When is sexual assault against children, especially as it occurs within families, going to be included in the discussion?
2
I was more ready to hear from Prof Hill during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the Access Hollywood tape scandal and the Kavanaugh hearings than I am now. Now I just want to beat Trump and so I’m not keen on now hearing from Prof Hill at the expense Mr Biden, a far more decent man than dishonest, amoral, unpatriotic despot we now have for President. Prof Hill, please resist the temptation to reclaim the spotlight until after 2020, at which point I’ll be all ears again.
9
Sexual harassment remains a largely unsolvable problem. Until we have a fool-proof lie detector, society faces the impossible task of sorting false accusers from true victims, the falsely accused from the guilty.
Meanwhile, "believe survivors" no matter what? That's foolish and dangerous. It gives incentive to ill-intentioned people to falsely accuse others out of envy, jealousy, revenge or just to indulge the sense of empowerment that "I can take this person down" confers.
I remember when legal systems in the developed world started to favour women more in divorce cases, starting in the '70s. Everyone, including me, thought "Finally, respect for women in the legal system." A few decades later, we have the phenomenon of women easily financially ruining men in such cases, should they set out to. It's pretty much the done thing if the man is wealthy.
I think using the word "survivor" as a blanket term for anyone who's been subject to any level of sexual harassment is more a touch insulting to those who've survived true brutality or disaster. In cases involving rape and violence, yes. But if someone calls you "honey" once and you don't like it, is that a near-death experience? If someone grabs your breast and runs away, have you just "survived" a breast-grabbing?
Ask a Treblinka survivor. Ask a quadriplegic victim of a drunk driver.
5
Anita Hill was courageous, credible and poised beyond belief during the Thomas hearing twenty years ago. During that testimony, she also admitted that her own decisions as a young person, while she was employed as a high level attorney in an agency charged with combating sexual harassment/discrimination allowed other women coming after her to be similarly exposed to harassment by Thomas, the head of that same agency. She recognized and owned up to the irony and accepted that responsibility.Whether for the sake of her career or the futility of protesting, for the rest of her career, to this day, she has sought to make amends for that understandable decision.
Joe Biden treated Anita Hill with consideration and respect during the Thomas hearing, leaping in at one point to quash a sneaky attack by a Republican attempting to discredit her by asking if she disagreed with Thomas on the subject of abortion. Since then, he has been an outspoken sponsor of anti domestic violence legislation. He recently apologized to her for the conduct of the entire Senate committee.
I respect Hill and I am also comfortable, as a reasonable feminist, supporting Biden. Both were gender victims of their times, and both have been committed leaders and public servants.
Kavanaugh and Thomas are not worthy of their stations; that much is obvious. Christine Blasey Ford and her family have paid a terrible price for her willingness to testify. All other claims and assertions are matters of conjecture.
4
Having read most of the comments here and scanned the rest, I see trump's name mentioned only six or seven times.
Per Ms. Hill's essay here:
"the Department of Defense revealed that sexual harassment and assault in the military rose by 38 percent from 2016 to 2018. The Pentagon estimated that 13,000 women and 7,500 men were sexually assaulted in the 2018 fiscal year."
"according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claims of sexual harassment increased by more than 12 percent from fiscal year 2017 to 2018."
Anybody see a trend here noting the dates?
We have a prolific and notorious sexual harasser and assaulter sitting in the Oval Office.
Until we do something about him, how can we reasonably expect to do something with the every day variety. It would appear from these statistics and the appointment of two reasonably accused of same, to the Supreme Court, that we've a very long way to go.
10
Professor Hill, I am grateful for your continuing principled exhortations about the importance of combatting sexual violence and providing adequate, unwavering support to victims of sexual harassment, sexual violence and sexual abuse.
That contingent that needs more help than it is receiving includes, in my opinion, many if not most of the sexually exploited driven to sell sexual services in order to make ends meet or simply survive. When it is minors, underage children, or young adults in desperate straits who are forced to resort to such 'work' in order to keep body and soul together, or appease a brutal, controlling exploiter who makes threats against them, surely they are being raped just as much as the person attacked late at night by a stranger.
Your career was in government & academia: economic sectors where decorum & courteous behavior are generally assumed to be the norm for all. Your experience showed that reality did not align with expectations. But if you read the revelations made recently by Sharon Stone, 61, to Vogue, the full horror of the predicament of women aspiring to Hollywood careers emerges. At the same time we were confronting mishandling & outright injustice in how your testimony was presented, it turns out that the people getting rich making our favorite films & TV shows were sexual predators of the worst kind, not all that different from the slave-traders of the Ottoman Empire.
That awful context has not been revealed to all. Yes, time to change!
4
I served in the Army, and conducted hundreds of investigation on sexual misconduct and domestic violence. During investigation a number of women, admitted to making up allegations for various reasons, one of which that sticks out was that a male supervisor would not allow them to take leave for a cruise they had already purchased before requesting leave. I am all for listening to women, but that standard of review cannot be guilty until proven innocent for men.
11
I believe survivors - after they prove that they are survivors. I was not around during the Hill hearings - even though I have heard a lot about them since Biden declared his bid. But I was here during the Kavanaugh hearings and I did not believe Prof. Ford. I did not think she was lying. But I thought - and still do - that she was the victim of false memory. If Prof. Hill studied the history of mass accusation and mass hysteria, as I did, she would find out that false accusations of sexual misconduct created some of the worst mass persecutions in history, from pogroms and witch trials to the “recovered memory” epidemic of the 1980s. In some of these cases “victims” believed their own stories. It did not change the fact that the alleged crime never happened. I am a professional woman in a highly competitive environment, and I know that sexual harassment is a serious problem. But the way to deal with it is by enforcing the laws, not by tossing out presumption of innocence. I was favorably disposed toward Prof. Hill before reading this article. Not anymore.
21
@Mor False memory? She was afraid for her life, she clearly said "He had his hand over her mouth so hard that she was having trouble breathing;I was afraid he would accidentally kill me." That is no false memory, anyone who has had an "I can't breathe" moment remembers it vividly. She didn't accuse him of trying to kill her, she said she was afraid he would do so accidentally because in his state he didn't care if she was breathing or not and she couldn't call for help with his hand over her mouth & his friend blasting the radio so she couldn't be heard if she did scream. That's nice you studied mass accusations, but you should study Anita Hill's testimony instead;Neither woman was trying to enforce any law, they were stating what these men did and because these men did these things the Committe appointing them to a Lifetime on the Supreme Court should know what they did & consider their behavior before appointing them. Its nice you are a professional woman in a highly competitive environment, but you completely miss the point.
40
@Mor
Presumption of innocent obviously also goes for Prof. Ford.
Whether you or I tend to believe someone is NEVER a criterium that can be accepted, when it comes to judging people - whether it the accused or the accuser.
6
Studied false memory?
So you must be familiar with the mechanism that occurs when women are attacked, the one that results in a new self, a modified copy of her original self model, which must be in the drivers seat when memories of the attack are accessed?
All acts of remembering are an act of reconstruction, the current gold standard for understanding the process of remembering a series of events. That's central to what you studied, right?
So, how do you tell a false memory from a real one? Are the memories that are recovered using the false self model considered false? Even more interesting, are the original self model's memories of having let the false self model thread her stored nuggets of information of the event into a coherent narrative false memories, or real memories of false memories, or something else entirely?
Like, perhaps, the truth. Remembering the details of a sexual attack, even one supposedly 'minor', only harassment, is a tricky process. Depending on how far along a victim is in understanding what happened, she may not present anything like a normal picture of a person remembering an event.
Sound familiar? This is so common, it's looked for by authorities, and defense lawyers, and exploited to make the victim appear unreliable.
When we're done fixing these problems, that appearance will become the gold standard for indicating the truthfulness of the victim's claims. Juries will be given instruction for how to interpret such behavior.
Right? T&K
8
Anita Hill's accusations were credible given her detailed knowledge of his sexual peccadilloes like frequenting porn theaters, a fact corroborated by several people. That she waited - that Dr. Ford waited - until he was nominated is additional evidence to me that Hill (and Dr. Ford) was telling the truth. There was very little to gain and everything, just about everything, to lose at that point. The conservatives rushed Thomas's swearing in to avoid any other last-minute revelations. The decline in the quality of judges and the use of the judiciary to amend the Constitution will be cited by future generations as reasons for the decline and fall of America.
43
And if a former associate or employee decides to wreck a career or block a nomination with 20 or 30 year old, never reported, uncorroborated allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct for political reasons or simply because she can, what then?
No, sorry Anita, the unquestioning acceptance of the story of a claimed victim is a really bad idea.
Your case is a prime example. I didn’t believe you then and I don’t believe you now.
50
@Stephen Gianelli That's OK, Stephen. You can continue to be part of the problem. Anita Hill doesn't need you to believe her.
Nowhere in this article does Professor Hill call for "the unquestioning acceptance of the story of a claimed victim". When women talk about being believed regarding sexual harassment and assault, it is not a demand for anyone who claims to have been harmed be believed without question or evidence. It is about how frequently women are dismissed outright when they report being harmed in this way. "Are you sure? He probably didn't mean anything by that. Why did you let him into your house? Were you drinking? Did you let him kiss you? Why don't you get another job? Just tell him to stop it if you don't like it". These responses telegraph loud and clear to women that they are responsible somehow for the abusive behavior. Believing people when they report being sexually victimized means you start with the same assumptions we begin with other crimes. We don't immediately ask someone reporting a robbery if they left their car or house unlocked, nor do we wonder if this report is a dishonest attempt at retaliation. If you report to HR that you saw someone stealing money they don't question if you misunderstood the intention of the thief. When an instance of false accusation is proven regarding theft, we don't have an immediate backlash where every other report becomes suspect. We remain aware that this is an anomaly.
Anita Hill was telling the truth.
65
@filancia times People with this person's attitude aren't interested in evidence. They are interested in maintaining their privilege to sit in judgment.
41
@Stephen Gianelli. It seems you missed the central thesis of this op-ed, the fact that sexual violence against women is rampant in American society. It take it that you are arguing for the status quo. Easy to do if you are a man.
36
When Anita Hill testified it was a teaching moment for all who wanted to hear. My mother was the daughter of immigrants. She went to work at age 14 after completing the 8th grade. She watched the Thomas confirmation hearing and Ms. Hill’s testimony. She called me and said, now I understand what you’ve told me about your experience as a single working woman. Thank you, ms. Hill for your valor, your courage. I will never forget how you gave my Mom her “ah ha” moment.
5
Your eloquent, focused, and thorough turning of the conversation exhibits the tireless eloquence and care for which you are known.
But it does exhibit the problem in this significant way:
You omit entirely your own very significant work in bringing us to the #MeToo era, and in carrying us through difficult times again, now, by helping us to keep our eye on the ball.
