hearings themselves in ques-tion: “This is not American. This is Kafkaesque. It has got to stop.” Then he let his questioners know which questions he would answer and which questions he considered out of bounds. “I am here specifically to respond to allegations of sex harassment in the workplace… I will not allow this committee or anyone else to probe into my private life” in his second statement, Thomas found new ways to castigate the hearings: a “circus,” a “national disgrace,” a “high-tech lynching.” Then he proceeded to inform the committee that he had chosen not to listen to Anita Hill’s testimony: “No I didn’t: I’ve heard enough lies.” Admonished by Democratic Senator Howell Heflin for not listening to the testimony and thus denying himself a chance to refute it, Thomas challenged Heflin’s premise: “Senator, I am incapable of proving the negative.” Only after Thomas had engineered a reframing of the committee hearings did he deign to respond directly to questions, and even then he maintained nonverbally the persona of the beleaguered victim (“Excerpts,” 1991; Thomas, 1991).
When Judge Thomas cast himself as the victim of a “high-tech lynching,” he reframed the hearings in two important respects. First, by the act of “stepping outside the circle” of question and reply, he broke from the frame of business as usual. Second, by his lynching metaphor, he placed a particular stamp on that business, a particular way of seeing it. The effect of Thomas’s metamoves was to displace attention from his own guilt or innocence to that of the Judiciary Committee. Now it was the Democratic majority’s turn to shift in their seats as Senator Heflin sought in vain to regain control of the situation. Arguably, the Democrats could have so bolstered Anita Hill’s case against Clarence Thomas during the hearings that Thomas’s later repudiation of the process would have seemed shrill, unfair, self-serving, and hypocritical. Perhaps someone among the members of the Democratic majority could have “gone meta” to Thomas’s metamoves, effectively calling them into question. Surely, Thomas and his Republican handlers had to know that “going meta” in such a confrontational way was a risky undertaking. But the Thomas forces also knew that the Democratic majority’s legitimacy had been significantly eroded in the regular hearings on Judge Thomas’s nomination, during the negotiations leading up to the Hill-Thomas hearings, and at the Hill-Thomas hearings themselves. Having observed, for example, the Democrats’ failure to come to Anita Hill’s aid in the face of withering questioning by then-Republican Senator Arlen Specter, they concluded that they could attack with impunity (Nelson, 1991).
This is not to say that Thomas’s success was foreordained. On the face of it, after all, the metaphor of a high-tech lynching hardly suited a congressional hearing peopled by supporters and not just opponents, at which the principal accuser of a conservative appellate judge was another African American. But Thomas managed rhetorically to deflect attention from the questionable logic of the metaphor, providing what television critic Walter Goodman (1991) saw as having all the earmarks of a theatrical performance. Said Goodman (1991), “He was innocent and hurt, indignant and outraged. His frequent references to family and his language-‘a living hell’-seemed to have been influenced by television melodrama.”
Judge Thomas’s undoing of the Democratic majority at the hearing, by way of biting commentaries on his situation, provides vivid illustration of the power of metamoves. In keeping with the notion of levels of communication, these are a way of going “one up” in the situation by arro. gating to oneself the role of interpreter-hence, the frequent references here to going meta. But going meta requires a rhetorical balancing act, pivoting on the high wire of perceived legitimacy.
There were reasons, after all, why Anita Hill did not go meta. Her almost exclusive reliance on direct exchange promoted an image of demure self-confidence, of politeness and a sense of pro-priety, of consideration for her interlocutors’ interests and not just her own, and of someone who had nothing to hide. Thus, meta-goers must skillfully balance the potential gains of enhancing their reputations, shaping agendas, and influencing judgments against the dangers of appearing unjustifiably intrusive, disruptive, contentious, or evasive. Meta-goers in confrontational situa tions must also weigh into the balance their relative legitimacy against that of their opponents.
“Having” legitimacy is rhetorically akin to holding the chips necessary to call or raise in a poker game. In each case, it is a matter of rights or entitlements. But calculations of legitimacy are by no means as easy as chip counting. Ultimately, legitimacy is performative, a matter noi simply of what one has but of what one can do to shape audience perceptions of what one has.
Legitimacy, then, is also subject to frame altering.
