The committee will please come to order.
Judge it is a tough day and a tough night for you, I know. Let
me ask, do you have anything you would like to say before we
I understand that your preference is, which is totally and completely
understandable, that we go 1 hour tonight, 30 minutes on
each side. Am I correct in that?
That is right.
DO you have anything you would like to say?
Senator, I would like to start by saying unequivocally,
uncategorically that I deny each and every single allegation
against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations
of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita
Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal
sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.
Second, and I think a more important point, I think that this
today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this
hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this
sleaze, this dirt was searched for by staffers of members of this
committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and
this body validated it and displayed it in prime time over our
How would any member on this committee or any person in this
room or any person in this country would like sleaze said about
him or her in this fashion or this dirt dredged up and this gossip
and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person
The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am not
here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my life and my
integrity. I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country,
when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected
to this. This is not a closed room.
There was an FBI investigation. This is not an opportunity to
talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment.
This is a circus. It is a national disgrace. And from my standpoint,
as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech
lynching for uppity-blacks who in any way deign to think for them158
selves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message
that, unless you kow-tow to an old order, this is what will
happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a
committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.
We will have
The Senator from South Carolina.
I have named Senator Hatch to cross-examine
the Judge and those who are supporting him.
AS I understand it, it was
I think that is correct. I think we would start
with Senator Heflin and then go to Senator Hatch.
I think that is the way I was—I would be happy
to do it, but I think that is the way I was told.
Judge Thomas, in addition to Anita Hill, there
have surfaced some other allegations against you. One was on a television
show last evening here in Washington, channel 7. I don't
know whether you saw that or not?
YOU didn't see it. It was carried somewhat in
the print media today, but it involved a man by the name of Earl
Harper, Jr., who allegedly was a senior trial lawyer with the EEOC
at Baltimore in or around the early 1980's. Do you recall this instance
pertaining to Earl Harper, Jr.?
I remember the name. I can't remember the details.
The allegations against Mr. Harper involved
some 12 or 13 women who claim that Mr. Harper made unwelcome
sexual advances to several women on his staff, including instances
in which Mr. Harper masturbated in the presence of some of the
female employees. The allegations contain other aspects of sexual
The information we have is that the General Counsel of the
EEOC, David Slate, made a lengthy internal investigation and
found that this had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile
and offense working environment, and that on November 23, 1983,
you wrote Mr. Slate a memo urging that Mr. Harper be fired. Mr.
Slate eventually recommended dismissal. Then the story recites
that you did not dismiss him, you allowed him to stay on for 11
months and then he retired.
Does that bring back to you any recollection of that event concerning
Mr. Earl Harper, Jr.?
Again, I am operating strictly on recollection. If I
remember the case, if it is the one I am thinking of, Mr. Harper's
supervisor recommended either suspension or some form of sanction
or punishment that was less than termination.
When that proposal—the supervisor initially was not David
Slate—when that proposal reached my desk, I believe my recommendation
was that, for the conduct involved, he should be fired.
The problem there was that if the immediate supervisor's decision
is changed—and I believe Mr. Harper was a veteran—there are a
number of procedural protections that he had, including a hearing
and, of course, he had a lawyer and there was potential litigation,
I do not remember all of the details, but it is not as simple as
you set it out. It was as a result of my insistence that the General
Counsel, as I remember, upgraded the sanction to termination.
DO you know a Congressman by the name of
Scott Kluge, a Republican Congressman who was defeated by
Robert Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, who now serves in Congress,
who back in the early 1980's, 1983 or something, was a television
reporter for a channel here in Washington and that he at that time
disclosed this as indicating that, after the recommendation of dismissal,
that you did not move in regards to it for some 11 months
and let him retire? Do you know Congressman Kluge?
I do not know him. Again, remember, I am operating
on recollection. There was far more to it than the facts as
you set them out. His rights had much to do with the fact that he
was a veteran and that we could not simply dismiss him. If we
could, that was my recommendation, he would have been dismissed.
There was no political influence brought to bear
on you at that time to prevent his dismissal? Do you recall if any
There was absolutely no political influence. In
fact, it was my policy that no personnel decisions would in any way
be changed or influenced by political pressure, one way or the
NOW, it is reported to me that Congressman
Kluge, after your nomination, went to the White House and told
this story and, I hear by hearsay, that the White House ignored his
statement and that Congressman Kluge further came to the Senate
Judiciary Committee and made it known here.
As far as I know, I attempted to check—I have not been able to
find where it was in the Judiciary Committee, if it was, and I think
the Chairman has attempted to locate it—but the point I am
asking is, in the whole process pertaining to the nomination and
the preparation for it, were you ever notified that Congressman
Kluge went to the White House in regards to this?
I do not remember that, Senator.
Nobody ever discussed that?
Well, that is the way it has been reported to me
and it is very fragmented relative to it, but I have asked that all
the records of the EEOC be subpoenaed by subpoena duces tecum
pertaining to that, in order that we might get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt Senator
Heflin, I really think this is outside the scope, under the rules. I
would have to object to it.
I would have to sustain that objection. I do
I hesitate to object, but I just think we ought to
keep it on the subject matter.
I do not see where it is relevant.
Well, I think it is relevant in the issue pertaining
to the period of time relative to the issue, particularly in re160
gards to the responsibilities as head of the agency dealing with discrimination
If I may say
If I may speak, let me say this is not about
whether the Judge administered the agency properly. The only
issue here relates to conduct and the allegations that have been
made, so I would respectfully suggest to my friend from Alabama
that that line of questioning is not in order and I rule it out of
All right, sir, I will reserve an exception, as we
used to say.
Now, I suppose you have heard Professor Hill, Ms. Hill, Anita F.
Hill testify today.
NO, I haven't.
YOU didn't listen?
NO, I didn't. I have heard enough lies.
