WASHINGTON -- Here are the opening statements of four persons who testified on behalf of Anita Hill Sunday in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.NEWLN: Ellen Wells
Good afternoon, senators. My name is Ellen M. Wells. I am a project manager at the American Public Welfare Association in Washington, D.C. I received a master's degree in public affairs and a juris doctor from the George Washington University. I met Professor Hill in 1981 at a social gathering and we developed a friendship. I was also acquainted with Judge Thomas during the late 1970's and early 1980's as a result of our joint membership in the Black Republican Congressional Staff Association.
In the fall of 1982, Professor Hill shared with me in confidence the fact that she considered Judge Thomas's behavior toward her in the office to be inappropriate. Professor Hill did not at that time, nor in subsequent conversations provide exact details about the action she found inappropriate conduct. She did tell me they were sexual in nature. I should note that I did not ask for details for two reasons: neither Professor Hill nor I would have been comfortable discussing such matters. Women typically don't talk in sexually explicit terms. Second, she appeared to simply need a sympathetic ear. And as her friend, that is what I tried to provide.
I believed the statements made by my friend, Professor Hill. As she told me of this situation, she appeared to be deeply troubled and very depressed. And later, I remember talking to her by telephone while she was in the hospital, and she explained to me that what she was suffering from appeared to be job related -- job stress related.
I think it is important for me to state that Professor Hill did not contact me in connection with this hearing. In fact, because of the way our lives have been proceeding, I have not seen nor spoken to Professor Anita Hill in two years. I called the law school and left a message of support and willingness to be of assistance if needed. My call jogged her memory of what she had said to me. As a consequence, Professor Hill asked her attorneys to get in touch with me.
Finally, senators, I would like to say that I am not a party to any effort to derail Judge Thomas's confirmation to theSupreme Court by any interest group or by individuals who may not agree with his political philosophy. I am here as an individual simply as a matter of conscience to tell you what I was told by Anita Hill. And I believe this information relevant to the decision that you are called upon to make.
Thank you.NEWLN: ------ John Carr
Mr. Chairman, Sen. Thurmond, members of the committee, my name is John William Carr. I reside in the City of New York. I am an attorney by profession and a partner at the law firm of Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett.
I met Anita Hill in the spring of 1981. At the time, we were introduced by a mutual friend while they both were employed at the law firm of Wald, Harkrader and Ross in Washington, D.C. I was a student at the time at Harvard University, where I was simultaneously pursuing a law degree at the Harvard Law School and an MBA degree at the Harvard Business School.
During the final semester of the 1982-83 academic year, I developed a social relationship with Anita Hill. I lived in Cambridge, Mass., and she lived in Washington, D.C., which made seeing one another very difficult. However, during this particular period we spoke several times at length on the telephone.
During one of these telephone conversations, Anita Hill revealed to me that her supervisor was sexually harassing her. I recall that she did not initially volunteer this information. Rather, during the telephone conversation it quickly became clear to me that she was troubled and upset. In response to my expressions of concern about her feelings, Anita Hill told me that she was upset because her boss was making sexual advances towards her. I recall that she was clearly very disturbed by these advances and that she cried during the telephone call.
I knew that Anita Hill worked for Clarence Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In this telephone conversation, it was immediately clear to me that she was referring to Judge Thomas. I asked her to tell me what he had done. It is my recollection that she told me that Clarence Thomas had asked her out on dates and showed an unwanted sexual interest in her. She was very uncomfortable talking about these events and said that she did not want to go into any detail about the actions that had so upset her. I do recall, however, that she said these sexual advances had taken place before. It was clear to me at that time that she found this very painful to talk about, and I did not push her to speak of it further.NEWLN: more
At this point the conversation turned to how appalling it was that the head of the EEOC would engage in sexual advances towards one of his own employees. I thought it was outrageous and, in a perverse sort of way, ironic that the person in charge of fighting discrimination in the workplace could harass an employee in this way. This portion of the conversation I dominated with my own repeated expressions of outrage. It is because of this outrage and irony that I recall our conversation today.
It was clear that Anita Hill did not want to continue to dwell on these incidents, and the conversation moved to other subjects.
Later in the spring of '83 my relationship with Anita Hill subsided. We did not have the opportunity to see one another and lost touch. I believe we last spoke prior to my graduation in June 1983. Except for seeing her at these proceedings, I have not seen or spoken to Anita Hill since 1983.
On Sunday evening, Oct. 6th, I saw television reports that Professor Hill had accused Judge Thomas of sexual harassment. I immediately remembered that she had told me of his sexual advances. The next day, Monday, Oct. 7th, I discussed with colleagues at my office that these conversations had taken place with Professor Hill and her comments about Judge Thomas. As I discussed these conversations, my recollection of them became clearer.