4
Thank you Professor Hill for again speaking out on this issue. Among the many things you say here, for me one of the most important is this:
"The Senate leaders should adopt a fair and transparent process for responding to complaints raised about prospective presidential appointees with investigations conducted by an independent party."
Whether it's Brett Kavanaugh or Al Franken, presidential appointees OR standing members of Congress, we need an agreed upon and adopted procedure that is fair and transparent. Given the current partisanship and weaponizing of everything, conducting the investigation by an independent party seems critical.
Neither with Kavanaugh's appointment nor with Franken's resignation does it feel like there was an in-depth, trustworthy, transparent investigation of the allegations.
Franken resigned, Kavanaugh screamed and gloated his way onto the Supreme Court -- but in neither case do I feel there was a full and fair accounting.
4
many, if not most, of the men in America have been with you and other survivors of sexual abuse since your courageous testimony during Justice Thomas' confirmation hearings.
2
What took you so long to speak out(1991)
Who encouraged you and Ms Flores to
jointly assail Mr.Biden at this time.
I don’t believe your belated,repeated demands
for an apology and your frequent op-Ed’s.
More like self aggrandizement.
2
I question Joe Biden's authenticity of motive in calling Ms. Hill "last month." Now he calls? If Biden had a troubled conscience about his despicable and unfair treatment of Anita Hill during the Thomas hearings, he would have placed that call long ago. Now he wants to run for President, and he is trying to clear the decks. His call is just window dressing.
If Joe Biden had done the right thing when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, we may have been spared the likes of Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. In turn, this change in course may have averted the ascendance of Bret "I like beer" Kavanaugh.
I admired Prof. Hill for her remarkable poise under the assault of Clarence Thomas and his Senate enablers. I continue to admire her for her strength in making a good life for herself and for the grace and eloquence that she displays in her writings.
6
Interesting the NYT editorial board changed the headline of this oped. Glad you did it, but you screwed up with the first one big time.
Thank you, Anita Hill for your courage to expose one of the biggest problems our world faces today. Hopefully, with insights like yours, we can become a nation that leads on this issue. Calling out harassment and having consequences for bad behavior is a first step, along with electing more women to positions of power, in my opinion.
5
There are scores of men and women who have been falsely accused of sexual violence. Insomuch as sexual violence need to cease, false accusations need to cease. Men, namely black men, have spent decades in prison for falsely accused of rape. Men have been put to death for rape. Reputations, families, lives and careers have been destroyed over false accusations. Anita Hill is an accuser. She is no more believable or unbelievable than any other accuser. She is free to speak. She is free to be criticized. Due process and innocent until proven guilty are choices that we must still make for ourselves as a society.
6
Like Anita Hill, I could forgive Biden for his mistakes in his handling of this hearing if he'd have offered an honest and self-reflective apology. Instead, as recent as the 2017 Glamour forum, he stated that other witnesses refused to testify. This was a lie. And he lied easily, with a condescending smile introducing his misstatement by "let me tell you something . . .."
The truth is that:
1. Before that hearing Biden made an agreement with John Danforth (R-Mo.) in the men's gym to keep the hearing short (i.e. a sham).
2. He told Hill that she'd testify 1st, but switched the order at the last minute, allowing Thomas to rebut her testimony before she gave it. A powerful legal strategy.
3. He is said by fellow lawmakers to have had his eyes on the presidency in '91 and thought that standing in the way of a black man's appt. to the SC would decrease his chances. I know he voted against Thomas, but he could have actually thwarted the confirmation.
Biden seems smug and assured that everyone will see only the Uncle Joe persona as who he is deep down. So he doesn't worry when he says he'll be more mindful about making women uncomfortable one day (I say women, because I've yet to see a photo of Biden rubbing noses, touching foreheads or sniffing the hair of a man) and makes a mockery of the apology the very next day.
Biden is not all that vigorous, he's not all that smart, he's not all that kind or principled and he's not the only one running!
10
The notion that if but for the actions of one man -- Joe Biden (and not say, Clarence Thomas or George H.W. Bush) --that the #metoo stage of the feminist revolution could have commenced forthwith is absolutely absurd and wishful thinking about how history and social movements unfold. Could Biden have handled the hearings better? Probably. But he wasn't the harasser, he wasn't the one who appointed the harasser, and he voted against the harasser. Biden did help block a probably even worse judge -- Robert Bork.
The early 1990s were not an enlightened time and were followed by the sordid Clinton presidency. There were very few women in Congress or positions of power. Only very recently, in the 2010s, did a mass movement take wind to treat accusations of sexual harassment and violence seriously. And only after a proud sexual predator became president of the United States.
Clarence Thomas was a disgraceful choice to replace the great Thurgood Marshall. But even if Biden had been a perfect advocate of Anita Hill, the good old boys club might still have confirmed Thomas. And either way, America would still have been stuck where it was -- a long way from equal treatment of women in the workplace.
4
Here's what I was hoping for in a Hillary Clinton presidency: that she would nominate Anita Hill to the Supreme Court and be confirmed. We never would have had a Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas would have to sit there on the court with a much more brilliant jAnita Hill than he could ever claim to be.
5
@EDC Sigh...we can dream, can't we?
Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa better not run for president in 30 years.
2
In Virginia, the Democratic leadership has rejected the opportunity to hold a bipartisan hearing on whether Justin Fairfax should be impeached. His alleged conduct was far worse than anything Joe Biden, Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of doing. The Virginia Democrats only made themselves look disingenuous by demanding that he resign, knowing full well that no one, guilty or innocent, would resign in his position when serious potential criminal charges could arise at any time thus prejudicing a potential case against him. So Anita Hill can add this to her list of cases where "the process appeared to be concerned with political expediency more than with the truth." That's the bad news. The good news is that profound cultural changes do not always have to intersect with politics. #Meetoo can thrive and change the behaviors of ordinary people despite the failure of our political leadership to set proper examples.
1
I remember watching Anita Hill's testimony during the Clarence Thomas confirmation. I believed her. I did not believe Clarence Thomas. I watched Christine Blasey Ford testify during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. I believed her. I did not believe Brett Kavanaugh. While I'm extremely disappointed by the outcome of these two events, they matter. They matter because these things build, one on top the other, until at some point, they topple the status quo. Prior to this article, I was not aware of the Be Heard Act. As my way of supporting Anita and Christine I'm writing my elected officials demanding their support for this important legislation.
Thanks Anita,
5
I seem to recall Joe Biden sponsoring, championing the very important and life-saving Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). If I am correct, wasn't that a good start at doing, not just saying? I'm in no way excusing how he behaved in 1991 (albeit better than any of the Republican men on the committee), but unlike many others there that week and last year, he did take concrete action to reduce violence against women all over the country.
5
@ROI
He's actually unanimously considered to be one of the "strongest heroes of women's rights" for decades already, by women's rights organizations, and precisely because of his work in Congress and as VP on this issue.
It's absurd to want to reduce a person's record to one event 3 decades ago.
Anita Hill did a lot to advance women's rights by speaking out against Clarence back then.
Since then, however, Biden tirelessly advanced women's rights in this country, so he clearly achieved at least as much as Hill, if not much more already, as he didn't just "talk" about this issue, but acted, time and again, to change the laws.
Conclusion: it's absurd to continue to depict Biden as if somehow he would be against rather than a champion of women's rights.
Hill, working for an (ultra-)conservative university today, might want to start criticizing her own party first, if she wants to have some credibility when it comes to evaluating politicians ...
3
@ROI Michael Jackson gave tons of money to children's charities. The point being, just because a person does good, it doesn't excuse the bad. In only the last few years, Biden has been abusing his power with creepy non-consensual touch and calling it "just connecting." That, to me, tells me that he has a pretty archaic idea of how to "protect" women.
Wonderful essay! Her last sentence reminds me of when LBJ made his speech after the assassination of JFK. Overruling his cautious advisors, he spoke out for civil rights: “And we shall overcome!” It was an electrifying moment. May we have more of them!
2
Ms. Hill,
I am sorry your experience was so brutal and you were treated so poorly. Sadly, the evidence in your case, which is now known, shows Clarence Thomas to be a porn loving abuser of women. That evidence should have been made public back at those hearings and I would never vote for Joe Biden for that reason and a host of other reasons.
However, regarding: "Survivors and their supporters need acknowledgment and justice."
I completely agree, but, as tough as this is for you to hear, the accused need justice and fair hearings as well.
In your case there was evidence that was suppressed. Reprehensible in hind sight.
In Blasey Ford's case there was no real evidence outside of the sound of her voice. Yes, she seemed sincere. Yes, Kavanaugh was a drunk party boy at the time, which, in and of itself is enough to keep him off of my Supreme Court....but....
There was not enough credible evidence (a witness, a police report, a hospital visit) to destroy a long time, white, rich, member of the Republican establishment. Or a poor black kid.
Even though I "believed" Blasey Ford, which, is not enough to ruin his life either, I also think that:
Blasey Ford's timing was suspect.
Blasey Ford's testimony could not be confirmed.
A fair hearing would result in what did occur. Unpleasant as that is for you, and people like you, where the evidence was overwhelming but suppressed by Biden and his buddies, that's fairness.
I am really sorry to write this.
5
This is completely wonderful. I watched Ms. Hill undergo the foolishness of those - including Biden - who interrogated her and it's beyond disgraceful that Clarence Thomas was given a seat on the SC. Like the Towers on 9/11, I saw this sham IN REALTIME! It's way past time for Americans to stop believing the lies and to pull the wool off their eyes and see it as it is and not as they imagine it to be. It's way past time, too, for the old white men to go. They're the biggest liars of all. Hiding behind the skirts of wisdom. Sure.
3
Any chance Anita Hill would run for president?
1
I think Prof. Hill would make a great nominee for Attorney General, and possibly as soon as yesterday.
1
Dr. Hill, you give women, men, and children sexual abuse survivors hope during this War Against Women. I was 11 in 1991, and remember asking my parents lots of quests about the hearing. Then I was sexually assaulted for the first time at thirteen. Your testimony gave me the courage to report it. However, he only received probation and I still had to run into him and his family in my community. I was later assaulted at 19, then again at 33. I did not report the other two because I didn't want to go through the process again. However, I earned my first masters in women studies and my second in clinical social work and intend to fight the good fight. There is a massive women's movement the mainstream media continues to overlook despite the Women's March, largest historical demonstration ever! Further, women voters showed up in mass to nominate the youngest and most diverse congress ever! And now, the labor movement on wage gap inequality is mostly driven by women! Dr. Hill we are just getting started, and you are largely to thank. You changed women's lives for ever in this nation because you were willing to stand up to white political patriarchy despite the odds. As a woman of color in the struggle--I solute your bravery.