YOU didn't listen to her testimony?
NO, I didn't.
NO, I didn't. I've heard enough lies. Today is not
a day that, in my opinion, is high among the days in our country.
This is a travesty. You spent the entire day destroying what it has
taken me 43 years to build and providing a forum for that.
Judge Thomas, you know we have a responsibility
too, and as far as I am involved, I had nothing to do with Anita
Hill coming here and testifying. We are trying to get to the bottom
of this. And, if she is lying, then I think you can help us prove that
she was lying.
Senator, I am incapable of proving the negative
that did not occur.
Well, if it did not occur, I think you are in a
position, with certainly your ability to testify, in effect, to try to
eliminate it from people's minds.
Senator, I didn't create it in people's minds. This
matter was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in
a confidential way. It was then leaked last weekend to the media. I
did not do that. And how many members of this committee would
like to have the same scurrilous, uncorroborated allegations made
about him and then leaked to national newspapers and then be
drawn and dragged before a national forum of this nature to discuss
those allegations that should have been resolved in a confidential
Well, I certainly appreciate your attitude towards
leaks. I happen to serve on the Senate Ethics Committee and
it has been a sieve.
But it didn't leak on me. This leaked on me and
it is drowning my life, my career and my integrity, and you can't
give it back to me, and this Committee can't give it back to me,
and this Senate can't give it back to me. You have robbed me of
something that can never be restored.
I know exactly how you feel.
Judge Thomas, one of the aspects of this is that
she could be living in a fantasy world. I don't know. We are just
trying to get to the bottom of all of these facts.
But if you didn't listen and didn't see her testify, I think you put
yourself in an unusual position. You are, in effect, defending yourself,
and basically some of us want to be fair to you, fair to her, but
if you didn't listen to what she said today, then that puts it somewhat
in a more difficult task to find out what the actual facts are
relative to this matter.
The facts keep changing, Senator. When the FBI
visited me, the statements to this committee and the questions
were one thing. The FBI's subsequent questions were another
thing. And the statements today, as I received summaries of them,
are another thing.
I am not—it is not my fault that the facts change. What I have
said to you is categorical that any allegations that I engaged in any
conduct involving sexual activity, pornographic movies, attempted
to date her, any allegations, I deny. It is not true.
So the facts can change but my denial does not. Ms. Hill was
treated in a way that all my special assistants were treated, cordial,
Judge, if you are on the bench and you approach
a case where you appear to have a closed mind and that
you are only right, doesn't it raise issues of judicial temperament?
Senator? Senator, there is a difference between
approaching a case objectively and watching yourself being
lynched. There is no comparison whatsoever.
I might add, he has personal knowledge of this
as well, and personal justification for anger.
Judge, I don't want to go over this stuff but, of
course, there are many instances in which she has stated, but—
and, in effect, since you didn't see her testify I think it is somewhat
unfair to ask you specifically about it.
I would reserve my time and go ahead and let Senator Hatch ask
you, and then come back.
Judge Thomas, I have sat here and I have listened
all day long, and Anita Hill was very impressive. She is an
impressive law professor. She is a Yale Law graduate. And, when
she met with the FBI, she said that you told her about your sexual
experiences and preferences. And I hate to go into this but I want
to go into it because I have to, and I know that it is something that
you wish you had never heard at any time or place. But I think it
is important that we go into it and let me just do it this way.
She said to the FBI that you told her about your sexual experiences
and preferences, that you asked her what she liked or if she
had ever done the same thing, that you discussed oral sex between
men and women, that you discussed viewing films of people having
sex with each other and with animals, and that you told her that
she should see such films, and that you would like to discuss specific
sex acts and the frequency of sex.
What about that?
Senator, I would not want to, except being required
to here, to dignify those allegations with a response. As I
have said before, I categorically deny them. To me, I have been pilloried
with scurrilous allegations of this nature. I have denied
them earlier and I deny them tonight.
Judge Thomas, today in a new statement, in addition
to what she had told the FBI, which I have to agree with you
is quite a bit, she made a number of other allegations and what I
would like to do is—some of them most specifically were for the
first time today in addition to these, which I think almost anybody
would say are terrible. And I would just like to give you an opportunity,
because this is your chance to address her testimony.
At any time did you say to Professor Hill that she could ruin
your career if she talked about sexual comments you allegedly
made to her?
Did you say to her in words or substance that
you could ruin her career?
Should she ever have been afraid of you and any
kind of vindictiveness to ruin her career?
Senator, I have made it my business to help my
special assistants. I recommended Ms. Hill for her position at Oral
Roberts University. I have always spoken highly of her.
I had no reason prior to the FBI visiting me a little more than 2
weeks ago to know that she harbored any ill feelings toward me or
any discomfort with me. This is all new to me.
It is new to me too, because I read the FBI
report at least 10 or 15 times. I didn't see any of these allegations I
am about to go into, including that one. But she seemed to sure
have a recollection here today.
Now, did you ever say to Professor Hill in words or substance,
and this is embarrassing for me to say in public, but it has to be
done, and I am sure it is not pleasing to you.
Did you ever say in words or substance something like there is a
pubic hair in my Coke?
Did you ever refer to your private parts in conversations
with Professor Hill?
Absolutely not, Senator.
Did you ever brag to Professor Hill about your
Did you ever use the term "Long Dong Silver" in
conversation with Professor Hill?
Did you ever have lunch with Professor Hill at
which you talked about sex or pressured her to go out with you?
Did you ever tell
I have had no such discussions, nor
have I ever pressured or asked her to go out with me beyond her
Did you ever tell Professor Hill that she should
see pornographic films?
Did you ever talk about pornography with Professor
I did not discuss any pornographic material or
pornographic preferences or pornographic films with Professor
SO you never even talked or described pornographic
materials with her?
Amongst those or in addition?
