sexual harassment and the clarence thomas hearings

Sexual Harassment The sexual harassment allegations filed by
Professor Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas and the proceeding Senate
Judiciary Hearing thrust the issue of sexual harassment into the political
arena, the workplace, and every day life. Introduction Sexual
harassment is a very broad term and can be interpreted in a variety of
ways. The National Organization of Women (NOW) defines sexual
harassment as "any repeated or unwarranted verbal or physical advance,
sexually explicit derogatory statement, or sexually discriminating acts
made by someone in the workplace which is offensive or objectionable to
the recipient or which interferes with the recipients job performance."
(Redress for Success, page 74) Before 1972, there was no penalty for
sexual harassment of women at the workplace. Not until, that is, the
Education Amendments of 1972 were enacted. Title IX of the Education
Amendments states that "sexual harassment is a form of sexual
discrimination and is illegal." (What is Sexual Harassment?, page 20)
After the Education Amendments were enacted, women began to see
that the law was on their side and that it was designed to protect them.
Women now saw that Verbal harassment or abuse Subtle
pressure for sex Unnecessary patting or pinching Constant brushing
against another employee's body Demands for sex accompanied by
threats of termination Demands for sex in return for preferential
treatmentqualified as components of sexual harassment.(Redress for
Success, page 75) Soon after that women began to realize that they
could be sexually harassed by anybody, such as by employers,
supervisors, co-workers, customers, or even by subordinate
employees.(Redress for Success, page 74) With this new understanding
that they deserved equal treatment as their male counterparts, women
began to hold men responsible for their actions and use the laws to their
advantage. The sexual harassment allegations made by Anita Hill in
1991 were not the first and were by far not the most controversial. May
cases and hearings prior to the Clarence Thomas Hearing set the stage

for the out break of hysteria in 1991.Landmark Cases Back as far as
1975, women began to realize that men could not act as they did and still
stay within the perimeters of the law. The case of Monge v. Beebe
Rubber Company brought the issue of sexual discrimination out into the
open in late 1974. The circumstances were that Monge had been fired
after her supervisor demanded sex favors that Monge chose not to give.
Monge was subsequently fired and she sued for her job back. Previously
similar cases had been thrown out of court for lack of evidence (most
sexual harassment cases are her word versus his). Also, before 1972
(the Education Amendments), there was no legislation to back women up
in their quest for social and economic equality. The Supreme Court ruled
that Beebe Rubber Company was unlawful in firing Monge and she was
awarded her job back. This sensational ruling set the stage for an
outburst of cases of similar circumstances. To further substantiate the
newly formed definition of sexual harassment, the ruling in the case
Algermarle Paper Co. v. Moody stated that sexual harassment is only
illegal if Sex is a condition of employment Submission or
rejection to sexual suggestions affects decisions concerning the
individual When sexual advances hinder job performance or create an
intimidating environmentBased on these definitions, in the case Corne v.
Bausch and Lomb, Inc. in 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that if a
supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate employee, causing that
individual to quit her job, that does not constitute sexual discrimination;
he was merely satisfying a personal urge. Along the same line, the case
Halpert v. Wetheim stated that the use of coarse language that was not
directed at the plaintiff did not constitute sexual harassment. This ruling
was reinforced in the Neeley v. American Fidelity Assurance Co, which
specified that a supervisors conduct (telling dirty jokes, putting his hands
on the employees shoulders) is an action of personal standing, not sexual
harassment. In 1977, however, those rulings was overturned and Corne

and Halpert were compensated for their losses. The case that overturned
those rulings was Barnes v. Costle, which ruled that if a woman was fired
due to refusing to submit to sexual advances, that that was in violation of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and the employer who
fired her in liable for his acts. Further advances in equality were achieved
in the Marentette v. Michigan Host, Inc. decision, which stated that
requiring provocative dress as a term for employment violates Title VII of
the Education Acts of 1972. The greatest preliminary scandal
involving sexual discrimination and harassment which ultimately led to the
hysteria of the Thomas hearing was the Tailhook Scandal. At the Hilton
Hotel in Las Vegas, on September 7th, 1991, Paula Coughlin, including a
dozen other women, was man- handled, groped, squeezed and abused
at a Naval Officer party after the annual Tailhook Convention for Naval
Officers. The government tried to cover up the incident, but that was
unsuccessful. Finally, women were fed up with dealing with unexcusable
sexual misconduct. In the end, one admiral had been reduced in rank,
and two others were censured for failing to intervene and stop the
harassment. This seemingly unsuccessful event for social equality was in
fact a turning point. It broke the seal of the sexual harassment issue for
all the nation to see. The Los Angeles Times, in 1992, said that the
Tailhook Scandal was "a chilling message to women."(Rights and
Respect; What You Need to Know About Gender Bias and Sexual
Harassment, page 35) Clarence Thomas and Sexual Harassment
Allegations In October of 1991, one month after the Tailhook Scandal,
Professor Anita Hill testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee
regarding sexual harassment charges made against Supreme Court
Justice nominee Clarence Thomas. Note, this was not a suit or trial. It
was simply a Senate Committee assembled to find out if Clarence
Thomas was indeed fit to serve on the Supreme Court. There were no
official charges of sexual harassment filed against Judge Thomas, but