On the following day, Tuesday, Oct. 8th, I discussed my recollections with a few of my partners whose experience and judgment I respect. Later that day, I sent Professor Hill an overnight letter in which I stated that I remembered our conversation about sexual harassment. In my letter, I also expressed my admiration for the public stance she had taken, particularly in light of the pain it might cause her.
The next day, Wednesday, Oct. 9th, I received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as a friend of Anita Hill at the University of Oklahoma. He said that Professor Hill had received my letter and he and I discussed its contents briefly. I also spoke that day about my recollections of our 1983 telephone call with an attorney representing Ms. Hill in Washington.
On Thursday morning, Oct. 10th, I traveled to Chicago on business, where I received a message to call another attorney, Janet Napolitano, who I was told also represented Professor Hill. Ms. Napolitano asked me if I would be willing to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell of my 1983 telephone conversation with Anita Hill. I agreed to come. Later that evening, I was interviewed over the telephone by various members of the staff of the Judiciary Committee. After this interview, I immediately flew to Washington, where Friday, Oct. 11th, I received a subpoena to appear before this committee.NEWLN: ------ Susan Hoerchner
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Susan Hoerchner. I am here testifying pursuant to this committee's subpoena. I have not seen any FBI report or any other written record of any information I have supplied in the course of this investigation. Neither have I seen Anita's affidavits.
I am a worker's compensation judge in California. I have known Anita Hill for about 13 years. We met when she was my editor for a project at Yale Legislative Services when we were first year law students. We soon became friends.
While at Yale, Anita had good friends across every spectrum, men and women, black and white, conservative and liberal. Reasons for her popularity were apparent. It's not just a question of my never having known her to lie, I have never known Anita even to exaggerate. I have never known her to express anger. I have never known her to condemn a person rather than particular behavior. I have never known her to use profane or offensive language.
In law school, Anita was always gracious and generous with her understanding and her time. Many times she would invite me and other of her harried law student friends to her apartment for a delicious home- cooked dinner which she somehow found time to prepare even though she was a busy and hard-working law student herself. Perhaps most important of all to me personally, Anita was always somebody to whom I could talk and with whom I could laugh.
When Anita and I graduated from law school, both of us, as it happened, came to Washington for our first jobs. We lived in different parts of the city. We were both busy with our new jobs so we did not get together with great frequency. What we did do, however, was keep in touch by telephone. Those conversations would often last as much as an hour.
I remember in particular one telephone conversation I had with Anita. I should say before telling you about this conversation that I cannot pin down its date with certainty. I am sure that it was after she started working with Clarence Thomas, because in that conversation she referred to him as her boss, Clarence.
It was clear when we started this conversation that something was badly wrong. Anita sounded very depressed and spoke in a dull monotone. I asked Anita yeyeye f&l g:dl w
Anita said that Clarence Thomas had repeatedly asked her out. She told me that she had, of course, refused, but that he wouldn't seem to take no for an answer. He kept pressing her and repeating things like, 'I'm your type,' and 'You know I'm your kind of man but you refuse to admit it.'
One thing Anita told me that struck me particularly and that I remember almost verbatim was that Mr. Thomas had said to her, 'You know, if you had witnesses, you'd have a perfect case against me.' She told me that she was very humiliated and demoralized by Mr. Thomas's behavior, and that it had shaken her faith in her professional ability.
At the end of this conversation, Anita seemed more depressed than when it began. Contrary to my hope, talking things out did not seem to have given her any relief or comfort. After our conversation, I was both saddened and concerned about my friend. Because it had been so painful for Anita to talk about the matter, I did not try to pull information out of her. In subsequent conversations with Anita, I learned that the problem continued, but I do not recall in detail further conversations about this matter.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, as a result of the high esteem in which her law school classmates hold her, 65 members -- over 65 members of Anita's law school class have been contacted and have signed the following statement: 'It has been our privilege to know Anita Hill, professionally and personally, since the late '70s when we were in law school together. The Anita Hill we have known is a person of great integrity and decency. As colleagues, we wish to affirm publicly our admiration and respect for her. She is embroiled now in a most serious and difficult controversy, which we know is causing her great pain. We make no attempt to analyze the issue involved or to prejudge the outcome. We do, however, wish to state emphatically our complete confidence in her sincerity and good faith, our absolute belief in her decency and integrity. In our eyes, it is impossible to imagine any circumstances in which her character could be called into question. We are dismayed that it has been. We know that it could not be by anyone who knows her. Anita has imperiled her career and her peace of mind to do what she felt was right. We know we are powerless to shield her from those who will seek to hurt her out of ignorance, frustration or expediency in the days ahead, that we will have failed ourselves if we did not at least raise our voices in her behalf. She has our unhesitating and unwavering support.'