6
Anyone who tells you to beleive anything other than evidence, data , or yourself, should be ignored.
FULL STOP!
6
Go deep enough, down to where you experience being real, in a real reality, all of which exists purely in an amazingly complex array of neural models, defined logically, where you are experiencing reading this, at this moment, and tell us that you have any convincing evidence that the perceptions you believe are real are, in fact, not an act of belief.
On the innermost levels, where most of us feel we really live, belief peppered with hints of the external world are all any of us have.
The difference between fact and belief is, at the root, simply a matter of choice. Nobody is ever conscious of touching the external physical reality comprising the 'real world', or seeing it, experiencing it directly. (Feynman loved to hint at this fact in his freshman physics lectures.)
It's a heck of a trick, faking reality well enough that everybody can get by, and it mostly works. But that little bit, the fact that belief is all you've got, and that it's a choice, on some level, that's the devil in the details.
What the male establishment has traditionally done is fight to raise the level at which that choice gets made for issues involving women and sexual access. Keep the level of decision up at the edges of conscious awareness, and it's possible to play fast and loose with the idea of belief itself, and how it legitimately (or not) plays a role in the debate.
Control of the debate by twisting the perception of the rules, that's why these repugnant behaviors continue to be tolerated.
@Emily Professor Hill did not write the headline. And apparently you did not ready her op-ed, in which she at no time says that all accusers should be believed.
2
Shall we begin with the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia?
1
Powerful, timely words from one who's been in the trenches of sexual politics for the last three decades.
What a wonderful person, deep thinker, and social activist Anita Hill is! Yet we continue to disregard her. What does that say about us?
I guess we're distracted by our own lives. (I often even forget about 9/11. Too many atrocities to keep up with.)
The world can be an awful place, and too many innocent people pay the price for that. As you no doubt have perceived.
But women, typically the smaller, weaker gender, pay a higher price than men, if such an accounting can be made, all the while hoping for and deserving of the good things in Earthly life, and all the while adding so much to them with their love, patience, and kindnesses.
I'm ready for when women take over. We men have screwed it up too badly for too long. If God is love, She must be a woman.
Happy Mother's Day to all those so blessed! We are all eternally in your debt, a debt we can never fully repay.
First, we have to have the climate in which the women can feel that others will listen to them. It cannot be a circus. Only then, women can come forward right after the incident. Right now, with good reason, women do not believe anyone will listen to them without prejudice.
1
The front web page that links to Professor Hill's piece is entitled "Believe Survivors. Full Stop." To her credit, I don't read Professor Hill to be saying that we should automatically believe anyone who accuses anyone of anything. We should of course take allegations of misconduct seriously. But it demeans all involved to mindlessly say that anyone who makes an accusation is automatically entitled to our unquestioning belief. That is silly, "full stop."
8
In all the excitement and dare I say hysteria the #metoo movement went off the rails and allowed rape, sexual assault (an unwanted grope or kiss as best as I can figure out), sexual harassment (offensive words, gestures, or suggestions in a power relationship like boss/subordinate) to become conflated. I find it interesting when I watch news reporters twisting themselves and our language in knots trying to find one word or phrase that encompasses it all only to find out it was all about an off color, albeit inappropriate, joke told in the workplace. Moreover, the notion of believe the women was allowed to fly off the rails as well to become a statement that if a woman said "x" happened then that's enough to convict without corroboration or evidence. Of course, any investigator worth their salt believes the accuser, but they also believe the alleged perpetrator, but then they go about the grisly, hard, and time consuming work of corroborating or discrediting the stories with facts. Sometimes time gets in the way of establishing the facts as memories fade, physical evidence degrades, and legal as well as societal norms change. The biggest things I can see that need to change, however, are to teach young women and men to: (1) recognize and avoid potentially compromising situations; (2) take some kind of training, like RAD (Rape Aggression Defense) that will teach them to defend themselves, and (3) report immediately although it can be hard emotionally.
2
So, you're in favor of ending these abuses, mainly of women, but you want to start by separating these acts into different categories?
Look at some of our comments here regarding that. Attempting that separation is not a good idea. These acts are bound into a single metacategory by their common characteristic: they are all violent, in a way that is hidden deep within the victim, out of sight.
So of course, it's easy to get away with denying anything happened, or minimizing the apparent impact to the point it becomes just harmless fun, misinterpreted, of course.
The violence is real. The damage is real. It doesn't matter how it is delivered, how seemingly innocent it might be. The fact that the 'innocent fun' has been intentionally infected with an unmistakeable sexual component is all any woman needs to be certain that the intent is anything but innocent.
Of course, every male recognizes the same fact, probably on a deeper level. Being male and choosing to not call another male on his strategic attempt to sexualize his interactions with a female is where this problem gets its primary support.
Maybe we need an allied movement to parallel the #MeToo gang: the #ManUp movement. Every decent male should call it the way it is, step up and confront repugnant male behavior when and where it's seen.
Maybe then the lesson for our kids would have some teeth. --Tom and Kay
Sexual abusers are aggressive and selfish. They hold fast and hard to the idea that life revolves around themselves and that they don't have to care whether what they say and do hurts other people's feelings. What matters to an abusive person is: are they they are getting something out of it that makes them feel powerful; and not whether it might harm another. Sexual violence and abuse is about wielding power over others. It's an act of aggressive selfishness; and it doesn't matter to an abusive person if the victim is another man or a woman.
2
@Dan
"and it doesn't matter to an abusive person if the victim is another man or a woman."
"...another man..."
Your statement means that all abusers are men. A common fallacy, but a fallacy none the less. Among underage victims, about 35% are boys. Their abusers are often--about 40%--female. Females abuse girls about 15% of the time. That means that about 20-25% of sexual abusers of children are women.
In juvenile detention centers, about 85% of male sex abuse victims say that women are among their abusers, according to the Prison system's own investigations.
I was a victim of long-term, ongoing abuse by my aunt starting when I was about 3. It may have been earlier, but my clear recollections begin about then as they do for any early memories.
When I, having been inspired by the USA gymnasts/victims to speak up, began to talk about my abuse, I was shocked to learn how many women are angry with men like me, because I am "stealing their issue."
Until males feel as safe coming forward--especially those abused by women--METOO will continue to have a hole in its credibility.
1
For me the similarities of the Kavanaugh hearings to the Thomas hearings 30 years ago show the desperate need we have to elect women and minorities to high office. Old white men are bankrupt of ideas for the future. With old white men in power we are destined for a continuing decline.
1
I respect and admire the efforts of Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford and a handful others. They are rare heroes. But to me the Me Too movement is effete. It is a herd mentality of middle and upper class PC 'talk' without actually implementing the ideas. Fact: Women and girls overwhelmingly look the other way at sexual harassment. They do not stick up for their own. Why? Because it is easier to submit to what males want than rock the boat. I want no part of the mere lip service that MeToo is.
Nope, we don't see that at all.
Of course, we've spent a lot of years studying why women don't speak out. Your conclusions about it are wrong; the behavior is built in, the tyranny of the female behavioral strategy that is paired with the male primitive strategy behaviors.
Trigger a woman into activating her inherited package of roles, goals, drives and impulses that comprise the female primitive mating strategy, and what she's holding is everything but speaking out. Mostly, she's going to be driven to follow any path that will placate the male, keep him satisfied, until she can escape.
So the major goal of female interaction with a male who is using his primitive strategy behaviors is to get it over fast and get away. Pleasure is not a factor; the male behaviors preclude it because they also favor speediness, not what a woman needs.
Given that the male's exploit requires a woman to literally change herself, generate a modified copy of her internal self model, once she gets away she will immediately set about restoring her original self.
That person is not the same woman who was attacked, whatever form the attack might have taken. As such, it's not possible for her to tell the authorities what happened. To access those memories she has to assume the modified self model once again, and remember traumatic events experienced by the alternate self.
Making that choice would be tough, don't you think? Better hold her hand when she does it, 'cause it's going to hurt.
We seem to have mistaken Joe Biden for the villian in this story. He was and is not.
__________
“I wonder how many tens of thousands of millions of men in this country work for a boss who treats them like a lackey, tells them to do certain things, and stay on the job, and we never ask, ‘Why does that man stay on the job?’ I don’t know why we have so much trouble understanding the pattern of a victimized person.”
— Joe Biden, in 1991, during the Clarence Thomas hearings
2
Believe survivors.
Don't always believe accusers.
2
Ok, but add this: always check it out before deciding who's lying. --T&K
Thank you Professor Hill.
Prof Hill - please run for President. You’d be my pick.
Biden’s cynical mansplaining swagger, plastic entitled smile, and bragging while lying in the face of his unconscionable exploitative, disrespectful behavior not only towards Anita Hill and the women he kept from testifying against Thomas, but towards countless numbers of women over the years is reprehensible and offensive to ALL women. Sexist white male establishment GOP shill Biden does NOT represent the new energized diverse and Woman-affirming DEM party. His shamelessness mirrors Trump and his ilk.
4
I know the word “survivor” is a replacement word for “victim,” but categorizing people like Anita Hill as “survivors” has grown silly. Unless used sarcastically, "survivors" describes those who have lived through incidents in which others died.
Hill alleges her boss Clarence Thomas made crude sexual remarks in her presence. The survival rate from hearing crude remarks is about 100 percent. If people died from hearing crude remarks, disc jockeys would kill thousands each time they play rap music. Assuming her story is true, Anita Hill is a sexual harassment victim, not a survivor.
4
Not even close. Check out some of our other posts concerning the process of survival.
Sorry if that takes the rug out from under your objection. Perhaps you can find an alternative point on which to focus your pique.
Or, moment of Zen, recognize this stuff is real, and wrong, and has gone on for too long.
Your choice, of course. T&K
I respect and admire the efforts of Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford and a handful others. They are rare heroes. But to me the Me Too movement is effete. It is a herd mentality of middle and upper class PC 'talk' without actually implementing the ideas. Fact: Women and girls overwhelmingly look the other way at sexual harassment. They do not stick u for their own. Why? Because it is easier to submit to what males want than rock the boat.
I am amazed by the failure of bo6th the NYT and the commenters to this article to review what actually happened in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Review the questioning by Arlen Specter and the other Republicans and determine if any additional testimony by the two witnesses who did not testify but gave statements would have changed their votes. Note that Biden voted against The Thomas nomination and the vote on the committee deadlocked when one Democrat Dennis Deconcini voted with the Republicans. In the full Senate vote, a number of Democrats, primarily from the south voted for the nomination. Given the makeup of the Senate at the time of the nomination, there is no way to blame the result on Biden. He may have worried too much about appearing evenhanded in the way he conducted the hearing, but recall that the Republicans lead by specter did not want Ms. Hill to testify. Viewing history through the lens of today is a mistake.