Legitimacy is also contextual. Were Judge Thomas sitting on his own bench, there would be little question of his right to deflect questions by commenting on them. Were he a teacher responding to a student or a therapist responding to a patient, he might be granted the right to provide not just any interpretation but the “authoritative” interpretation in that situation. Bur what are the rights of a Supreme Court nominee at a Judiciary Committee hearing on charges of sexual harassment? The waters were uncharted. Surely, a complex mix of counteracting factors entered into the public’s determination of Thomass rights, as they typicaly do in al political confrontations.
and here is the document: Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, Members of the Committee, my name is Anita P. Hill, and I am a Professor
of Law at the University of Oklahoma. I was born on a farm in Okmulge, Oklahoma in 1956, the 13th child, and
had my early education there. My father is Albert Hill, a farmer of that area. My mother's name is Erma Hill, she
is also a farmer and housewife. My childhood was the childhood of both work and poverty; but it was one of
solid family affection as represented by my parents religious atmosphere in the Baptist faith and I have been a
member of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tulsa since 1983. It remains a warm part of my life at the
present time.
For my undergraduate work I went to Oklahoma State University and graduated in 1977. 1 am attaching to this
statement my resume with further details of my education. I graduated from the university with academic
honors and proceeded to the Yale Law School where I received my J.D. degree in 1980.
Upon graduation from law school I became a practicing lawyer with the Washington, D.C. firm of Wald,
Harkrader & Ross. In 1981, I was introduced to now Judge Thomas by a mutual friend. Judge Thomas told me
that he anticipated a political appointment shortly and asked if I might be interested in working in that office. He
was in fact appointed as Assistant Secretary of Education, in which capacity he was the Director of the Office
for Civil Rights. After he was in that post, he asked if I would become his assistant and I did then accept that
position. In my early period, there I had two major projects. The first was an article I wrote for Judge Thomas'
signature on Education of Minority Students. The second was the organization of a seminar on high risk
students, which was abandoned because Judge Thomas transferred to the EEOC before that project was
completed.
During this period at the Department of Education, my working relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I
had a good deal of responsibility as well as independence. I thought that he respected my work and that he
trusted my judgment. After approximately three months of working together, he asked me to go out with him
socially. I declined and explained to him that I thought that it would only jeopardize what, at the time, I
considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside of the
office and, I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my
work would be ill-advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so.
I thought that by saying "no" and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions.
However, to my regret, in the following few weeks he continued to ask me out on several occasions. He
pressed me to justify my reasons for saying "no" to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They
were in the form of private conversations which would not have been overheard by anyone else.
My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to
discuss sex. On these occasions he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects
or he might suggest that because of time pressures we go to lunch at a government cafeteria. After a brief
discussion of work he would turn the conversation to discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very
vivid.
He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with
animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting
individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. On several occasions Thomas told
me graphically of his own sexual prowess.
Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all and particularly in such a graphic way,
I told him that I did not want to talk about those subjects. I would also try to change the subject to education
matters or to nonsexual personal matters such as his background or beliefs. My efforts to change the subject
were rarely successful.
Throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time-to-time asked me for social engagements. My
reactions to these conversations was to avoid having them by eliminating opportunities for us to engage in
extended conversations. This was difficult because I was his only assistant at the Office for Civil Rights. During
the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures and any conversations of this
offensive kind ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be on a proper,
cordial and professional base.
When Judge Thomas was made Chairman of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with
him. I was asked to do so. I did. The work itself was interesting and at that time it appeared that the sexual
overtures which had so troubled me had ended. I also faced the realistic fact that I had no alternative job.
While I might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm or at another, I was dedicated he in
that field. Moreover, the Department of Education itself was a dubious venture; President Reagan was seeking
to abolish the entire Department at that time.
For my first months at the EEOC, where I continued as an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual
conversations or overtures. However, during the Fall and Winter of 1982, these began again. The comments
were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal
appearance. I remember his saying that someday I would have to give him the real reason that I wouldn't go
out with him. He began to show real displeasure in his tone of voice, his demeanor and his continued pressure
for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less
sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC.
One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office.
He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can,
and said, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?" On other occasions he referred to the size of his own penis
as being larger than normal and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women
with oral sex.
At this point, late 1982, 1 began to feel severe stress on the job. I began to be concerned that Clarence
Thomas might take it out on me by downgrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought
that he might find an excuse for dismissing me.
In January of 1983, I began looking for another job. I was handicapped because I feared that if he found out,
he might make it difficult for me to find to her employment and I might be dismissed from the job I had.
Another factor that made my search more difficult was that this was a period of a government hiring freeze. In
February, 1983, 1 was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for an acute stomach pain which I
attributed to stress on the job. Once out of the hospital, I became more committed to find other employment
and sought further to minimize my contact with Thomas. This became easier when Allyson Duncan became
office director because most of my work was handled with her and I had contact with Clarence Thomas mostly
in staff meetings.