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.NEWLN: --- Joel Paul
Mr. Chairman, Sen. Thurmond, members of the Committee, I am an associate professor of law at the Washington College of Law at American University here in Washington. Before joining the faculty at American University in 1986, I practiced banking and corporate law in California. Presently I teach international business and trade and foreign relations law.
I'm here to give my account of what I was told in the summer of 1987 by Professor Anita Hill and to give my impressions of Professor Hill's character and credibility.
As soon as I read Professor Hill's allegations in the Washington Post on Monday morning, I realized that I had a duty to come forward and to give my account, because I knew that Professor Hill's allegations were not an eleventh hour fabrication, as some have said, but rather a more specific description of events she related to me more than four years ago.
I first met Professor Hill at a 10-day conference of the Association of American Law Schools in June of 1987 at the University of New Mexico law school. I was impressed by her intellect and her professional achievements. At that time she was interested in coming to Washington to research an article she was then writing. I suggested to her that she might want to spend some time at the Washington College of Law since we are always looking for good teachers and scholars to join our faculty.
Subsequently, I arranged for Professor Hill to come to our school during July of 1987, where she was given an office, secretarial support, and use of our library facilities for the summer. At that point, a number of our faculty were very interested in encouraging Professor Hill to apply for a visiting professorship at the American University. During the course of her research at our school, we had a number of occasions to talk about her interest in the American University and our interest in having her join the faculty.NEWLN: more
During one such occasion, over lunch in the university cafeteria, I asked Professor Hill why she had left the EEOC. This was a logical question to ask in the course of discussing with her her employment history. Professor Hill responded, reluctantly and with obvious emotion and embarrassment, that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor at the EEOC. I was shocked and astonished by her statement, which is why I remember the incident so vividly. I do not recall whether she went on to say the name 'Clarence Thomas,' but if she had said it, the name would not have meant anything to me at that time because I had no idea who Judge Thomas was.
I asked Professor Hill if she had sought any recourse for her situation, and she said no. When I asked her why not, she said that she felt she had no effective recourse in that situation.
I believe that Professor Hill's statement to me was truthful. Professor Hill at that time had no reason to claim sexual harassment as an explanation for leaving the EEOC. Many people leave government jobs for teaching positions. Thus, I concluded then and I still believe that she was telling the truth.
On Monday morning after I read the news of Professor Hill's allegations, I phoned some of my colleagues from my home to ask their advice about what to do with this information that I had. When I arrived at school later that morning, another colleague, Ms. Susan Dunham, on her own initiative came to me, having read the article in the Post and she reminded me -- that is, Ms. Susan Dunham reminded me, of the fact that I had communicated to her the substance of my conversation with Professor Hill shortly after it had occurred in the summer of '87. I then recalled that indeed, right after my lunch conversation with Professor Hill, I went to Ms. Dunham, who had some practical experience in the field of employment discrimination, and I told her of Professor Hill's problems at the EEOC. Ms. Dunham said at that time that this was a case of the fox guarding the hen house. That phrase stuck in my mind. I was pleased that Ms. Dunham independently could confirm my memory of these events.
I had at that time and I have now no reason to question the facts as Professor Hill related them to me. I always regarded her as having the highest integrity. I know her to be a deeply religious person. Moreover, I cannot believe that she could be politically motivated. I know from numerous conversations with her that she served faithfully in the Reagan administration, that she was generally in sync with the goals of that administration, and that she did not disagree with the overall policies of the administration. Indeed, when Judge Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in the summer of 1987, I remember vividly that Professor Hill supported his nomination and told me that she held him in extremely high esteem as a former teacher of hers at Yale. Her strong support of Judge Bork led to a number of loud lunch-table disagreements between Professor Hill and other colleagues of mine. Thus, I cannot accept the conclusion that her statements have been motivated by political ideology.
In closing, I would reemphasize that I am here simply to aid the Senate Judiciary Committee in its efforts to determine these facts. I have not taken any position with regard to Judge Thomas's nomination prior to these allegations. Indeed, a national petition of law professors opposing Judge Thomas's nomination was circulated at my law school several weeks ago. I was asked to sign it. I refused, despite the fact that 18 of my colleagues signed that petition, as well as many others from other law schools.
I came forward on my own initiative to recount what I was told by Professor Hill. I have not spoken to Professor Hill since sometime prior to the nomination of Judge Thomas. I have never discussed my testimony or any aspect of these hearings with Professor Hill or any person representing Professor Hill or with any organization or anyone representing any organization.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to help you get to the facts.
Thank you.