3
"If the Senate Judiciary Committee, led then by Mr. Biden, had done its job and held a hearing that showed that its members understood the seriousness of sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence...."
So, somehow it's Biden's fault that the Republican maniacs on the committee did not "[understand] the seriousness of sexual harassment"?
The article is vastly more sensible than the Times's misleading headline "Believe Survivors. Full Stop." This is clickbait, which is bad; it also misrepresents Hill's position, which is worse.
8
Joe Biden, an earlier Mitt Romney. Ready to do the right thing, but only after enough other people have done it to make it safe.
Triumph of evil, good men do nothing... considerable help afforded to evil by the good-too-late and the do-something-too-late.
We were lucky not to be saddled with the indecisive, which-way-is-the-wind-blowing Mittens as president. (Look at him, out in front, leading Senate Republicans in the fight to respect the Constitution! Ha ha ha ha ha!) Let's keep that lucky streak running and NOT nominate Biden.
3
You mean "believe" as in "accept for now as a working hypothesis," the way I "believe" in God?
1
If Biden becomes the nominee, I'm buying popcorn.
1
I completely understand the point of view, but maybe the committee hearing was not so central to the life of the nation as to the life of Anita Hill. One committee hearing does not change attitudes and social mores. Maybe the social mores and attitudes have been shaped more by people watching beauty peagents and people in awe of celebrity richmen like Donald Trump, this most stupid exploitation of the American dream.
“ When you no better, you do better”, Joe Biden is enlightened now.
1
This: "And research shows that if leaders convey that they won’t tolerate harassment, people within an organization typically obey. "
What kind of message does it send when the (so-called) leader of an entire nation is an unapologetic harasser who always believes the denials of the accused harasser?
I always believed Anita Hill and thought she deserved some due process. It was reported there were 4 people waiting to testify and back up her claims, but the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Sen. Joe Biden, reached across the aisle and did not let them testify, leaving Anita Hill to dangle in the wind of public opinion. Why should she forgive him when he's not even saying he's sorry? Why should we?
2
I turned the TV on that morning to check in on the hearings---and stayed riveted there for three days, appalled. I wrote letters to all the committee members, and to President Bush and Barbara Bush. The only one who responded was Arlen Specter. As a contemporary of Dr. Hill, I believed her completely, as I and most of my friends had had similar experiences. The whole spectacle was a disgrace. Sure, I'll vote for Biden if he's nominated; I'd vote for a bag of rocks rather than Trump, but I don't accept his conditional apologies at all.
6
What's the larger lesson that history has taught about sexual abuse? That power comes with the risk of it's abuse and that men have almost always held the power. Whether women were picking cotton on a slave plantation, or nuns in a convent, or students at a university, or sometimes just out on a date, women were, and still are, at risk of men abusing them. Even if an advanced country like America, women are still being victimized and abused in the American armed forces and our military academies. So, the issue that Prof Hill has raised, that sexual violence is a national (nee world wide) crisis that requires a national discussion and solution is 100% historically accurate. And to accept history's judgment and Prof Hill's challenge, my brothers, is not a reflection on us individually, but rather an opportunity to show our sisters, mothers and daughters how much we love them.
5
The other side of this story is that the witnesses who weren't called would have been weak, hurting Hill's claims. Biden thought so, as did other Dem's on the committee. There is still valid evidence that that whole mess was indeed a high-tech lynching. In spite of what Biden is saying now, Senator Specter wrote that Biden did not believe her, so he chose to spare her looking worse.
3
@TD I am not sure that Specter in his book was not looking to have an excuse for his nasty cross-examination of Ms. Hill. Has Biden ever acknowledged this statement?
2
The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. He was not on trial in a court of law. Many people are disqualified for jobs for less.
Additionally, his entitled behavior and spitting anger at merely being questioned should have eliminated him. Add to that his disgraceful, disrespectful conduct to the committee members. His "answers" were mostly non-responsive. Basically, he would not have put up with this behavior when he presided as a judge, nor should he.
Regarding forgiveness, look at the definition. To forgive is for the victim to let go of the pain -- a tall order that few can fully accomplish and may take a lifetime. The victimizer remains culpable.
6
The problem with this is that sexual predators are very aware of not having witnesses. It's not exactly something you do in broad daylight, in a room full of crowded people, most of the time. Even if there are witnesses, often they are complicit or refuse to corroborate a story, out of fear of reprisal. Maybe they're paid off.
Many times it is the victim's word against the attacker's word. Predators plan on this. They are often people in power with credibility and the victim is often a person who is in a position with less power.
Therefore, we must give the benefit of the doubt to victims. Very few falsely accuse. Nobody wants to be shoved into the limelight and vilified, which is what happens to victims. Most victims wish to forget the crime committed against them as quickly as possible and move on, so most do not pursue justice.
I believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. If a few people fall from false accusations, but more victims are believed and actual predators are shown there may be real and concrete consequences to their actions, sexual assault and abuse and rape should decline out of fear about what may come to light.
Predators have hidden behind this "false accusation" thing for hundreds of years. It's time to move on.
1
Hmm. You get it. Bravo.
Maybe there's hope for us all, this time, stand up and be counted, be heard, find something like the #MeToo or #ManUp movement to support, let you kids in on the fun.
Just incidentally, the kerfuffle about this stuff can be traced back five to ten thousand years, to around the time of the introduction of written language. And it was women who initiated the changes that began all of it, including the present state of technology, the means by which we're able to participate in this debate.
The object was, as nearly as we can judge, exactly the same as what Anita Hill is still pitching. Five thousand years. No kidding. Bravo, women.
How about we all pitch in and finally make their original effort pay off? Okay? Okay!
Set, Blue, Forty-Two...
--Tom and Kay
I think the NYT has done a major disservice to Dr Hill's opinion piece by titling it First Believe Survivors: Full Stop. (Apparently the title has now been changed).
Dr Hill never says that. She states: “Survivors and their supporters need acknowledgment and justice. Words of condolence can never substitute for action…”
I absolutely agree with this statement, as should we all.
5
The title is now back in its original form. Why it was changed is a mystery left unsolved; we're just glad it didn't last.
Just another indication that things might be heating up, in a good way.
--T&K
1
@Theni - On what basis do you call them "felons?" This designation is reserved for those convicted of felonies in a court of law. Accusations and your opinion do not, thankfully, equal conviction.
3
I sure could have used the MeToo movement back in 2011 when I was Clinical Faculty at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota - textbook career-ending harassment, which led to a confidential settlement in 2014. The settlement was paid as one big lump-sum, through standard payroll. Instead of being processed as separation it was paid as severance. I had to pay taxes, FICA, all of that. I wrote to the the Minnesota Attorney General who told me to go back to the attorney and ask that the payment be made correctly. They refused. I have the option of seeking additional legal support. Victims of harassment need actual protections for all of facets of on-the-job harassment. So Mr. Biden - are you going to articulate a clear plan for people like me who are paid improperly? I am thinking the insurers for institutions that make this practice would be interested in legislation of this kind too.
"Christine Blasey Ford" she writes. And there lies the problem ... Ms. Ford could not be taken seriously. There was ZERO evidence to support her. Not one tiny bit. And plenty against her.
"Person A said, person B said" "crimes" (or non-crimes for that matter) MUST require extraordinary evidence, let's
say "beyond any doubt." Also, persons making such claims publicly, in court or if reported in newspapers, absolutely must be prepared to be named. The accused has rights, and one of those should be to have the accuser be just as publicly exposed. Also, there should be an absolute statute of limitations, and trying to use such accusations against someone after the statute of limitations has run out should itself be a serious crime. That would stop egregious attacks like those on Kavanaugh. It would also help get valid accusers to come forward at a time when evidence is fresh.
8
Not to disagree with Ms. Hill, whom I resect greatly, but the proper legal phrase would be "believe accusers", no? A person accusing another of a serious crime should be ipse facto believed? The terms "survivors" implies that there is no presumption of innocence.
Should this logic be extrapolated to all accusations?
6
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), reauthorized earlier this year in the House, appears dead in the Senate. It's dead because the NRA objects to a VAWA provision that threatens known abusers with loss of gun ownership. The number of women killed or wounded by spouses, boyfriends, rejected suitors, and stalkers, already a horrendous statistic, is on the rise with the demise of VAWA.
I don't expect to see an end to sexual violence and harassment in my lifetime. But I have experienced incremental successes through action with other women. We will finally see real progress, perhaps in my lifetime, if we send women to Congress and the Oval Office. The time for that action is 2020, and, Uncle Joe, 2020 is not your time; It's ours.
3
@Mary C. he wrote the VAWA.
1
Professor Hill's point about believing survivors is both well-taken and laudable and will persuade the most recalcitrant mind. But the vexing question still remains: by what means should society ascertain who is a survivor, and who is using false accusation merely to secure other ends?
5
Lots of commenters here don’t want to address Hill’s point, that we need better leadership from government to put an end to sexual violence. They’d rather engage in ad hominem attacks against Hill herself. Does her presence make you uncomfortable?
In attacking Hill, they miss the thousands of people in the military who are being sexually assaulted. I would think we all could agree that more leadership is required to address sexual assault in the military. Maybe I’m wrong.
Sexual assault is very real. President Trump has boasted that he committed it. If you’ve never been assisted you’re very lucky. You also have no idea how it affects the people who have been assaulted. Look around the office, though, and you’ll see a number of people who do know. Would you go after them for their stories like you’ve gone after Dr Hill?
3
Innocent until proven guilty. Full stop.
12
I largely agree with Professor Hill's points, but also see this as a thinly veiled attack on our leading democratic nominee.
4
Thank you, Professor Hill.
The mistreatment of Dr. Blasey Ford was a travesty. It breaks my heart that the Republicans have put another sexual predator on the Supreme Court. How can women receive fair treatment from the court now? Thomas and Kavanaugh should now--in a sane world--recuse themselves from any case involving women's rights or any other issues pertaining to women. The statistics make it clear. Most victims never receive justice. Most perpetrators are never brought to justice. Always start by taking the victims seriously. Treat them like they are human. Recognize the severe harm that they face whenever they come forward. Mr. Biden made a terrible mistake, but the worst mistake by far was made by the Republicans, in 1991 and last year, when they promoted Thomas and Kavanaugh, and manipulated our sad history of racial and gender justice. They lied. Thomas and Kavanaugh are not the real victims. Here in the real world we all know about the other women who were prevented from testifying in 1991. I worry that we have not made much progress at all. Tech companies like Uber are as bad as Thomas and Kavanaugh. Tech companies like Google pay women as poorly as they have ever been paid.
4
This story keeps mutating: some highlights.