In the Spring of 1983, an opportunity to teach law at Oral Roberts University opened up. I agreed to take the
job In large part because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at the EEOC due to Thomas. When I
informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now I "would no longer have an
excuse for not going out with" him. I told him that I still preferred not to do so.
At some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of my term. When I declined,
he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed
to accept that invitation but only if it was at the very end of a workday. On, as I recall, the last day of my
employment at the EEOC in the summer of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas. We went directly
from work to a restaurant near the office. We talked about the work I had done both at Education and at EEOC.
He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that I done for him when we were
at the Office for Civil Rights. Finally, he made a comment which I vividly remember. He said that if I ever told
anyone about his behavior toward me it could ruin his career. This was not an apology nor was there any
explanation. That was his last remark about the possibility of our going out or reference to his behavior.
In July 1983, I left the Washington, D.C. area and have had minimal contact with Judge Clarence Thomas
since.
I am of course aware from the press that some question has been raised about conversations I had with Judge
Clarence Thomas after I left the EEOC. From 1983 until today I have seen Judge Clarence Thomas only
twice. On one occasion I needed to get a reference from him and on another he made a public appearance In
Tulsa. On one occasion he called me at home and we had an inconsequential conversation. On one other
occasion he called me without reaching me and I returned the call without reaching him and nothing came of it.
I have, on at least three occasions been asked to act as a conduit for others.
I knew his secretary, Diane Holt, well when I was with the EEOC. There were occasions on which I spoke to
her and on some of those occasions undoubtedly I passed on some casual comment to Thomas.
There was a series of calls in the first three months of 1985 occasioned by a group in Tulsa which wished to
have a civil rights conference; they wanted Thomas to be the speaker, and enlisted my assistance for this
purpose. I did call in January and February to no effect and finally suggested to the person directly involved,
Susan Cahall, that she put the matter back into her own hands and call directly. She did do that in March
of 1985. In connection with that March invitation to Tulsa by Ms. Cahall, which was for a seminar conference
some research was needed; I was asked to try to get the research work and did attempt to do so by a call to
Thomas. There was another call about another possible conference in July of 1985.
In August of 1987, I was in Washington and I did call Diane Holt. In the course of this conversation she asked
me how long I was going to be in town and I told her; she recorded it as August 15; it was in fact August
20. She told me about Thomas' marriage and I did say "congratulate him."
It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matter to
anyone, except my closest friends. Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life. I was aware
that he could effect my future career did not wish to burn all my bridges. I may have used poor judgment;
perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I was in the agency or after I had left it,
but I must confess to the world that the course I took seemed the better, as well as the easier approach. I
declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when Senate staff asked me about these matters, I felt that I
had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the
Committee with information which it may regard as relevant. It would have been more comfortable to remain
silent. I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I was asked by a representative of this committee to
report my experience, I felt that I had to tell the truth.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Testimony of CLARENCE THOMAS, Georgia, to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
Judge THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee: as excruciatingly difficult as
the last 2 weeks have been, I welcome the opportunity to clear my name today. No one other than my
wife and Senator Danforth, to whom I read this statement at 6:30 a.m., has seen or heard the statement, no
handlers, no advisers.
The first I learned of the allegations by Prof. Anita Hill was on September 25, 1991, when the FBI came to my
home to investigate her allegations. When informed by the FBI agent of the nature of the allegations and the
person making them, I was shocked, surprised, hurt, and enormously saddened.
I have not been the same since that day. For almost a decade my responsibilities included enforcing the rights
of victims of sexual harassment. As a boss, as a friend, and as a human being I was proud that I have never
had such an allegation leveled against me, even as I sought to promote women, and minorities into
nontraditional jobs.
In addition, several of my friends, who are women, have confided in me about the horror of harassment on the
job, or elsewhere. I thought I really understood the anguish, the fears, the doubts, the seriousness of the
matter. But since September 25, I have suffered immensely as these very serious charges were leveled
against me.
I have been wracking my brains, and eating my insides out trying to think of what I could have said or done to
Anita Hill to lead her to allege that I was interested in her in more than a professional way, and that I talked
with her about pornographic or x- rated films.
Contrary to some press reports, I categorically denied all of the allegations and denied that I ever attempted to
date Anita Hill, when first interviewed by the FBI. I strongly reaffirm that denial. Let me describe my
relationship with Anita Hill.
In 1981, after I went to the Department of Education as an Assistant Secretary in the Office of Civil Rights, one
of my closest friends, from both college and law school, Gil Hardy, brought Anita Hill to my attention.
As I remember, he indicated that she was dissatisfied with her law firm and wanted to work in Government.
Based primarily, if not solely, on Gil's recommendation, I hired Anita Hill.