What I have told you is precisely what I told the
FBI on September 25 when they shocked me with the allegations
made by Anita Hill.
Judge Thomas, those are a lot of allegations.
Those are a lot of charges, talking about sexual experiences and
preferences, whether she liked it or had ever done the same thing,
oral sex, viewing films of people having sex with each other and
with animals, that maybe she should see such films, discuss specific
sex acts, talk about pubic hair in Coke, talking about your private
parts, bragging about sexual prowess, talking about particular pornographic
Let me ask you something. You have dealt with these problems
for a long time. At one time I was the chairman of the committee
overseeing the EEOC and, I might add, the Department of Education,
and I am the ranking member today. I have known you for 11
years and you are an expert in sexual harassment. Because you are
the person who made the arguments to then Solicitor General
Fried that the administration should strongly take a position on
sexual harassment in the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson case, and
the Supreme Court adopted your position.
Did I misstate that?
Senator, what you have said is substantially accurate.
What I attempted to do in my discussions with the Solicitor
is to have them be aggressive in that litigation, and EEOC was
very instrumental in the success in the Meritor case.
NOW, Judge, keep in mind that the statute of
limitations under title VII for sexual harassment for private employers
is 180 days or 6 months. But the statute of limitations
under title VII for Federal employers and employees is 30 days.
Are you aware of that?
Yes, Senator, I am generally aware of those limitations.
And are you aware of why those statutes of limitation
are so short?
I would suspect that at some point it would have
to do with the decision by this body that either memories begin to
fade or stories change, perhaps individuals move around, and that
it would be more difficult to litigate them.
I don't know precisely what all of the rationale is.
Well, it involves the basic issue of fairness, just
exactly how you have described it. If somebody is going to be accused
in a unilateral declaration of sexual harassment, then that
somebody ought to be accused through either a complaint or some
sort of a criticism, so that that somebody can be informed and then
respond to those charges, and, if necessary, change that somebody's
Is that a fair statement?
I think that is a fair statement.
NOW let me ask you something: I described all
kinds of what I consider to be gross, awful sexually harassing
things, which if you take them cumulatively have to gag anybody.
Now you have seen a lot of these sexual harassment cases as you
have served there at the EEOC. What is your opinion with regard
to what should have been done with those charges, and whether or
not you believe that, let's take Professor Hill in this case, should
have done something, since she was a Yale Law graduate who
taught civil rights law at one point, served in these various agencies,
and had to understand that there is an issue of fairness here.
Senator, if any of those activities occur, it would
seem to me to clearly suggest or to clearly indicate sexual harassment,
and anyone who felt that she was harassed could go to an
EEO officer at any agency and have that dealt with confidentially.
At the Department of Education, if she said it occurred there, or at
EEOC, those are separate tracks. At EEOC, I do not get to review
those, if they involve me, and at Department of Education there is
a separate EEO officer for the whole department. It would have
nothing to do with me. But if I were an individual advising a
person who had been subjected to that treatment, I would advise
her to immediately go to the EEO officer.
An EEO office then would bring the parties together,
or at least would confront the problem head-on, wouldn't
The EEO officer would provide counseling
Within a short period of time?
Within a short period of time, as
well as, I think, if necessary, an actual charge would be
SO the charge would be made, and the charge
would then—the person against whom it was made would have a
chance to answer it right then, right up front, in a way that could
resolve it and stop this type of activity if it ever really occurred?
That is right.
And you have just said it never really occurred.
It never occurred. That is why there was no
YOU see, one of the problems that has bothered
me from the front of this thing is, these are gross. Cumulative, I
don't know why anybody would put up with them, or why anybody
would respect or work with another person who would do that. And
if you did that, I don't know why anybody would work with you
who suffered these treatments.
Furthermore, I don't know why they would have
gone to a different position with you, even if they did think that
maybe it had stopped and it won't start again, but then claimed
that it started again. And then when they finally got out into the
private sector, wouldn't somehow or other confront these problems
in three successive confirmation proceedings. Does that bother you?
This whole affair bothers me, Senator. I am witnessing
the destruction of my integrity.
And it is by a unilateral set of declarations that
are made on successive dates, and differ, by one person who continued
to maintain what she considered to be a "cordial professional
relationship" with you over a 10-year period.
Senator, my relationship with Anita Hill prior to
September 25 was cordial and professional, and I might add one
other thing. If you really want an idea of how I treated women,
then ask the majority of the women who worked for me. They are
out here. Give them as much time as you have given one person,
the only person who has been on my staff who has ever made these
sorts of allegations about me.
Well, I think one of our Senators, one of our
better Senators in the U.S. Senate, did do exactly that, and he is a
Democrat, as a matter of fact, one of the fairest people and I think
one of the best new people in the whole Senate.
This is a statement that was made on the floor of the Senate in
this Record by my distinguished colleague, Senator Lieberman, a
man I have a great deal of respect for. Senator Lieberman's staff
conducted a survey of various women who have worked for you
over the years. He was concerned. He has been a supporter of
yours, and he was one who asked for this delay so that this could
be looked into because he was concerned, too.
But as a result of the survey, Senator Lieberman made the following
statement: He said, "I have contacted associates, women
who worked with Judge Thomas during his time at the Department
of Education and EEOC, and in the calls that I and my staff
have made there has been universal support for Judge Thomas and
a clear indication by all of the women we spoke to that there was
never, certainly not a case of sexual harassment, and not even a
hint of impropriety." That was put into the Congressional Record
on October 8, 1991.
And I think Senator Lieberman has performed a very valuable
service because he is in the other party. He is a person who looks
at these matters seriously. He has to be as appalled by this type of
accusation as I am, and frankly he wanted to know, "Just what
kind of a guy is Clarence Thomas?" And those of us who know you,
know that all of these are inconsistent with the real Clarence
And I don't care who testifies, you have to keep in mind, this is
an attorney, a law graduate from one of the four or five best law
schools in this land, a very intelligent, articulate law professor, and
the only person on earth other than you knowing whether these
things are true—the only other person. I don't blame you for being
Senator, I have worked with hundreds of women
in different capacities. I have promoted and mentored dozens. I will
put my record against any member of this committee in promoting
and mentoring women.