1. Clarence Thomas is a harasser.
2. Hill was treated discourteously by the committee. Or something like sexually assaulted. Your pick.
3. The discourtesy/semi-assault is all Biden's fault.
4. What Biden did is so terrible that his normally quite adequate apology is unacceptable.
5. The problem is the "government" doesn't respect survivors or listen to women.
There are tangential issues, but this is probably enough. Some comments.
On 1. Is Clarence Thomas a harasser? Beats me. I don't know him or her, and I wasn't around them. I do know that whether he is or not, her last-minute appearance and following after Thomas to another job, because it was so important to her, make me rather cool to her accusations.
On 2. Bait and switch. Wha.. what happened to Clarence? And Long John's Coke...? And...?
Hill was treated, viciously, as a liar by some of the committee. Tens of thousands of men have had the experience. It's the job of those with opposing views to grind down the other side's witnesses.
3. Biden was in the middle of a barroom fight, jolted, protecting himself, and lost control of the situation. Would you do better?
4. Hill has all the power here. If she wants, it's: nope, not good enough; nope not that either; nope still not...
5. Respecting survivors and believing women mean accepting their stories and rejecting men's. On GP. Rather a revolution in our judicial practice.
3
Sure so much for innocent until proven guilty
8
The use of the word "survivor" to describe a victim of sexual violence or sexual harassment is inappropriate. The word "survivor" suggests that the individual's life was at risk. That is not the case in most sexual violence or harassment cases. The word "victim" is quite sufficient. But Ms. Hill is quite right that "sexual violence is a national crisis that requires a national solution." As do murder, drunk driving, drug abuse etc.
5
Joe Biden still does not see what he did wrong and having his wife now speak out with a quote "it's time to move on" -- just shows how much they don't get it.
As if you were the one who asked that your name be dragged out in the media again. As if you want to or have to justify how little his apology means especially after all these years and that it comes as he announces his run for president. As if you should be the one to help him move past his huge mistake.
You are the one who will have to deal with some of the ignorant comments that will show up here in the media, in your mailbox and on the internet.
Joe Biden had an opportunity in 1991 as the leader of the Judiciary committee to stand up to the bullies and show true leadership instead we have these words: " I regret I couldn’t give her the kind of hearing she deserved,” he said. “I wish I could have done something.”
You Ms. Hill have the character and traits I am looking for in the next president, brave, strong, determined, honest and resilient. Thank you for sharing with us again. It is the bravery and strength you and Ms Ford have shown that inspire those of us who already have or will face sexual harassment.
3
The requirement is to listen to survivors not "believe survivors: full stop." This assumptive title doesn't serve Prof. Hill's editorial well. Respect and dignity must be afforded to individuals alleging abusive behavior, but no person should be mechanically condemned in the face of an allegation. In the past year we've seen credible allegations, totally uncredible (J. Swetnick) allegations, and credible but opportunistic (Lucy Flores) allegations-- so we listen but no one should argue that we must believe: full stop.
6
Thanks to Biden and the GOP we have two felons sitting on the SCOTUS. This is an absolute debacle to our justice system. That Biden folded to his GOP colleagues in 1991 is pretty obvious. He was and still is a coward in my view and has no backbone to stand his ground. His both sides argument is typical of most politicians who have no strong views and goals of their own. Biden as a POTUS would be a do nothing government which will continue to prolong income inequality and subject a majority of our citizens to not having adequate healthcare. In other words a total stalemate!
3
People seem to continually say, "What if a woman falsely accuses a man of sexual assault?" and that seems to be the priority in their minds.
No one should be falsely accused. But we should err on the side of caution and take accusations seriously. Why?
1. Women have historically been NOT BELIEVED.
2. Women know this.
3. When they come forward, they have been VILLIFIED. For the latest example, see: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
4. How often do you think women, knowing the above, say to themselves, "Gee, what a great idea, I'm going to falsely accuse a man of sexual assault. Boy, that will show him."
So do we focus on the 99.9% of accusations from women that are true assaults, or on the .01% that don't? If your concern is still on the "false accuser" and thus we must reject all because "what if it's fake?" this is male privilege. You believe men are more important than women.
1
@Cate - If you honestly believe that "erring on the side of caution" means believing women and penalizing men without a trial, without due process, then you have unwittingly made yourself a poster child for exponentially increasing education when it comes to the Bill of Rights and what it was intended to guard against.
2
What she doesn't mention is the terrible effects these two glaring cases (hers and that of Ms. Ford) in placing upon the Supreme Court--the highest level of justice in the land--two male perpetrators who also just happen to vote for the extreme Right/Republican side of every issue.
2
Maybe you have never been falsely accused, but many have for a lot of crimes. Years ago I was accused of a theft that, it was found out, never happened, as the object was misplaced, not stolen.
The minute the "full stop" perspective takes hold totally, no one will be believed, because there will always be both false accusations, and also destroyed careers on flimsy proof.
Hugh
6
I am so grateful for the clarity and strength and concern for all victims in this opinion piece. It is such a relief to all the smoky and stinky sliding by of some of the perpetrators. They know they were wrong and keep thinking they can side step this all away. I thank Anita Hill for holding up a shining light for us to follow in this still murky abyss.
3
As a law professor at Brandeis, Anita Hill must know that, thanks to repeated experiences on college campuses across that nation, many Americans believe the #BelieveSurvivors movement stands for the assumption of guilt, even if its leaders argue otherwise.
Which is why it was mistake to raise the case against Brett Kavanaugh in this column. We should not assume guilt on the basis of mere accusation. It is entirely consistent, reasoned and rational to accept that Dr Ford was sexually assaulted by someone, she honestly believes that someone was Kavanaugh, but that that someone was not him. Indeed, all things considered, that most likely is the truth of the matter. So, using this case works against the #BelieveSurvivors narrative.
Hill inserts several statistics from disparate sources that seem to but may not support her point, primarily because there is no standard definition for many of the terms being used. (The Times should consider requiring hyperlinks to the sources of stats, so the reader can see them in context.) Government can further the cause by standardizing terminology and more vigorously enforcing laws already on the books.
She is absolutely correct in expecting society to *hear* women when they say they’ve been assaulted; more than just hear them, it should *listen* to them. Requiring society to believe an accuser solely because s/he made the accusation would work against justice, the pursuit of truth and Hill’s apparent vision for a better society.
4
Constantly asstounded that a tenured law professor [or other reflective souls of both sexes] believes the default position of a rational and rules-based legal system should rest on the assumption that victims never lie nor obfuscate.
5
In what reality did you see that particular scene? Several commenters here have suggested that somewhere, somebody made that claim, but we've been unable to locate it so far.
Out here where we've been nosing around, most of the debate revolves around restoring a level playing field, dealing with the moderately well documented bias endured by victims of sexualized crimes, dealing with the various attempts to redefine these crimes in such a way as to make them go away, and the serious lack of official effort to correct any of these issues.
Oh, yeah, and Joe Biden. Really, 'nuff said 'bout that.
So how do you come to the conclusion anybody involved here suggests what you posted? Seriously, we're interested in how it occurred to you, you know, the impulse.
If you remember, we'd like to hear it. --T&K
The headline, "Believe women full stop" is inconsistent with the title, "let's (talk about how to) end sexual violence". Testimony is evidence. Weigh it. Who is saying it? How detailed is it? How probable is it? How corroborated is it? How many times did it happen? Who else saw it, heard about it, who else did you tell? What motivation to lie about it would you have had when it happened? Why might you NOT have wanted to say something when it happened? What is the countervailing account of the incident? What motivations might the offender have?
No one is asking just to turn off our brains. But we MUST weigh evidence correctly and to date that has not been done, neither at Ms. Hill's hearing. Ms. De Blase Ford's hearing nor in countless HR offices and other offices. The fact is that it used to be easier for women to say nothing and get on with life. Now they are saying something and we should listen, weigh what they are saying and act accordingly.
2
As expected, the fears and claims of false accusations are trotted out top support the status quo.
Fact: the rate of false reports of rape are as numerous as those for any other crime. About 2%.
Fact: only about 40% of rapes are reported.
Fact: only about 1/2 of reported rapes are prosecuted.
Fact: Only in rape is the victim attacked for being a victim should a case go to trial.
Fact: Only in a case of rape is the victim immediately doubted, unlike other crimes like say, robbery.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297
Dealing with facts and reality, it would seem there is absolutely no reason to not believe the victim. Dealing with reality and facts, the failure to report the crime to police is not a valid reason to not believe - it does make a good excuse though for the accused.
2
@uwteacher
"Fact: the rate of false reports of rape are as numerous as those for any other crime. About 2%.'
I read the Stanford article, it also cited the FBI as you did. But it is unclear precisely what this means-98% of those accused are convicted? Probably not. And it is one thing to report crime to the FBI or a police department, and quite another to make accusations on-line.
But even more importantly, isn't it precisely for the 2% falsely accused that we have a system like ours. Careful, please.
"Believe Women" has the same marketing problem as "Black Lives Matter" and some of the comments here prove it. Both are confusing for different reasons. "Believe Women" creates the misunderstanding that all accused persons should be thrown directly into jail without due process, whereas—I've been lead to believe—it means take every woman's accusation seriously, conduct a thorough investigation, and press charges if there's probable cause. Of course, it doesn't address male victims who are not believed. Riffing off "Time's Up"—which is also problematic because it implies there was ever time for abuse—perhaps the slogan should be "Listen Up" or something better. "Black Lives Matter" inspired "All Lives Matter" precisely because all lives do matter. The movement should have been "Black Lives Also Matter (BLAM)" from the beginning, to stress the disproportionate nature of black victimization. You see, you don't want to have to explain the message behind your slogan; to be most effective the message should BE the slogan. That's Marketing 101.
2
As an Ivy League lawyer Anita Hill could not stand up to Thomas's unwanted advances at the time in her continuing personal relationship with Thomas.
There is no subsequent evidence that Supreme Court Justice Thomas is a sexual predator.
Instead of this Ivy League lawyer dealing with her problems with Thomas at the personal level, she takes political action against him at the Senate hearings on his confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice, in front of global TV cameras.
I disagree with her moral judgement as an Ivy League lawyer.
Why did the Democratic majority in the Senate at the time confirm Thomas to the Supreme Court, even after her testimony against him?
2
Ahhh, the Ivy League's gone down hill since Yale lost the Championship and Princeton decided to admit women...
Wait, what was the question?
"Bad behavior has not gone away, notwithstanding the valiant efforts of the people in the #MeToo movement."
There are several ways to get rid of bad behavior.
The first and most obvious is to demand that people don't do it. #MeToo is helping get HR departments and the police on board, and that should be helping, but it will always be hard to punish someone based on someone else's word alone. It is a work in progress.