During my tenure at the Department of Education, Anita Hill was an attorney-adviser who worked directly with
me. She worked on special projects, as well as day-to-day matters. As I recall, she was one of two
professionals working directly with me at the time. As a result, we worked closely on numerous matters.
I recall being pleased with her work product and the professional, but cordial relationship which we enjoyed at
work. I also recall engaging in discussions about politics and current events.
Upon my nomination to become Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Anita Hill, to the
best of my recollection,assisted me in the nomination and confirmation process. After my confirmation, she and
Diane Holt, then my secretary, joined me at EEOC. I do not recall that there was any question or doubts that
she would become a special assistant to me at EEOC, although as a career employee she retained the option
of remaining at the Department of Education.
At EEOC our relationship was more distant. And our contacts less frequent, as a result of the increased size of
my personal staff and the dramatic increase and diversity of my day-to-day responsibilities
Upon reflection, I recall that she seemed to have had some difficulty adjusting to this change in her role. In any
case, our relationship remained both cordial and professional. At no time did I become aware, either
directly or indirectly that she felt I had said, or done anything to change the cordial nature of our relationship.
I detected nothing from her or from my staff, or from Gil Hardy, our mutual friend, with whom I maintained
regular contact. I am certain that had any statement or conduct on my part been brought to my attention, I
would remember it clearly because of the nature and seriousness of such conduct, as well as my adamant
opposition to sex discrimination sexual harassment. But there were no such statements.
In the spring of 1983, Mr. Charles Cothey contacted me to speak at the law school at Oral Roberts Univelsity in
Tulsa, OK. Anita Hill, who is from Oklahoma, accompanied me on that trip. It was not unusual that individuals
on my staff would travel with me occasionally. Anita Hill accompanied me on that trip primarily because this
was an opportunity to combine business and a visit to her home.
As I recall, during our visit at Oral Roberts University, Mr. Cothey mentioned to me the possibility of
approaching Anita Hill to join the faculty at Oral Roberts University Law School. I encouraged him to do so. I
noted to him, as I recall, that Anita Hill would do well in teaching. I recommended her highly and she eventually
was offered a teaching position.
Although I did not see Anita Hill often after she left EEOC, I did see her on one or two subsequent visits to
Tulsa, OK. And on one visit I believe she drove me to the airport. I also occasionally received telephone calls
from her. She would speak directly with me or with my secretary, Diane Holt. Since Anita Hill and Diane Holt
had been with me at the Department of Education they were fairly close personally and I believe they
occasionally socialized together.
I would also hear about her through Linda Jackson, then Linda Lambert, whom both Anita Hill and I met at the
Department of Education. And I would hear of her from my friend Gil.
Throughout the time that Anita Hill worked with me I treated her as I treated my other special assistants. I tried
to treat them all cordially, professionally, and respectfully. And I tried to support them in their endeavors, and
be interested in and supportive of their success.
I had no reason or basis to believe my relationship with Anita Hill was anything but this way until the FBI visited
me a little more than 2 weeks ago. I find it particularly troubling that she never raised any hint that she was
uncomfortable with me. She did not raise or mention it when considering moving with me to EEOC from the
Department of Education. And she never raised it with me when she left EEOC and was moving on in
her life.
And to my fullest knowledge, she did not speak to any other women working with or around me, who would feel
comfortable enough to raise it with me, especially Diane Holt, to whom she seemed closest on my personal
staff. Nor did she raise it with mutual friends, such as Linda Jackson, and Gil Hardy.
This is a person I have helped at every turn in the road, since we met. She seemed to appreciate the continued
cordial relationship we had since day one. She sought my advice and counsel, as did virtually all of the
members of my personal staff.
During my tenure in the executive branch as a manager, as a policymaker, and as a person, I have adamantly
condemned sex harassment. There is no member of this committee or this Senate who feels stronger about
sex harassment than I do. As a manager, I made every effort to take swift and decisive action when sex
harassment raised or reared its ugly head.
The fact that I feel so very strongly about sex harassment and spoke loudly about it at EEOC has made these
allegations doubly hard on me. I cannot imagine anything that I said or did to Anita Hill that could have
been mistaken for sexual harassment.
But with that said, if there is anything that I have said that has been misconstrued by Anita Hill or anyone else,
to be sexually harassment, then I can say that I am so very sorry and I wish I had known. If I did know I
would have stopped immediately and I would not, as I have done over the past 2 weeks, had to tear away at
myself trying to think of what I could possibly have done. But I have not said or done the things that Anita Hill
has alleged. God has gotten me through the days since September 25 and He is my Judge.
