What It Might Be Like if Anita Hill Testified Today

She’d see a different Senate. But one not fully changed.

Anita Hill takes the oath, 12 October 1991, before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington D.C.
National Journal
Lucia Graves
Add to Briefcase
Lucia Graves
March 27, 2014, 4:20 p.m.

In 1991 An­ita Hill made us start think­ing about sexu­al har­ass­ment. Now, with the de­but of the doc­u­ment­ary An­ita: Speak­ing Truth to Power, she’s mak­ing us think about what’s changed 23 years later.

Back then, sexu­al har­ass­ment was still a re­l­at­ively new concept. It wasn’t un­til 1975 that the term even ap­peared in The New York Times, and when it did, the pa­per or­gan­ized a defin­i­tion of it in bul­let points, to suss out ex­actly what this for­eign idea en­tailed.

It was the be­gin­ning of an en­tirely dif­fer­ent era, par­tic­u­larly with re­gard to wo­men in Wash­ing­ton. When Hill went be­fore a Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee of all-white male sen­at­ors more than two dec­ades ago, her testi­mony sparked a back­lash that still re­ver­ber­ates. Where were the wo­men sen­at­ors?

The hear­ings helped in­spire the cam­paign of Demo­crat Patty Mur­ray of Wash­ing­ton state who, upon watch­ing Hill testi­fy, told her friends she was run­ning for the Sen­ate in 1992. That year would also see Di­anne Fein­stein and Bar­bara Box­er elec­ted to the Sen­ate, mak­ing Cali­for­nia the first state to be rep­res­en­ted in the up­per cham­ber by two wo­men. It was the year that Car­ol Mose­ley Braun of Illinois joined the Sen­ate, and the first year that four wo­men were elec­ted to the Sen­ate in a single elec­tion year.

After Hill’s testi­mony in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., sexu­al-har­ass­ment claims shot up. (It’s easi­er to speak about sex­ism when someone’s helped define the vocab­u­lary.) “Our phones were ringing off the hook with people will­ing to come for­ward who had been suf­fer­ing in si­lence,” Mar­cia D. Green­ber­ger, founder and copres­id­ent of the Na­tion­al Wo­men’s Law Cen­ter in Wash­ing­ton, re­cently told The New York Times. And Con­gress passed le­gis­la­tion grant­ing sexu­al-dis­crim­in­a­tion vic­tims the right to sue for dam­ages.

Journ­al­ists hailed it as the “Year of the Wo­man,” but Sen. Bar­bara Mikul­ski wasn’t buy­ing the sound bite. “Call­ing 1992 the Year of the Wo­man makes it sound like the Year of the Cari­bou or the Year of the As­paragus,” the Mary­land Demo­crat said at the time. “We’re not a fad, a fancy, or a year.”

When 2012 was dubbed Year of the Wo­man by me­dia out­lets such as Moth­er Jones, The Wash­ing­ton Post, and Salon, be­loved lady colum­nist Ann Fried­man sim­il­arly dis­missed the la­bel, not­ing that nine out of every 10 states still had a male gov­ernor and wo­men’s rep­res­ent­a­tion had been stag­nant since 2007. “We’ve made some in­cre­ment­al pro­gress since 1992, but to achieve gender par­ity in Con­gress and se­cure wo­men’s rights more broadly, every year has to be a Year of the Wo­man,” Fried­man wrote at the time. “And not just in the cam­paign head­lines, but on In­aug­ur­a­tion Day.”

If An­ita Hill were to testi­fy be­fore today’s Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee, she would face three fe­male faces in ques­tion­ing; they in­clude Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Fein­stein, and just one wo­man of col­or, Sen. Mazie Hirono. That may not sound like much, but it’s three wo­men more than when Hill first went be­fore the com­mit­tee in 1991.

Should Re­pub­lic­ans take back the Sen­ate in 2014, as poll ana­lysts like Nate Sil­ver are now pre­dict­ing, those num­bers could be even worse — which is to say even more uni­formly white and male. (There are cur­rently no fe­male or minor­ity mem­bers on the GOP side of the Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee, the side of the com­mit­tee that would likely ex­pand giv­en a Re­pub­lic­an vic­tory, though it’s con­ceiv­able the three Demo­crat­ic wo­men would all stay on the com­mit­tee and some new fresh­man wo­men could come on as well.)

But that there has already been pro­gress, however in­cre­ment­al, is un­deni­able. At the time Hill test­i­fied there were just two wo­men serving in the en­tire Sen­ate: Mikul­ski and Nancy Kasse­baum of Kan­sas. Today there are 20.

“With the three Demo­crat­ic wo­men on that pan­el, I can ima­gine that the dy­nam­ic would be a lot dif­fer­ent today,” says Marcy Stech, a spokes­wo­man for EMILY’s List, the polit­ic­al ac­tion com­mit­tee that helps elect wo­men who sup­port abor­tion rights. “But we have more work to do, which is why we at EMILY’s List are fo­cused on elect­ing more wo­men in 2014 and we’re ex­cited to see the im­pact that more and more wo­men can make once they get to Wash­ing­ton.”

The doc­u­ment­ary is now play­ing at theat­ers in New York, Los Angeles, and San Fran­cisco.

What We're Following See More »
CAN’T WITHHOLD FUNDING
Trump’s Sanctuary Cities Order Blocked
3 hours ago
BREAKING
EMERGING BUDGET FRAMEWORK?
Dems Proposes Obamacare-for-Defense Deal
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."

Source:
WHITE HOUSE BLOCKING DOC REQUEST
Michael Flynn Remains A Russian-Sized Problem
4 hours ago
BREAKING

The Michael Flynn story is not going away for the White House as it tries to refocus its attention. The White House has denied requests from the House Oversight Committee for information and documents regarding payments that the former national security adviser received from Russian state television station RT and Russian firms. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking member Elijah Cummings also said that Flynn failed to report these payments on his security clearance application. White House legislative director Marc Short argued that the documents requested are either not in the possession of the White House or contain sensitive information he believes is not applicable to the committee's stated investigation.

Source:
MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, D.C.
DC Area To Experience Terror Attack Drill Wednesday Morning
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The Washington, D.C. area will undergo "a full-scale exercise" Wednesday morning "designed to prepare for the possibility of a complex coordinated terror attack in the National Capital Region." The drill will take place at six different sites throughout the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The drill should not be taken as a sign that emergency services are expecting an attack, said Scott Boggs, Managing Director of Homeland Security and Public Safety at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Source:
HUFFINGTON POST EFFORT ID’D PROBLEMS
Inauguration Committee Admits to Faulty Donor Records
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The Presidential Inaugural Committee "acknowledged late Monday that a final report it filed with the Federal Election Commission this month was riddled with errors, many of which were first identified through a crowdsourced data project at HuffPost." The committee raised about $100 million for the festivities, but the 500-page FEC report, which detailed where that money came from, was riddled with problems. The likely culprit: a system of access codes sent out by the GOP's ticketing system. Those codes were then often passed around on the secondary market.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login