The next way is moral. For those people who adhere to moral standards but don't get it, #MeToo is making clear what they might not have understood before. The line between persistent persuasion and harassment has moved, and anyone who's paying attention knows it.
Finally, you can deal with the root cause. Why are some people driven to do it?
Some people are bullies. They'll pick on anyone if they can get away with it. Women are a favorite target because they are perceived as being weaker.
Then there's everyone else.
For the majority of ordinary looking people, women's sexuality is valuable and men's is not. Some men resent this, and when they act on this resentment, it comes out as everyday lightweight sexual harassment, including the comments, the exclusions, and the subtle devaluation of women and their sexuality.
Ordinary moral people don't threaten or assault someone based on their resentments, but it comes out sideways.
I have no idea what can be done to mitigate this, but ignoring it will not make it go away. Emotions have consequences.
1
What you've described is, in part, the operation of a universal human faculty known to sociologists as 'the status hierarchy'. Every human comes complete with an operational status evaluator that functions constantly, in all situations, to render an estimate (in a few seconds, three or less) of the 'status' of any other person that comes into view.
This status is the only real status that has relevance for mating decisions, regardless of desperate behavior accompanied by Beemers or other supposed trappings of success. What human status measures is suitability for long term mating success, with particular weight given to ability for nurturing behavior.
Guys that don't measure up have only the primitive strategy to fall back on if they want access to higher status female partners. Modern strategy mating is where the status hierarchy plays its intended role: long term pair bonding, the type of relationship defined by the modern strategy, is most successful when both partners share the same status.
Much of the visible mating dance in human social situations involves variations concocted to deal with either status matching or perceived mismatches, and strategies to get around the expected rejection that normally occur in such situations. Your descriptions reflect several of the more common patterns of behavior that arise.
So: good eye, but don't be surprised when the players seem to change roles in different situations, particularly when the group mix changes.
--Tom and Kay
Dirty words (assuming they happened) are not violence, and sexual harassment does not result in death, so experiencing it does not make you a "survivor". What has caused this bizarre use of language?
3
What's bizarre here is your use, not ours. Any sexualized attack, be it harassment or full on rape, is violent. It requires a woman to modify her internal neural models of who she is and what the world around her expects of her.
Get that? Sexual harassment isn't idle bullying, like picking on another kid in grade school, anything like that at all. It isn't like other forms of harassment, just like rape is different than murder, in many respects far worse.
What Clarence Thomas did to Anita Hill forced her to modify her internal neural models, to change her definition of her self. That is strictly her right, not his, ever. It is a vicious and violent event, uprooting her carefully constructed and cultivated concept of her self, an event that the public record clearly demonstrates follows her to this day.
He had no right to do that to her; no male has that right. This isn't persuasion, or mere suggestion, an implied offer she was free to turn down. She had to change, in some ways permanently, just to refuse. Thomas' buddies in the locker room probably laughed and congratulated him on his success, the cleverness of his awkward attempt.
Dr. Hill is not addressing a trivial problem here. The responses more than adequately demonstrate that fact.
--Tom and Kay
I'm not hopeful as Ms. Hill is. What I saw in the aftermath of #MeToo was an increase in the presumption that women are liars and should not be believed. Over and over, I heard and read of calls for witnesses to the behaviors survivors allege, because the word of the survivor is not enough. Christine Blasey Ford wasn't believed, in part, because she couldn't produce a witness to back her up. The whole #MeToo movement wouldn't have existed at all without the numbers of women who came forward. One or two women are easily dismissed as just complainers, or worse, liars. It's still true that women are simply not believed. All to often, the police, juries and judges still believe rape is the victim's fault. We continue to see some egregiously lenient sentences handed down to men found guilty of sexual abuse and rape. Women who report sexual harassment in the workplace are patronized. Women who dress in what some consider an immodest way are still shamed. Young girls are sent home from proms. Today's young women are growing up in the shadow of #MeToo, but I'm not convinced the world they face is any different.
2
Take heart.
We've seen at least three major waves of this effort, all failed. But each resulted in a stronger push the next time around, and the present effort is miles ahead of any previous attempt to address these issues.
The level of bleating social noise in these replies is one of our favorite metrics for estimating the effectiveness of the current effort. Don't let the bleating scare you, or dishearten you; it's just an indicator of how alarmed the other side is, the level of threat they perceive in the public record of events that address their innermost fears,
which are, predominantly, related to their impending loss, of control over women and the right to free access.
We say, bravo, Dr. Hill. Keep it coming, and thanks for the help. --Tom and Kay
I wish the world had a perfect lie detector. One that could pick apart both intentional, malicious lies and the distortions that can and do happen in people's minds.
In my own family, a teenager charged her father with sexual assault. She was motivated by the fact that her drug addiction and mental illness led to her parents being given custody of her infant. She's sick, but not stupid, so she devised a plan to get the baby back. An elaborate, weepy tale of abuse emerged, which resulted in the poor baby living in foster care for almost a year while the courts sorted it out. The child went back to the grandparents.
So pardon those of us who look at stories from both sides skeptically, and don't automatically decide one or the other is truthful. As a wise old attorney once said to me, believe them both. But don't open your mouth or act until you know the facts.
I believe Anita Hill.
3
Fifty years of study, of many stories similar to yours, and our red flags are whipping in the breeze.
It's admirable that you believed, and continue to believe, Anita Hill. But what about your relative?
We believe your story, at least the facts. The parts that address apparent motivation and the interpretation of the history of the situation are where we get lost.
There's one big interpretive act that's missing, and that is a huge tell - why go into detail about the drug addiction, motivation for making accusations, and skip any examination of why she became an addict?
The statistics are pretty clear. Absent a much different scenario (which you may know, in detail), the first assumption we would make is her drug use is a response to serious stress, often abuse, usually sexual, most often at the hands of a family member.
If that's at the root of her slide into addiction, breaking free won't work until the precipitating factors are brought out and dealt with. For an abused female, just admitting what happened is a daunting task, exactly what this column is about.
We would guess (again, from a sense of the stats) that her accusation was, in part, her first try at attempting to tell what happened to her, to begin the road to recovery.
Showing her that you believed her accusation is maybe the most important response you could make, if you value her chances of recovery. At least, don't reject it because it's been denied, or worse, simply because she's an addict. --T&K
The real jerks at those hearing were Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch and most specifically Alan Simpson. When Clarence Thomas said he had NOT watched Anita Hill's testimony, the hearing should have been suspended while Joe Biden insisted that he do so. It was on tape.That was Joe' fault. Also not allowing the other women to testify. Also allowing clear perjury from Thomas.
2
Professor Hill is correct: "our leaders need to address the larger inequalities that enable sexual misconduct to flourish". This should have started in 1991 with the Senate Judiciary Committee but Biden, a staunch ally of the old boys network, chose not to.
It is not, as Jill Biden claims "...now it's kind of — it's time to move on."
No Jill, it's time to get started!
Anita Hill has an op-ed in the NY Times this morning. The title of the piece is "Let's talk about how to end sexual violence" The point of the piece seems to be a call for various federal actions on the subject. The piece may be sincere, it may be a political hit on Biden, it may be both or neither--I leave that to others.
But what the piece does NOT say what readers might be lead to believe by the title the Times gave it in the front-page link to the article: "Believe Survivors. Full Stop."
Of course with a title like that, a great deal of the discussion in the Comments section is focused on the fact that you can't flout the idea of innocence presumed until guilt is proven, and beyond that that Ms. Hill's credibility itself is called into question when she does that.
Which she does not. She says nothing of the sort.
A newspaper with the reputation of the Times should not resort to such egregious misrepresentation, certainly not in the interest of getting more clicks.
6
But there are cases where the alleged victim was lying! Accusers must be treated beyond reproach, but let the facts be proven beyond reasonable doubt before tar and feathering the alleged abuser.
2
"Believe Survivors. Full Stop." is the divisive clickbait headline that gets you to this thoughtful, wise, measured op-ed by Professor Hill, in which she does not, at any time profess the belief that survivors should be "believed, full stop." Yet, most of the highest rated comments on this op-ed are refuting the assertion that survivors should be unconditionally believed--an assertion Professor Hill never made. So, here we are, again, gaslighting Anita Hill by misrepresenting her position and the #MeToo movement by making it appear unreasonable and extreme.
5
The problem with Anita Hill and others who tell us to "believe the survivors" is that people do lie. Some women who claim to have been sexually assaulted do lie. The political blindness of the position that no woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted would lie about it is not based in fact. Just as the the position that a man who denies sexually assaulting a woman is always lying. It is nonsensical to buy into the "Me Too" movement's basic belief that all women are victims and all men are rapists.
1
'Believe survivors' requires first determining who is a survivor and that, in turn, requires due process. Any culture that believes every accusation will lead swiftly to more and more false accusations once people realize they can do away with any rival, any enemy, anyone who behaved rudely toward them, anyone who strongly supports a candidate they strongly oppose, with the simple point of a finger.
1
I wondered why Biden did not reach out to you a few years ago when Clarence Thomas's wife asked you to apologize to her husband for what you did. Now, now he calls you?!?!?! The utter insincerity of Joe is bewildering.
I am a fan of "Law and Order" which has been on for over 25 years and subject matter then, the early years, is little different than today. Society has not change any more than social norms.
1
Predators and victims grow up together in systems where it is often so-called "family values," religious people who send the message that boys will be boys and girls, even little girls, are asking for it. A girl or woman who smiles is asking for it. A girl or woman who doesn't smile, is a nasty woman. Girls and women are said to be "too sensitive" or willing participants in dirty jokes. Children absorb shaming and shame based dirty minded messages about the human body and sex long before they grow into self-aware adults capable of self-regulation. Some of them, however they turn out get to judge others. I don't see much changing.
Prove guilt.
Full Stop. I
Because in America we don't just declare criminal guilt, we strive to prove it without a doubt.
4
This was a practical and informed article. BUT I do not see how a person can be called brave when it took them thirty years to come forward. Sorry for being so blunt but that is the main problem, when you wait for such a long time to report.That is the problem with investigating the charge of harassment or assault. I think Miss Hill is incorrect about her #Me-too comment. I seem to remember the women lib movement had all the issues reported in her piece. What happened to that movement? Instead of blaming men how about shedding some light on that movement and how they dropped the ball. No one gives anything to anyone without demanding it,that goes for wages as it does for laws. Blame is with men and women for not pushing hard enough to curtail bad behavior. We already have laws on assault but it takes the reporting to start the investigation. People put their job at risk to report illegalities like pollution to work conditions why can't a person who was assaulted do the same. Fear of job loss is not just for assault and harassment it is for all things job related. The statement that assault/harassment needs to be special is where you lose my support. There is nothing special about assault or harassment on the job than murder, theft, or any other law. If it happened to you then report it immediately, do not come crying many years latter and expect special treatment. You decided not report it, for what ever reason, sorry but that is on YOU. Do not expect ME to correct that FACT!