Mr. Chairman, something has happened to me in the dark days that have followed since the FBI agents
informed me about these allegations. And the days have grown darker, as this very serious, very explosive,
and very sensitive allegation or these sensitive allegations were selectively leaked, in a distorted way to the
media over the past weekend.
As if the confidential allegations, themselves, were not enough, this apparently calculated public disclosure has
caused me, my family, and my friends enormous pain and great harm.
I have never, in all my life, felt such hurt, such pain, such agony. My family and I have been done a grave and
irreparable injustice. During the past 2 weeks, I lost the belief that if I did my best all would work out. I called
upon the strength that helped me get here from Pin Point, and it was all sapped out of me. It was sapped out of
me because Anita Hill was a person I considered a friend, whom I admired and thought I had treated fairly and
with the utmost respect. Perhaps I could have better weathered this if it were from someone else, but here was
someone I truly felt I had done my best with.
Though I am, by no means, a perfect person, no means, I have not done what she has alleged, and I still do
not know what I could possibly have done to cause her to make these allegations.
When I stood next to the President in Kennebunkport, being nominated to the Supreme Court of the United
States, that was a high honor. But as I sit here, before you, 103 days later, that honor has been crushed. From
the very beginning charges were leveled against me from the shadows–charges of drug abuse, antisemitism,
wife-beating, drug use by family members, that I was a quota appointment, confirmation conversion and much,
much more, and now, this.
I have complied with the rules. I responded to a document re- quest that produced over 30,000 pages of
documents. And I have testified for 5 full days, under oath. I have endured this ordeal for 103 days. Reporters
sneaking into my garage to examine books I read. Reporters and interest groups swarming over divorce
papers, looking for dirt. Unnamed people starting preposterous and damaging rumors. Calls all over the
country specifically requesting dirt. This is not American. This is Kafka-esque. It has got to stop. It must stop for
the benefit of future nominees, and our country. Enough is enough.
I am not going to allow myself to be further humiliated in order to be confirmed. I am here specifically to
respond to allegations of sex harassment in the work place. I am not here to be further humiliated by this
committee, or anyone else, or to put my private life on display for a prurient interest or other reasons. I will not
allow this committee or anyone else to probe into my private life. This is not what America is all about.
To ask me to do that would be to ask me to go beyond fundamental fairness. Yesterday, I called my mother.
She was confined to her bed, unable to work and unable to stop crying. Enough is enough.
Mr. Chairman, in my 43 years on this Earth, I have been able, with the help of others and with the help of God,
to defy poverty, avoid prison, overcome segregation, bigotry, racism, and obtain one of the finest educations
available in this country. But I have not been able to overcome this process. This is worse than any obstacle or
anything that I have ever faced. Throughout my life I have been energized by the expectation and the hope
that in this country I would be treated fairly in all endeavors. When there was segregation I hoped there would
be fairness one day or some day. When there was bigotry and prejudice I hoped that there would be
tolerance and understanding some day.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of my life, proud of what I have done, and what I have accomplished, proud of my
family, and this process, this process is trying to destroy it all. No job is worth what I have been through, no job.
No horror in my life has been so debilitating. Confirm me if you want, don't confirm me if you are so led, but let
this process end. Let me and my family regain our lives. I never asked to be nominated. It was an honor.
Little did I know the price, but it is too high.
I enjoy and appreciate my current position, and I am comfortable with the prospect of returning to my work as a
judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and to my friends there.
Each of these positions is public service, and I have given at the office. I want my life and my family's life back
and I want them returned expeditiously.
I have experienced the exhilaration of new heights from the moment I was called to Kennebunkport by the
President to have lunch and he nominated me. That was the high point. At that time I was told eye-to-eye that,
Clarence, you made it this far on merit, the rest is going to be politics and it surely has been. There have been
other highs. The outpouring of support from my friends of long-standing, a bonding like I have never
experienced with my old boss, Senator Danforth, the wonderful support of those who have worked with me.
There have been prayers said for my family, and me, by people I know and people I will never meet, prayers
that were heard and that sustained not only me, but also my wife and my entire family. Instead of
understanding and appreciating the great honor bestowed upon me, I find myself, here today defending my
name, my integrity, because somehow select portions of confidential documents, dealing with this matter were
leaked to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I am a victim of this process and my name has been harmed, my integrity has been harmed, my
character has been harmed, my family has been harmed, my friends have been harmed. There is nothing this
committee, this body or this country can do to give me my good name back, nothing.
I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for further humiliation. I am not going to engage in
discussions, nor will I submit to roving questions of what goes on in the most intimate parts of my private live or
the sanctity of my bedroom. These are the most intimate parts of my privacy, and they will remain just that,
private.