none were needed. This hearing thrust the sexual harassment issue into
the open. The allegations were that Thomas had sexually harassed Anita
Hill while both worked for the federal office of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during the 1980's. The Senate
Committee tore into Anita Hill throughout the entire hearing. They
questioned why she had waited so long to come into the open with the
allegations, or why she chose that specific point in time to make the
allegations. Anita Hill brought many other women with her to prove that
Thomas was not simply "satisfying a personal urge." All of her attempts
to sway the Committee failed. Hill was destroyed by harsh interrogation
by both the Committee and by Thomas himself. The ruthlessness by
which she was attacked for every allegation by Thomas was astounding.
The public, too, was astonished. The overall opinion of the nation was
that Thomas had not sexually harassed Hill and that she was making
most of it up for her own reasons. Black men especially rallied for
Thomas. They saw that the principal of having a black Supreme Court
Justice was more important than standing up for the rights of women.
Nearly all women agreed with Hill in that Thomas had broken a law and
that he should be held accountable for his actions. Professional
criticisms were slightly different. Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the
National Women's Law Center, noted that the Hill-Thomas hearings
"prompted a sea change. . . in the societal and corporate understanding
of sexual harassment and the laws in place to stop it." ("Rights and
Respect, page 29) People, for the first time, began to realize that sexual
harassment happened on all levels, to all people, and that it was wrong
and had to be stopped. An ad in the New York Times stated that
"Clarence Thomas outrageously manipulated the legacy of lynching in
order to shelter himself from Anita Hill's allegations."(Rights and Respect,
page 31) This is in the utmost a correct statement. Thomas stated that
Hill's allegations were a modern day lynching of the black man and that

her only reason for bringing up the allegation were to better her own
position. On the other hand, David Brock, a guest writer for the American
Spectator, stated that "Anita Hill is a bit nutty and a bit slutty."(Rights and
Respect, page 32) This points out the utter hatred for Hill. Brock, a white
male, represented the general opinions of that group almost to the tee.
Marcia Greenberger fully represented the women's point of view. The
Senate Judiciary Committee's vote to confirm Judge Clarence Thomas'
nomination to the Supreme Court was 52 to 48, the closest vote to
confirm a Supreme Court nomination in history.The Impact of the
Hill-Thomas Hearing The nation, along with Congress, was evenly
split across the sexual harassment issue. The reason that this hearing,
and not the Tailhook Scandal, thrust the sexual harassment issue into the
national spotlight was because judges were supposed to be fair and just,
not sexual dominators. If the allegations of sexual misconduct had been
confirmed by the Committee, it would have created a great turmoil within
the government. The public would trust no government official, even
those chosen to lead the nation. The hearing drastically changed
traditional gender role expectations. Men, according to Help Yourself; A
Guide for Dealing With Sexual Harassment, page 19, must be
"competitive, aggressive, the initiator of social and sexual interactions,
responsible, have all the answers, fearless, emotionally stable, secure,
strong, self-assured, financially successful, and sexually experienced."
After the hearing, along with quickly changing attitudes towards gender
role expectation, men saw their roles differently. Being the initiator of
social and sexual interactions, being strong and sexually experienced and
self-assured could land them in jail. This forced men to stop and think if
the woman wanted his sexual advances to continue or not. A new
respect for women came with this realization of right and wrong. Women
were no longer thought of as "good moms and homemakers, polite,
pretty, neat, smelling nice, sensitive and intuitive, supportive of 'her' man,

needless, quiet, happy, passive, coy, dependant, and feminine." (Help
Yourself, page 19) Women were finally beginning to be seen as equals,
deserving equal treatment.Conclusion Even with the realization of right
and wrong actions concerning man to women interactions, sexual
harassment continue