1
We should make a list of offenses that are so serious, that the accused must be presumed guilty. Let's get this in black and white.
2
The media didn't take this issue seriously until last year either.
Why not?
Sure, everyone wants to put all the blame on Joe Biden, who voted against Thomas' confirmation by the way, but where was the New York Times?
Why haven't they been covering this issue relentlessly since 1991?
Agreed. Does that include the survivors of Bill Clinton's assaults? Didn't Hillary Rodham Clinton "tweet" something similar during the 2016 campaign? Thank you.
3
women live under the threat of male violence. end it. no excuses.
1
When is someone a “survivor?”
It was once reserved to those who survived Nazi concentration camps, or a devastating plane crash or ship sinking.
Slowly every victim of a crime or wrongdoing became a survivor.
Then it’s connotation became diluted by a TV show of the same name.
Now we’re survivors for just getting through a tough day.
Language evolves, doesn’t it.
Ask any man who has been through an acrimonious divorce whose wife falsely accused him of molesting their children, abusing and/or even assaulting her. What percentage of these accusations are true? Precious few compared to those that are motivated by the wife’s desire for a large monetary settlement, or custody of children, or just pain revenge. Don’t believe me? Ask any family court judge and they will tell you the exact same thing. It’s the classic “boy who cried wolf.” The true victims of these terrible acts have a difficult time convincing people to believe them precisely because of people like Anita Hill who want to be believed unconditionally. She may be telling the truth. Maybe not. But when people like Justice Kavanaugh’s various accusers make allegations, especially when they are backed by vile slime like Avenatti, it weakens the cases for the true victims. It’s a hot-button issue, to be sure, but it’s no different than any other crime where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Full stop.
3
I believed Prof. Hill. I just didn't think asking her out and a couple of lewd jokes justified her coming out to attack Clarence Thomas.
2
Who belongs on the Supreme Court? Law professor Anita Hill. Who should have never been seated? The still-juvenile Brett Kavanagh.
2
Bravo. I suggest you run for the Senate.
2
The title of this column is so problematic. Sometimes accusers are lying. It's a fact.
2
Ms Hill. You have said what needs to be said and you are room the mark. Sadly, as long as the current cabal holding the reins in the Senate remains there little will be done legislatively. Action must occur on the state and local level. It would be much much easier if this could happen in Congress. Let that be an incentive to all
The notion of believing survivors is really giving a lot of men here serious anxiety. I wonder why it makes them so nervous.
1
@MSB
Because most men have seen the effects of an unproven accusation. It's shoot first, ask questions later, guilty without trial.
Tawana Brawley
Duke Lacrosse.
University of Virginia.
Many times in any work environment in the USA.
Because not all accusers tell the truth.
And not all accusers should be believed.
I have to chime in. Not until the divided family came together for a new embrace (41 years later) did I at last and unexpected hear the absolutely, no question, we went to our parents about your dad. So let me just say, I was couched by my mother's god fearing relatives but endured their doubt. The unspoken rule persisted. And in all that time, I didn't realize the directive for the family to split from my dad's side 41 years ago was another course of action to divide, to separate, to ensure one cannot speak to another say to end the spread of what my dad felt he could get up to.
I recently went to HR at my work after being sexually harassed by the Director of division at the international organisation where I work. The man is a well known, serial harasser. I was warned about him and sought to avoid him, but the man still managed to sneak up behind me one early morning at work. Knowing that other women have been brave enough to speak up and to be put on the spot even in front of congress, encouaged me to speak out irregardless of the outcome. I am not naieve but feel like I have won allready as more women are now willing to come forward about this Director. We need other women to show us how to be brave. Thank you for setting an example for me.
95
I know that Ms. Hill is a very intelligent woman, and yet she seems to have convinced herself that believing survivors equals justice.
Our legal system is based on, amongst other things, the idea that an accused person is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I really can't imagine anyone explicitly arguing that it should be any other way, but when we say that "survivors" should automatically be believed, that stance conflicts directly with the aforementioned principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Automatically believing surivors means automatically believing that the person they are accusing is guilty, without a trial. Without due process. Even when the alleged incident took place so long ago that the alleged perpetrator has almost no chance of being able to prove innocence (not that they are given a chance these days anyway). Ms. Hill and her ideological peers say that we should just go ahead and believe the accuser.
And even worse, we're not even supposed to confine this extraordinary breach of Consitutional principles to sexual assault. No, even just an accusation of sexual harrassment, which has come in these newly Puritanical times to mean pretty much anything that offends a woman's delicate sensibilities, is reason enough to throw out any pretense of assumed innocence.
As I said, Ms. Hill is an intelligent woman. This article as much as any I've seen to date shows how extremist thinking can compromise even the most rational minds.
1
I deeply appreciate this article, Professor Hill.
May I suggest a law with some teeth? The backlash continues to be incredible and debilitating.
Abusers are enabled in order to prop up the power status quo. Sexual abuse has long been the best gun in their arsenal, exactly because it is so easily deniable.
Recently an article on domestic violence drew a large number of comments claiming that prosecutors were forced to throw out most claims because they were false.
Men in power take great comfort in the near certainty that they will continue to be able to use sexual harassment and assault as an effective control device, as long as new laws have no teeth to prevent the laws from being used to further degrade the victims.
1
Facts first. First we must determine that accusers are survivors.
15
Not at all; survival is a process, not simple or fast. Presumed innocence works both ways; accusations must be honored until proven false.
It's the hallmark of how different sexualized crimes really are: this is the first principle abandoned when an accuser is brave enough to step forward.
Bonnie and Clyde were treated more gently and politely in the public eye than Dr. Hill was in '91.
--Tom and Kay
14
@Tom and Kay Rogers
"accusations must be honored until proven false."
Huh? Accusations certainly need to be investigate in many cases, but if you've not heard, we have something about innocence until proven otherwise in our constitution.
4
@Doug R How exactly would you do that? With due process? That is exactly what Professor Hill is arguing for. Speaking of facts first--there were two other witnesses that corroborated her testimony about Clarence Thomas, but Joe Biden would not allow them on the stand. No one is saying that accusers should be believed no matter what. We're saying they should be believed and taken seriously until proven otherwise, because the centuries-old culture of NOT believing victims has led to systemic abuses of power headed by serial abusers. If someone tells you they were robbed, isn't it your first instinct to believe them? Why should sexual assault be any different?
10
I’m not sure it would have been as effective in 1991 because most individuals did not have access to the internet yet. The Internet has made organising so much easier. I watched Ms Hill’s testimony again recently and Sen. Grassley, Sen. Specter and Sen. Hatch were really rude. Sen. Biden did tell Ms. Hill more than once he believed her.
It’s depressing that anyone has to go through this, just to tell the truth!
2
Ms. Hill was treated abominably during the Thomas hearings. And uncountable women have been ignored and dismissed when making complaints about harassment and assault.
*And* "believing survivors, period" is an absolutely unacceptable posture, position or policy. No. Simply, no. The very notion is incompatible with our rule of law and basic rules of fairness.
One might wish that an attorney and law professor would have better judgment than to permit personal experience to lead her so far away from the accepted principles of justice.
2
Boy, this will never quit, will it?
The relevant principle is that the accuser is believed until the investigation that follows fails to vet her accusations.
Anita Hill knows the law; just like your physician, she's passed a rigorous check on her grasp of the principles.
What she's fighting are the facts you are trying to bully aside: victims of sexual crimes face an uphill battle just to be allowed a level playing field.
Too many comments here are crowing about the veracity of women who accuse their attackers. That's the attitude: clip the problem before it can have its day in court, then cast doubt where none rightfully belongs if she manages to survive the pain of merely coming forward and making a legitimate complaint.
It's just killing you that a woman's complaint is de facto legitimate, a separate issue from the outcome of any investigation. Even if the investigation fails to support her claims, her right to make an accusation with dignity and have it investigated still stands.
--Tom and Kay
>>> "The relevant principle is that the accuser is believed until the investigation that follows fails to vet her accusations."
Nonsense. The relevant *principle* is the presumption of innocence.
The appropriate way to deal with accusations is to investigate them fairly, not to believe them.
Positions such as the one you promote are simply wrongheaded and dangerous.
Climate change is "the most important conversation" to have right now. By far.
3
I thought this was an excellent piece. But I got to it through a headline that read "Believe Survivors. Full Stop."
That is not what Dr. Hill said. That is not appropriate because false accusations have been used by many. Indeed, male victims of harassment are often threatened with false harassment accusations because their harassers are aware of the gender bias in how our society examines such accusations.
The New York Times headline writers need to do less editorializing, and start letting the writing speak for itself.
8
There’s one solution we can all do our part to promote. Elect more women.
95
@Ed Martin
Yes, elect more women, but women of discernment, maturity, and understanding. There are plenty of them out there with none of these qualities, who remain willing pawns of the androcracy. And let's find a few more men with these qualities as well.
10
@Ed Martin
Ah, yes, the faddish catch-all response...
If Joe Biden (or Bernie or Mayor Pete) is the DEM nominee, and Sarah Palin or Betsy DeVos is the GOP candidate, I'm going for the DEM.
You, I can only assume, will vote for Palin or DeVos.
1
Nah. Innocence needs to the default assumption.
The erosion of what used to be common sense ideas like "innocent until proven guilty" is genuinely scary. It's bewildering to me that this stuff is coming from the left.
The US legal system has long acknowleged the idea that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" which came down from English law. This stuff is fundamental and we shouldn't abandon it.
3
Professor Hill, thank you for your Op-Ed. Unfortunately, all of the excellent suggestions you raised will be heard by deaf ears of most leaders in Congress. For the very reason that politics has indeed trumped ethics and morality. We saw that during the Thomas hearing and again at the Kavanagh hearing.
Unless we elect leaders whose moral and ethical core will always guide them to do the right thing in what should be bi-partisan cooperation in the important work for our nation, we will sadly continue down the same path.
3
Just as there is profound difference between a third and first trimester abortion, there is a difference between sexual violence that is assault, resulting in bodily harm, and being made "uncomfortable" by suggestive language or a touch. An honest conversation about a just response, given the actual circumstances of an event between these two extremes, or for a second trimester abortion, is necessary for developing a truly constructive approach. Weaponizing gender to attack masculinity is suicidal.
3
A lot of commenters are saying we can't believe accusations without evidence. Personal testimony is legal evidence. Whether the legal system continues to believe the accused over the accuser in sexual harassment or assault cases 99% of the time is the problem.