I will put your record against anybody in the
And I think that if you want to really be fair,
you parade every single one before you and you ask them, in their
relationships with me, whether or not any of this nonsense, this
garbage, trash that you siphoned out of the sewers against me,
whether any of it is true. Ask them. They have worked with me.
Ask my chief of staff, my former chief of staff. She worked shoulder
to shoulder with me.
Well, I think we should do that.
Now, Judge, what was Professor Hill's role in your office at the
Education Department and at the EEOC?
Senator, as I indicated this morning, at the Department
of Education Ms. Hill was an attorney-adviser. I had a
small staff and she had the opportunity to work on a variety of
She was your number one person?
By and large, on substantive issues, she was.
HOW about when you went to the EEOC?
At EEOC that role changed drastically. As I indicated,
my duties expanded immensely. EEOC, as you remember,
had enormous management problems, so I focused on that. I also
needed an experienced EEO staff, and my staff was much more
mature. It was older. It was a more experienced staff.
As a result, she did not enjoy that close a relationship with me,
nor did she have her choice of the better assignments, and I think
that as a result of that there was some concern on her part that
she was not being treated as well as she had been treated prior to
At any time in your tenure in the Department of
Education, did Professor Hill ever express any concern about or
discomfort with your conduct toward her?
NO. The only caveat I would add to that would be
that from time to time people want promotions or better assignments
or work hours, something of that nature, but no discomfort
of the nature that is being discussed here today.
NOW I note that Professor Hill alleges improper
conduct on your part during the period of November, 1981 to February
or March of 1982. Now isn't it true that both you and Professor
Hill moved from the Education Department to the EEOC in
April of that same year?
Senator, that is an odd period. The President expressed
his intent to nominate me to become Chairman of EEOC in
February 1982, and during that very same period, to the best of my
recollection, she assisted me in my nomination and confirmation
process. I did in fact leave actual work at the Department of Education,
I believe in April, and started at EEOC in May 1982, and
she transferred with me.
SO, in other words, Professor Hill followed you to
the EEOC no more than 2 or 3 months, possibly only 1 month after
she claims this alleged conduct occurred.
Isn't it true, Judge Thomas, that Professor Hill
could have remained in her job at the Education Department when
you went to the EEOC?
TO the best of my recollection, she was a schedule
A attorney. I know she was not cleared through the White House,
so she was not a schedule C. She was not a political appointee. As a
result, she had all the rights of schedule A attorneys, and could
have remained at the Department of Education in a career capacity.
And even if she might not have remained the
number one person to the head of the Civil Rights Division, which
you were, she would have been transferred to another equivalent
If she had requested it.
Did you tell her anything to the contrary?
Not to my knowledge. In fact, I don't think it
ever came up.
She didn't even ask you?
I don't think it ever came up. I think it was understood
that she would move to EEOC with me if she so desired.
If I could just button it down, in other words,
Judge Thomas, if instead of following you to the EEOC, Professor
Hill had remained at the Department of Education as a schedule A
attorney, she would have had as much job security as any other
civil service attorney in the government. And this is especially
true, isn't it, because of your friendship with Harry Singleton?
That is right. If she was concerned about job security,
I could have certainly discussed with Harry Singleton what
should be done with her. He is a personal friend of mine. He is
also, or was, a personal friend of the individual who recommended
Anita Hill to me, Gil Hardy. Gil Hardy of course drowned in 1988,
but both of us or all three of us had gone to Yale Law School and
knew each other quite well.
NOW, Judge Thomas, I understand that on occasion,
and you correct me if this is wrong, but I have been led to
believe that on occasion Professor Hill would ask you to drive her
home, and that on those occasions she would sometimes invite you
into her home to continue a discussion, but you never thought anything—
you never thought of any of this as anything more than
normal, friendly, professional conversation with a colleague. Am I
correct on that, or am I wrong?
It was not unusual to me, Senator. As I remember
it, I lived in southwest Washington, and would as I remember—
and again, I am relying on my recollection, she lived someplace
on Capitol Hill—and I would drive her home, and sometimes
stop in and have a Coke or a beer or something and continue arguing
about politics for maybe 45 minutes to an hour, but I never
thought anything of it.
When Professor Hill worked for you at the
EEOC, did she solicit your advice on career development or career
Senator, as I discuss with most of the members of
my personal staff, I try to advise them on their career opportunities
and what they should do next. You can't always be a special
assistant or an attorney-adviser. And I am certain that I had those
discussions with her, and in fact it would probably have been based
on that that I advised Dean Kothe that she would be a good teacher
and that she would be interested in teaching.
Did she treat you as her mentor at the time, in
Did she treat you as though you were a mentor
at the time?
She certainly sought counsel and advice from me.
NOW at any time during your tenure at the
EEOC, did you ever discuss sexual matters with Professor Hill?
Absolutely not, Senator.
At any time during your tenure at the EEOC,
did Professor Hill ever express discomfort or concern about your
conduct toward her?
From your observations, what was the perception
of Professor Hill by her colleagues at the EEOC? What did
they think about her?
Senator, some of my former staffers I assume will
testify here, but as I remember it there was some tension and some
degree of friction which I attributed simply to having a staff. As I
have had 2 weeks to think about this and to agonize over this, and
as I remember it, I believe that she was considered to be somewhat
distant and perhaps aloof, and from time to time there would be
problems that usually involved—and I attributed this to just being
young—but usually involved her taking a firm position and being
unyielding to the other members of the staff, and then storming off
or throwing a temper tantrum of some sort that either myself or
the chief of staff would have to iron out.
