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 »
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."
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."
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.”