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 »
Johnson on Ballot Everywhere, Followed by Stein, McMullin
1 hours ago
Is McMullin Building the GOP in Exile?
2 hours ago

Evan McMullin, the independent conservative candidate who may win his home state of Utah, is quietly planning to turn his candidacy into a broader movement for principled conservatism. He tells BuzzFeed he's "skeptical" that the Republican party can reform itself "within a generation" and that the party's internal "disease" can't be cured via "the existing infrastructure.” The ex-CIA employee and Capitol Hill staffer says, “I have seen and worked with a lot of very courageous people in my time [but] I have seen a remarkable display of cowardice over the last couple of months in our leaders.” McMullin's team has assembled organizations in the 11 states where he's on the ballot, and adviser Rick Wilson says "there’s actually a very vibrant market for our message in the urban northeast and in parts of the south."

Clinton Up 9 in USA Today Poll; Up 3 According to Fox
3 hours ago

A new USA Today/Suffolk University poll finds Clinton leads Trump by 9 points nationwide, 47% to 38%. A Fox News national poll has Clinton up just three points, 44% to 41% over Trump.

Too Many Potential Enrollees Paying Obamacare Penalties Instead
4 hours ago

One of the main reasons for the recent Obamacare premium hikes is that many potential enrollees have simply decided to pay the tax penalty for remaining uninsured, rather than pay for insurance. More than 8 million people paid the penalty in 2014, and preliminary numbers for 2015 suggest that the number approaches 6 million. "For the young and healthy who are badly needed to make the exchanges work, it is sometimes cheaper to pay the Internal Revenue Service than an insurance company charging large premiums, with huge deductibles."

Cruz: Eight Justices Could Be an Ongoing Situation
5 hours ago

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”


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.