What was your opinion of the quality of Professor
Hill's work at the EEOC, as her administrator and as the head
of the EEOC?
I thought the work was good. The problem was
that—and it wasn't a problem—was, it was not as good as some of
the other members of the staff.
While Professor Hill worked for you at the
EEOC, did she ever seek a promotion?
I believe she did seek promotions. Again, most of
that was done through the chief of staff at that time.
Well, if so, to what position?
She may have sought a promotion. In 1983, my
chief of staff left and I was going to promote someone to my executive
assistant/chief of staff, which is the most senior person on my
personal staff, and I think that—again, I am relying on my
memory—she aspired to that position and, of course, was not successful
and I think was concerned about that.
I see. When did Professor Hill leave the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission?
In 1983. Why do you think she decided to leave
the agency at that time?
Senator, I thought that she felt at the time that
it was time for her to leave Washington and also to leave Government.
She had, I believe, expressed an interest in teaching and the
opportunity at Oral Roberts University provided her both with the
opportunity to be in Oklahoma and to teach and, as I remember,
she did not lose any salary or any income in the bargain, and that
Did you assist her in getting that job at Oral
Yes, Senator, I discussed her with Dean Charles
Kothe, both informally and provided written recommendation,
formal recommendation for her.
All right. Have you had any contacts with Professor
Hill since she left the EEOC in 1983?
Senator, from time to time, Anita Hill would call
the agency and either speak to me or to my secretary and, through
her, she would leave messages. They had been friends, Diane Holt.
On a number of occasions, I believe, too, I am certain of one, but
maybe two, when I was in Tulsa, OK, I spent time with her, I saw
her, and I believe on one occasion she drove me to the airport and
had breakfast with me.
Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, I would
introduce into the record at this point excerpts from Judge
Thomas' telephone logs from 1983 to 1991, if I could.
Judge Thomas, do you have
These are the same excerpts that he has had.
These are the same ones that you
have had. Now, Judge Thomas, are you familiar with these?
I have seen those logs, Senator.
DO you recall any of the telephone conversations
with Professor Hill reflected by these particular messages?
I do, Senator.
For instance, on January 31, according to these
logs—and I think I have got them correct, I am quite sure—on July
31, 1984, at 11:30 a.m., a message from Anita Hill, "Just called to
say hello, sorry she didn't get to see you last week." Is that accurate?
Yes, that was I think one instance when she had
come to town, either on personal business or because of her job,
and my schedule conflicted with any opportunity to meet with her
and simply called to—that was a call from her, I think, to reflect
NO. 2, on May 9, 1984, at 11:40 a.m., Anita Hill
was the caller, the message was "Please call," and she left her
phone number, (718) et cetera. Do you remember that?
NO. 3, on August 29, 1984, at 3:59 p.m., Anita
called, and the message was "Need your advice in getting research
grants." Do you recall that?
I remember that, Senator.
What was that call about?
I can't remember exactly what the project was,
but she wanted some ideas as to how she could get I think some
grants, either from EEOC or some other agency, to do some research
I believe at Oral Roberts, and I believe we discussed that
and I may have put her in contact with someone. Again, my recollection
of that is vague, but we did have a discussion.
Did you help her?
No. 4, on August 30, 1984, at 11:55 a.m., Anita was the caller, the
message "Returned your call (call between 1 and 4)." Do you remember
I don't remember the specifics of the call, but I
remember that on the log, Senator.
Was she calling you or were you calling her?
She was calling me. My secretary, when I placed
the call and someone returned it, my secretary noted "returned
On January 3, 1985, at 3:40 p.m., Anita Hill was
the caller, "Please call tonight," and then left a phone number and
a room number. Do you remember that?
I remember that. I think she must have been in
town on a trip and that was her hotel room number. I don't know
which hotel. I again may have been out of town, either on a business
trip or somehow for some other reason inaccessible or unavailable.
NO. 6, February 6, 1985, 5:50 p.m., Anita Hill
was the caller, again it said, "Please call." Another call from her to
NO. 7, on March 4, 1985, at 11:15 a.m., Anita Hill
called again, "Please call re research project." Do you remember
I remember that, Senator.
Did you help her?
I did. I think the—I can't remember the details,
but I think she and Dean Charles Kothe were involved in some research
in a fairly large project and wanted some data from EEOC,
and I think we provided them with that data.
NO. 8, March 4, 1985, at 11:25 a.m., call from
Susan Cahall, "With Tulsa EEO office referred by Anita to see if
you would come to Tulsa on 3/27 to speak at the EEO Conference."
Do you remember that?
Yes, I remember the message. I think that was—
she would not have otherwise gotten through to me and used
Anita's name in order to gain access to me and perhaps receive a
Mr. Chairman, I notice that my time is about
YOU go right ahead.
But I just want to finish this one
line, if I can.
NO, you take all the time you want.
Thank you. I really appreciate that.
(( No. 9, is July 5, 1985, at 1:30 p.m., Anita Hill is the caller,
"Please call," with a number clearly out of town. Do you remember
Again, I remember it being in my log, Senator.
OK. No. 10, October 9, 1986, at 12:25 p.m., Anita
Hill called, message, "Please call, leaving at 4:05," and an area
code number. Do you remember that?
Yes, I do.
NO. 11, August 4, 1987, 4:00 p.m., Anita Hill,
caller, "In town until 8:15, wanted to congratulate you on your
marriage." Do you remember that?
I remember that, Senator, because one of the—
my wife and I were on a delayed honeymoon in California when
she came to town.
NO. 12, November 1, 1990, 11:40 a.m., Anita hill,
caller, "Re speaking engagement at University of Oklahoma School
of Law." Do you remember that?
That was since I have been on the Court of Appeals,
There are 12 phone calls between 1983 and 1990.
