Excerpt from
On Being a Shit: Unkind Deeds and Cover-Ups in Everyday Lifeavailable to read free at http://www.lulu.com/content/1151441 or to buy
Unkind deeds and cover-ups burned through cyber-space in September 2007 when Clarence Thomas revived a controversy that had been dormant for more than a decade. The controversy was whether or not Clarence had sexually harassed Anita Hill when he was head of the Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission and she worked under his supervision at the Commission.
Clarence gave the controversy great play in the launching of his autobiography. He granted an interview with Steve Kroft of CBS’s 60 Minutes, his first interview since the Senate confirmed him in 1991 as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
On national television, Clarence described Anita Hill in words used that throughout history have silenced women: “touchy” and “sensitive to slights.” He also said Anita was a hypocrite in her religious beliefs and that she was incompetent enough to be “let go” from a law firm. In his book, Clarence said Hill was used by left-wing radicals, among many other charges.
Clarence said all of this with an ironic smile on his face and in a gentle tone of voice as if everyone knows this is true of Anita Hill. Machiavelli recommended just this kind of delivery.
Anita responded a few days after his first national interview. In a New York Times commentary, she said she refused to let him “reinvent” her. She denied this depiction of herself and presented convincing evidence that Clarence’s words were untrue. She was not fired from a law firm. She was a professor of law for many years at Oral Roberts University, which is a conservative Christian institution. She reaffirmed that Clarence had been sexually inappropriate with her.
Background of the 2007 Controversy The controversy goes back for decades. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence to replace Thurgood Marshall as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time, it was thought that the president wanted to maintain the racial balance of the court, while adding a conservative justice who reflected the president’s conservative political base.
The nomination was instantly controversial. The NAACP, the National Bar Association, and the Urban League opposed the nomination out of fear that Clarence would roll back the civil rights gains for which Justice Marshall had taken major leadership. The National Organization for Woman opposed the nomination out of concerns for abortion and civil rights. Many groups and individuals were concerned about Clarence’s lack of court experience. He had served two years as a federal judge.
After a hearing within the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nomination moved to the Senate floor without a recommendation. The committee vote was split seven to seven. A few days before the final vote of the full Senate, National Public Radio and Newsday reported leaks from an FBI investigation that a co-worker had alleged that Clarence had sexually harassed her between l981 and 1983.
Women’s groups and seven women members of the U.S. House of Representatives demanded that the woman who made these allegations testify before the Senate. Anita Hill stepped forward with reluctance. During three days of televised hearings, the story dominated print and electronic media in the United States and internationally.
Anita testified that Clarence had been sexually inappro-priate with her after she refused to date him. He repeatedly asked her for dates and made sexually graphic comments and references to pornographic films. While some senators kept an open mind, others questioned her motives and some speculated that Anita was delusional.
Clarence roared back. He denied Hill’s allegations and called the hearings “a high tech lynching of uppity blacks.” Within days after the hearings ended, the Senate voted fifty-two to forty-eight for confirmation. Public opinion polls showed that the majority of voters supported Clarence. He did a good job of playing race card. Counting on the Senate’s fear of being perceived as racists if they did not confirm him, Clarence’s use of “high tech lynching” and “uppity blacks” solidified his confirmation. Many believe the hearing was a high-tech lynching of Anita Hill.
Application of the Theory Application of the theory will show whether Clarence committed unkind deeds and then covered up.
Unkind Deeds If Clarence had sexually harassed Anita Hill, then Clarence has committed an unkind deed. He compounded his unkind deed because he abused his power as Anita’s supervisor. He could have redeemed himself by admitting what was going on with him at the time. He may have been misguided as a younger man as to the respectful way to express romantic interest in a woman. Maybe he simply wanted to convince Anita to sleep with him. He might have used verbal sexual aggression to punish Anita for not dating him.
Perhaps growing up he had seen men behave this way toward women and get the results they wanted, or maybe he had a sense of male entitlement (a natural byproduct of a patriarchal society) that led him to believe that he could treat women any way he wanted, including abusively, with no consequences, particularly if the women are perceived to be of little value in society, as black women often are.
Motivation for Cover-Up If Clarence had harassed Anita, his possible motivations for cover-up include face-saving and avoidance of public shame. Clarence did not mention in his 2007 interviews how controversial his nomination had been even before Anita appeared before the Senate. Picking on Anita Hill may have been a cover-up, a way to avoid being seen as the affirmative action justice of the Supreme Court.
He may have wanted to distract attention away from the possibility that other people thought of him as unqualified and that his nomination and confirmation were matters of race-based politics. He may have also feared being viewed as a “race-traitor,” a “sell out,” or an “uncle Tom” by African American civil rights organizations that opposed his nomination in the first place.
It is clear that racial politics had a lot to do with Clarence’s nomination and confirmation. So what? As a Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas has had a golden opportunity to make a huge difference in the quality of life of countless U. S. citizens, particularly those whose Constitutional rights are violated. He could have learned on the job. Instead, his decisions have led many to conclude that he has set civil rights back and will continue to do so for decades to come.
Cover-Ups Focusing only on Anita’s allegations in the 60 Minutes interview, Clarence used several different cover-ups that served to distract, distort, and shift blame and attention away from Anita’s allegations. He invoked sexist stereotypes when he characterized Anita as “sensitive to slights” and “touchy.” In 1991, he invoked racist stereotypes when he referred to the hearing as “a high tech lynching.” These are harsh cover-ups indeed.
Buy-In Though he won the appointment, he failed at being a shit in regard to Anita Hill because she had no buy-in then or now. She did not enable him to be a shit. Many other people shared Anita’s views and gave her the support that helped her survive the enormous hurt she endured.
Other people had buy-in. That Clarence became a justice and that a majority of voters supported him showed that he distracted attention away from his own scanty qualifications for highest court in the United States, not to mention his abuse of power and sexual aggression toward Anita Hill.
In 1991, his behaviors were spot-on, perfect. He did what was necessary to get the job he wanted. He showed the skills of a Clever Fox. Clarence succeeded at being a shit in relation to the Senate and American voters who supported his confirmation. He certainly put one over on them. It is possible that the Senate was his real target and Anita was just a means to an end, collateral damage to his goal of becoming a Supreme Court judge.
Anita Hill as Collateral Damage In 2007, it can be argued that his behaviors fit those of a schmuck, a foolish person who refuses to take responsibility for his or her own behaviors, who shows little depth of thought, and who is insensitive to the consequences of his attack on Anita Hill. Once again Anita Hill may be collateral damage in his goal to sell his book.
Clarence’s knowing smile and smooth delivery during his 2007 television interviews suggest that he thought he was a Clever Fox, but he may have been a True Believer. He appears to have convinced himself that his version of what happened and his views on Anita Hill are logical, true, and fitting.
Discussion Many commentators have noted that the 1991 contro-versy, as hurtful as it may have been, raised awareness of sexual harassment. For example, the number of complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission doubled between 1991 and 1996. The image of a solitary woman testifying before an all-male Senate that questioned her mental state and credibility may have been a factor in twenty-nine women being elected to the national legislature in the years following Anita’s testimony.
Whatever may have been Clarence’s motives for reviv-ing a controversy and once more invoking sexist stereotypes to smear Anita Hill, his memoir made the New York Times Best-seller List for many months. Thomas may retire from the Supreme Court a rich man. As Richard M. Nixon said, “It doesn’t matter what they say about me, as long as they spell my name right.” In the case of Clarence Thomas, it does not seem to matter that he has inflamed old hurts and humiliations, as long as his book sells.
Note: Valandra contributed to this blog and book chapter