Did you try to call her back each time?
Senator, I tried, whenever I received calls from
her or from others, I attempted to return those calls. Although, as
I indicated before you started through those series of calls, I remember
the messages in the log themselves, but I don't remember
the nature of each call. It would be my practice to return those
calls, especially from someone such as Anita.
SO, each and every time she called you, you tried
to call her back and tried to help her?
Senator, the log reflects only those calls where
she was unsuccessful in reaching me.
Did you ever call her, other than to return these
Senator, I may have. Again, Anita Hill was someone
that I respected and was cordial toward and felt positive
toward and hopeful for her career, and I may have on occasion,
and I can't remember any specific occasion, picked up the phone
just to see how she was doing. Again, the calls that you have there
are the calls that are reflected or that reflect her inability to get in
touch with me when she had called, as opposed to the instances in
which she was able to contact me successfully.
Judge Thomas, before this day, have you seen
Professor Hill on various occasions since she left the Equal Employment
Yes, Senator. As I indicated, I recall seeing her I
am certain one time and perhaps twice in Tulsa, OK, and on one of
those occasions it is my recollection that we had dinner with
Charles Kothe, we also had
She was there?
Charles Kothe, the Dean of
Was she there at that dinner?
She was at the dinner. We also
had—we being Anita and myself—breakfast with Charles Kothe at
his house. I usually slept at Charles Kothe's house, and I believe
she drove me to the airport, and for some reason I seem to remember
that she had a Peugot.
I may be wrong on that, but I remember her being very proud of
it, because, to my recollection, she did not have a car in Washington.
I see. In addition to all the phone calls, you had
these contacts and these meetings. How would you describe these
Very cordial, positive, always one—as I treat my
other special assistants, I tend to be the proud father type who sees
his special assistants go on and become successful and feels pretty
good about it. It would be that kind of a contact, as well as her telling
me how her teaching assignments were going. Indeed, that was
similar to the conversation, again, that I would have with my other
special assistants or former special assistants.
Overall, how would you characterize the nature
of your contacts with Professor Hill since she left the EEOC in
They have always been very cordial and very
Any problems ever raised?
Any questions about your conduct?
Can you think of any reason for her efforts to
continue to try to be associated with you?
Senator—could you repeat the question, Senator?
Can you think of any reason why she would
want to continue this cordial professional relationship with you?
Senator, I would hope it would have been for the
same reasons that all of my other special assistants did, that I was
very supportive of them. The people, some of whom you will hear
from today, who have flown in, certainly at their own expense,
they feel warmly toward me and have a sense of loyalty and feel
that I will help them and that I will assist them as best I could,
and I believe that was as part of the reason and we certainly enjoyed
a cordial and professional relationship.
Before you first heard of Professor Hill's allegations
during this confirmation process, did you have any reason to
believe that she was unhappy with you?
Senator, on Tuesday, September 24, the day
before I heard from the FBI, I would have told you, if you asked
me, that my relationship with Anita Hill was cordial, professional
and that I was very proud of her for all she had done with her life
and the things that she had accomplished.
Judge Thomas, this is your fourth confirmation
in 9 years, isn't that correct?
Yes, Senator. It is either my—yes, Senator, it is.
In fact, three of those confirmations occurred,
the time of the allegations by Professor Hill.
Actually this, Senator, would be the fourth.
That's right, this would be the fourth.
So she actually has known you through four Senate confirmations,
four of them. No, this is the fourth. So four Senate confirmations,
And none of those have been very easy, have
That's right, now that I think about it, none of
my confirmations, aside from the first one, was easy.
And you had your critics in each and every one
of them, didn't you?
That is right.
DO you remember the details of each of those
calls that were made that we went over?
Or do you just remember them generally?
I remember the calls generally, Senator. I don't
remember the specifics of each call. That has been quite some time.
Well, let me just say this. I have kept everybody
too long and I know we can continue tomorrow, but I would like to
ask this question just to end the day with and I think it is an important
question. I have to say, cumulatively, these charges, even
though they were made on all kinds of occasions, I mean they are
unbelievable that anybody could be that perverted. I am sure there
are people like that but they are generally in insane asylums.
What was your reaction when you first heard of these allegations
against you, just the first allegations, not all the other ones, and
then you can tell me your reaction when you heard of these ones
that were brought forth for the first time today?
Senator, when the FBI informed me of the allegation,
the person first, there was shock, dismay, hurt, pain, and
when he informed me of the nature of the allegations I was surprised,
there was disbelief and again, hurt. And I have reached a
point over the last 2 weeks, plus, I have reached a point where I
can't go over each and every one of these allegations again.
As I said in my statement this morning, that when you have allegations
of this nature by someone that you have thought the world
of and felt that you have done the best for it is an enormously
painful experience and it is one when you ask yourself, you rip at
yourself, what could you have done? And why could this happen or
why would it happen?
HOW do you feel right now, Judge, after what
you have been through?
Senator, as I indicated this morning, it just isn't
worth it. And the nomination is not worth it, being on the Supreme
Court is not worth it, and there is no amount of money that is
worth it, there is no amount of money that can restore my name,
being an associate Justice of the Supreme Court will never replace
what I have been robbed of, and I would not recommend that
anyone go through it.
This has been an enormously difficult experience, but I don't
think that that is the worst of it. I am 43 years old and if I am not
confirmed I am still the youngest member of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit. And I will go on. I will go back to my life
of talking to my neighbors and cutting my grass and getting a Big
Mac at McDonald's and driving my car, and seeing my kid play
football. And I will live. I will have my life back. And all of this
hurt has brought my family closer together, my wife and I, my
mother, but that is not—so there is no pity for me. I think the
country has been hurt by this process. I think we are destroying
our country. We are destroying our institutions. And I think it is a
sad day when the U.S. Senate can be used by interest groups, and
hate mongers, and people who are interested in digging up dirt to
destroy other people and who will stop at no tactics, when they can
use our great political institutions for their political ends, we have
gone far beyond McCarthyism. This is far more dangerous than
McCarthyism. At least McCarthy was elected.
Judge, I have a lot of other questions to ask you
and I think they are important questions. I think you deserve the
opportunity to tell your side of this and you have done it here so
far. And I have to tell you this has come down to this, one woman's
allegations that are 10 years old against your lifetime of service
over that same 10-year period. I have known you almost 11 years.
And the person that the good professor described is not the person
I have known.
We are going to talk a little bit more about this tomorrow and
about what went on there and about how this could have happened.
How one person's uncorroborated allegations, could destroy
a career and one of the most wonderful opportunities for a young
man from Pin Point, GA.
Senator, I repeat what I said, I have been hurt by
this deeply, and nothing is worth going through this. This has devastated
me and it has devastated my family. It is untrue. They are
lies. I have hundreds of women who work with me, and you can
call them, dozens who worked closely with me on my personal
staff. You can call them. You can bring them up and give them as
much air time as you have given this one, one person, with uncorroborated
scurrilous lies and allegations. Give them as much time
and see what they say.
I hope we will do that.
It is not just that, Senator, it is more than that.
You are ruining the country. If it can happen to me it can happen
to anybody, any time over any issue. Our institutions are being
controlled by people who will stop at nothing. They went around
this country looking for dirt, not information on Clarence Thomas,
dirt. Anybody with any dirt, anything, late night calls, calls at
work, calls at home, badgering, anything, give us some dirt. I think
that if our country has reached this point we are in trouble. And
you should feel worse for the country than you do for me.
I feel bad for both.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have kept us over a little bit. I wish I
could proceed further tonight but I think we will wait until tomorrow
morning. I know everybody is dead tired, and I am sure you
are dead tired, I know that.
So, thank you for giving me this extra time. You have always
been courteous and decent, and frankly, you have run this committee
through this whole process in a courteous and decent way, including
the way in which you ran it with regard to the FBI report,
as well. We, on this side, know that but thank you.
Let me, before we go, Judge Heflin, reserved
some of his time.
Judge Thomas, you describe Anita Hill and your
relationship with her up until you heard, on September, I believe
you said the 24th, as cordial, positive, had no trouble with her, in
any way. Now, you make rather strong statements. Do you think
that Anita Hill is lying?
Senator, I know that what she is saying is
NOW, what do you think that her motivations
are to come here and testify?
Senator, I have agonized over that. I have
thought about it. I have thought about why she would say these
things, why she would come here, why it would keep changing. I
Well, if you don't know, see we, in the committee,
have a responsibility to figure out if she is not telling the
truth, why? When you worked with her did you feel that she was a
zealous civil rights supporter who was willing to consider and be
only a one-interest individual?
Senator, I cannot characterize her that way. I
have not thought about her that way. But I would like to address
what you said before that. I think you have more than an obligation
to figure out why she would say that. I think you have an obligation to determine why you would allow uncorroborated, unsubstantiated
allegations to ruin my life.
Well, she has testified, that you, in effect, act as
a character witness for her. You have testified here about the relationship,
her work, and her reputation and here we are trying to
get to the bottom of what the facts are. And we want to know what
the truth is, and you knew her probably better than any one of us.
Senator, there are others that you could bring as
witnesses. I have suggested to you there are dozens of people who
work there. And
I think you have made a point and I hope they
are brought here.
We are, we have agreed already to do that.
But we are still faced with the fact, Judge, that
if she is lying why? We are still faced with the fact that if she is
telling a falsehood, what is the motivation?
Now, we have watched her testify today and she is a meek
That is not as I remember Anita. Anita is, I can't
say that and you can ask others who visit here, Anita would not
have been considered a meek woman. She was an aggressive debater.
She stood her ground. When she got her dander up, she would
storm off and I would say that she is a bright person, a capable
person. Meek is not a characterization that I would remember.
Well, you say when she got her dander off she
would stalk off.
Well, she was a good debater. She fought for her
position. I don't remember her as being someone who was a pushover.
Well, was she a vindicative woman?
I think, Senator, that she argued personally for
her position, and I took it as a sign of immaturity, perhaps, that
when she didn't get her way, that she would tend to reinforce her
position and get a bit angry. I did not see that as a character flaw
Did she have any indication to you that she
wanted to be a martyr in the civil rights movement?
Senator, I can't answer all those questions. What
I have attempted to do here is simply say to you that—you indicated
that she was meek and suggesting that she was not an aggressive,
strong person. I remember Anita as aggressive, strong and
forceful and advocating the positions that she stood for. Again,
there are others who worked with her and I suggest that you have
them come before this committee and you ask them.
With respect to why, as I saw through my own memory and my
own recollection of what could possibly have happened, particularly
at EEOC, the change in position, where she was no longer my
top assistant or my top aid and she became one of many, and certainly
not the most senior and not the one who received the better
assignments and later not becoming the top assistant, that could
have been a basis for her being angry with me, but that doesn't
seem to be too much of a basis.
I don't know, Senator. If I knew, I would not have been as perplexed
as I am.
Well, did she ever show signs of being resentful?
I can't remember, Senator. I know that she has
shown signs that she was upset when she did not get her way.
Again, I am not going to sit here and attempt to criticize her character.
I can only say that during the time that she worked with me,
she was not perfect, but there seemed to me nothing that would
suggest that she would do this to me.
Well, did she at any time during the time that
she worked with you at the EEOC, which most of—I mean at the
Department of Education, where most of the charges that she
makes against you pertaining to remarks about pornographic films
and pornographic materials, and then she says they continued
some, but that there were more at that time, she was your attorney
assistant, as I understand it.
All right. Did you at that time ever notice anything
about her that would indicate to you that she was out of
touch with reality?
Senator, again, that is 10 years ago and my working
relationship with her, she was professional and cordial, as I
suggested this morning. It did not involve, as I have indicated, any
discussion of pornographic material or any attempt to ever date
Anita. I view my special assistants as charges of mine. They are
students, they are kids of mine and I have an obligation to them. It
is the same way I feel toward interns and individual co-ops or stayin-
Well, we are still left in a great quandary and
we are trying to get to the bottom of it. After she went to EEOC
with you, did she show any signs at that time of being out of touch
Senator, again, I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist,
and at EEOC, I can tell you, I was enormously busy and
spent an enormous amount of time at the office, involved in any
number of activities. At EEOC, the assignments, as I remember
them, the individual in charge of the office, I had a chief of staff at
the time who would take care of the assignments and would be
more involved with the special assistants.
My suggestion to you, as I have indicated, would be that this
committee spend some time with the people who worked there.
This committee has spent I think an inordinate amount of time
with someone making uncorroborated allegations against me, and
should have people who have worked with me, who have not seen
any such activity, who did not corroborate these allegations and
who had opportunities to work with and observe Anita Hill.
I believe Chairman Biden adds to that, saying
that they will come and be available. But, now, at the Department
of Education and at the EEOC, did any fellow employee of hers, did
any supervisor of hers or anybody else indicate to you that she was
out of touch with reality?
The only one employee who indicated very
strongly to me during my tenure at EEOC that she was, I believe—
and I believe this may be a quote—my enemy, and I refused to believe
that and argued with him about that and refused to act in
accordance with that.
Well, did he tell you any of the facts surrounding
how he arrived at the opinion that she was your enemy?
Senator, as I said, I ignored it. Loyalty is something
that was important to me and I paid no attention to it and
he in recent days reminded me of what he told me.
All right. Now, was there any other information
that came out while you were working with her that would indicate
to you that she lived in a fantasy world or anything?
Senator, again, I don't know, I am not a psychiatrist
or psychologist. I was a busy chairman of an agency.
Well, here we are in a perplexed situation
trying to get to the bottom of it. I will ask you again, do you know
of any reason why she might purposely lie about these alleged incidents?
Senator, I don't know why anyone would lie in
I believe that is all.
Judge, just because we take harassment seriously
doesn't mean we take the charges at face value. You have pointed
out that when you worked with Anita Hill and up until the
moment that the charge was made available to you through an FBI
agent, you thought her to be a respected, reasonable, upstanding
person. When a respectable, reasonable, upstanding person, a professor
of law, someone with no blemish on her record, comes forward,
this committee has the obligation to do exactly what you
would have done at EEOC, investigate the charge.
You are making a mistake, if you conclude that because this is
being investigated before all the evidence is in; the conclusion has
been reached by this committee.
You have said some things tonight that are new information to
us. Assuming them to be true, it is the first time I've heard that
you were ever invited, drove home and/or were invited into Professor
Hill's apartment to have a Coke or a beer. You have told us
things that are new. You should not in your understandable anger
refuse to tell us more. We have to figure this out.
For us to have concluded, when faced with a person of Professor
Hill's standing and background that this is something we were not
going to look at would have been irresponsible.
I don't disagree with you, it was irresponsible, the way in which
Professor Hill ended up before us.
I understand that, and if I had
had anything to do with it, I would apologize for it, but in a very
much smaller fashion, I was at the other end of that one myself.
So, do not in your anger refuse to tell us more tomorrow. This is
not decided. Witnesses are going to be coming forward, the witnesses
that you and your attorneys have asked us to hear, and
people we want to hear from.
Mr. Chairman, could I just make one last comment?
I hope that nobody here, either on this panel or
in this room, is saying that, Judge, you have to prove your innocence,
because I think we have to remember and we have to insist
that Anita Hill has the burden of proof or any other challenger,
and not you, Judge.
The fact of the matter is, the accuser, under our system of jurisprudence
and under any system of fairness, would have to prove
Judge we will go into some things tomorrow, and I look forward
to questioning again tomorrow, and we wish you a good night's rest
and we look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
I have been asked by one of my colleagues to
clarify one thing. I don't think you misunderstood it, but no one
else should. What I was referring to, that
I wasn't referring to you.
I know you weren't. I am just referring to my
comment. I was referring to the fact that Professor Hill testified
here today that her statement, which we have attempted to keep
confidential, was leaked to the press. That is what I am referring
to as an injustice.
Mr. Chairman, just a moment, because Howell
Heflin and I came here to the Senate together in the class of 1978.
I have great respect for him and I see this terrible quandary that
he is in, because I have watched him work.
Intimately we have worked together on a lot of things, and it is
the same thing we all feel, but there is a big difference here, and
Orrin has just touched on it, and that is what you said this morning,
Mr. Chairman, in your very fair way, and I quote from your
statement, and I think we must not forget this, and this is a quote
from our Chairman this morning: "Fairness also means that Judge
Thomas must be given a full and fair opportunity to confront these
charges against him, to respond fully, to tell us his side of the story
and to be given the benefit of the doubt."
Now, that's what we are doing here, and if there is any doubt, it
goes to Clarence Thomas, it does not go to Professor Hill.
I made the statement and I stand by the statement.
That is why I—not that you need my recommendation,
Judge, but tell us what you know. We are trying to determine what
happened. It is as simple as that. And the mere fact, as I said, that
we take the allegation seriously does not mean that we assume the
allegation is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I believe you mentioned
Clarence Thomas' attorneys. So far as I know, he has no attorneys.
He doesn't need any.
Tomorrow, we will reconvene—I assume, Judge,
it is your choice, I assume you wish to come back tomorrow. The
committee is not demanding you come back tomorrow. Do you wish
to come back tomorrow?
I think so, Senator. I would like to finish this.
We will reconvene at 10 o'clock.