@Heidi: I suspect they're confusing evidence with proof. To convict, you need proof. Uncorroborated testimony is evidence but it is not proof.
4
"That’s the most important conversation right now."
With all due respect to Ms. Hill, this may be true for her and the too large number of fellow members of that abused group.
However, I think it is irresponsible hyperbole in the face of today's world. Indeed, it is an important conversation, but in my opinion, not *the* most important.
2
We are blessed to have your voice. You have followed up your courageous testimony with a career that anyone would be proud to have: professional, relevant, expressed with power and dignity. Justice Holmes would have been proud ("....to have truly lived").
3
You are a hero. Full Stop. Your courage is inspiring. I'm glad to hear your voice. Please keep talking.
7
So this professor of law is calling for "guilty until proven innocent" approach if the claimant is a woman.
How does that square with gender equality?
I now believe her even less than at Thomas's hearing. Not that I liked Thomas as a member of SCOTUS. I didn't then, don't now. But tilting the scales of justice destroys it.
4
We don't think you read what she wrote. Most of what you attribute to her isn't in there, certainly not at the low level you imply.
Is it that hard for you to afford the woman some dignity? All she's asking for is a level playing field, as the principles of the law require.
What scares you guys so badly about that, to be willing to bend the truth to pervert the law of the land?
--Tom and Kay
1
I'm sorry, but the most important conversation right now is clearly how to end climate change.
Apart from that, reducing ALL forms of inequality, including gender inequality and as a consequence sexual violence, is absolutely important too. But NOT the most important thing.
And of course, systematically believing women who claim to have been abused, won't help us move forward either. Women are human beings, so they too may lie and want to cheat, once in a while.
What we need is a fair, intelligent and EFFECTIVE approach to end sexual violence, and that mean ending a culture climate where too many men still see it as entirely acceptable, all while doing our best to take care of real victims - and invent a way to find out who is and who is not.
Yes WE can ...
2
@Ana Luisa Clearly you are not familiar with the research connecting how we treat women as a sexual commodity with how we treat nature as a commodity. Both to be abused and exploited. Yes, the normalization of the sexual dehumanization of women and children IS the most important conversation to be having right now--and is intimately connected with why we have a climate crisis.
I disagree with Ms. Hill’s assertion that Senate Republicans’ were more interested in political expediency versus finding the truth. It is an inconvenient truth that republican questioning laid bare the fact that Ms. Ford’s testimony contained no verifiable facts re: location, person’s in attendance or anyone she told of the incident. Our whole legal system is based on evidence and not on mere accusation. It is very important that we have the collective self control to live by this; even if a Supreme Court justice position hangs in the balance. Ironically, most of the Democratic senators came from a legal background but for something as corrosive as partisan politics were willing to suspend the core principles of our legal system. That practice is far more dangerous than a single harasser not being punished for his act.
4
I admire Professor Hill and nod my head in agreement as I read her piece. But, I also recognize as a women that nothing much is going to change until we better prepare ourselves as women to present our side of the story.
Perpetrators will deny, deny, deny. Their denials rely on silence and the passage of time to be effective. Maybe, just maybe, the breach of silence by survivors early on can be a deterrent. I propose that girls/women be prepared to have a buddy they can confide in immediately after any unwanted sexual event. They should also be prepared to record the who, what, where and when of any unwanted sexual experience. Do what James Comey did when he was uncomfortable with his meeting with President Trump, he wrote a memo. Pictures of injuries, torn clothes, bruises are valuable. A picture is worth a thousand words and the date will increase its value.
My hope is the next time (and there will be a next time) we have a nominee to the Supreme Court who is accused of sexual misconduct, a memo and witnesses will be available to support the accuser and of course the witnesses need to be called to testify.
3
Thank you Ms. Hill for always stepping up. I was a Joe Biden fan for years. Thank you for reminding me in recent weeks of his chairmanship over the 1991 hearings. If Biden wins the nomination, I wonder if you could vote for him.
1
Justice Thomas does not need a defender for his position on the Court. Thankfully he has our Constitution for that defense. But his reputation continues to suffer because Anita Hill and her supporters continue to re-litigate her charges against him for decades after they were dismissed as baseless, or unprovable in the absence of any verification or credible witness. Her charges remain her words against his. And on that basis alone she has continued her claims for all they are worth financially in political and financial status, to further her career.
2
@Bayou Houma
The charges were not baseless - Biden decided not to call at least two corroborating witnesses - one of whom I heard speak on the matter a number of years ago and she was entirely credible, as I found Ms. Hill. So many of us have experienced harassment and sexual violence but there are still so many people who refuse to acknowledge the incredibly widespread occurrence of this type of violence and are all too ready to dismiss the women as gold-diggers or revenge-seekers. Why do you continue to give the benefit of the doubt to Thomas?
5
@filancia times
Nothing that Anita Hill testified as to character disqualification of Justice Thomas amounted to the kind of egregiously false charges of sexual assault claimed by Ms. Blasey-Ford against Justice Kavanaugh. And there were no credible witnesses to verify the few instances that Hill testified recalling when Thomas supposedly made the alleged remarks to her. Biden’s Democratic panel ideologues fought the wrong battle and lost over her claims trying to prove the unprovable to stop his Court appointment, as Harvard Sociologist Orlando Patterson points out in a review of a Thomas biography in the Book Review. Anita Hill’s claim to fame ever since has been to cash in on her celebrity for no more than raising political consciousness of the workplace vulnerability of female subordinates to sexism. But to continue to berate Justice Thomas, who cannot still prove a negative for her unproven claims is unjustly unfair.
Vice President Biden has apologized to Ms. Hill. Perhaps, as she says, it doesn't go far enough. But what about Clarence Thomas, who has not done anything at all to atone for what he did to her, but continues to sit on the Supreme Court in spite of Biden's vote against him? She seems to be uninterested in hearing from him in all this. He seems to be the person getting off scot-free here.
6
@john from Denver, maybe it’s not that she’s uninterested in hearing from Thomas. Maybe it’s because she’s accepted the fact that she won’t.
Well yes, but there are cases of retribution and gold digging. Are we to believe the survivors who make sexual assault cases up? It happens frequently. The notion of applying blanket credibility to any cohort is childish and dangerous. The headline should be "Believe Credible Survivors. Full Stop."
4
My concern is beating Trump.
If Anita wants to help, great.
If Anita wants to tear down Joe, please go back to the 90s
Too many clear and present dangers right now.
9
I didn't believe Anita Hill back then. Neither did a lot of people. A Washington Post columnist today mentions that in a New York Times poll after the hearings 58% believed Justice Thomas over Ms. Hill. Apparently Biden also thought she prevaricated in parts of her testimony. We need to avoid a revisionist history. The rush in these never ending gender wars to dispense with due process for men is troubling, to say the least. Justice Thomas has been one of the most abused and insulted public figure in our history. He deserved better then and he deserves better now.
1
@Tim Fitzgerald
Biden had more corroborating witnesses supporting Hill that he decided not to call. How anyone could watch that hearing and not be completely disgusted by the despicable behavior of many of those senators is beyond me. There is a wonderful, informative book edited by Toni Morrison that gives an eye-opening picture of Thomas' character - a man willing to use affirmative action to advance his own career but worked to deny it for others, a complete toady to the white Republican establishment, a cheat who "forgot" to declare his wife's $600,000+ earnings on their tax returns, the justice who has taken more gifts than any other SCJ in history -he is a disgrace to the bench.
2
@Tim Fitzgerald
With attitudes like yours, victims will return to silence. I don't think that will - in any manner - serve the goal of ending sexual harassment.
It took an amazing amount of courage for Anita Hill to come forward. She should have been believed. Clarence Thomas should have been the one who had to prove HE was the victim.
3
Now, THAT'S revisionist history. Should help keep them women at bay, you bet.
(Intentional sarcasm. Not that first part, though...)
1
It was Anita Hill that should have been the Supreme Court Justice. So wise.
6
I sympathize with Ms Anita Hill but considering the abuses against the US Constitution, the threats posed against the rule of law and other attacks against the US democratic system made by Trump and Bar sexual violence, at least of the non-physical varieties, goes to the bottom of the list for "things to do today."
2
@Cristino Xirau
I think that getting rid of the odious Trump Administration is actually part of the entire #MeToo effort.
Just listen to the unredacted Access Hollywood tape.
Full stop.
1
Bravo, Professor Hill, and thank you. There is still a long way to go, but, as the father of two young girls, I am determined to remain hopeful despite the continuing failures of our leaders in Washington.
I know this wonderful piece is not about Joe Biden. The problem is so much bigger than his failure to demonstrate growth on this issue when he reached out to you. Despite his unforgivable failure to demonstrate leadership or proper principles or respect for you as a victim of sexual harassment during the Thomas confirmation hearings, he is being given a pass by the entire mainstream news media, including, most importantly for me, the very newspaper that published your piece on Mother's Day weekend. He is being presented to us as the sensible, respectable choice for President. That is unacceptable and outrageous to me. It appears that a desire not to upset the apple cart of economic power in this country is, once again, trumping the necessity to give victims of sexual violence the respect they deserve.
3
Blasey Ford's testimony was refuted by multiple eye witnesses to the events at the party in question. She lied, plain and simple. Taking her false recollection of an event 30+ years ago as the unquestioned truth is not the way to promote the MeToo movement. Instead it undercuts the MeToo movement and illustrates that nobody has the right to misrepresent the facts when they have no proof to back up their lies.
3
You're overstating this. While other witnesses did not corroborate Dr. Blasey-Ford's account, this is not at all the same thing as "refuting." Even Judge Kavanaugh's supporters said they believed something bad happened to Dr. Blasey-Ford, they just were unconvinced Kavanaugh was involved.
1
In a sense, I tend to think like Rasputin: "If a man complains of a woman, I do not believe him, he is a liar, if a woman complains of a man, I believe her fully." The quote is hardly verbatim as I read his history over 30 years ago, but it is the thought.
I believed Professor Hill then and now.
But the focus shouldn’t be on Biden. Yes, it would have been wonderful if he’d been prescient enough to foresee Me Too 25 years hence. But that’s an awful lot to expect from anyone living in their own time period.
The real focus should be on Thomas and his politically dangerous wife. She has used the couple’s prominence to advance some radical right-wing causes, and even telephoned Anita Hill to harass her.
8
So true, everything Ms. Hill writes. It’s so sad that our political process (and climate today) has deteriorated as it has. What will it take to bring back honor to those who serve us?
1
Everyone who says they are a victim deserves our sympathy, to be taken seriously, and to have their claims investigated thoroughly, because, sadly, almost all allegations of sexual misconduct are true. That said, alleged perpetrators should only be punished criminally or otherwise if proven guilty, because some allegations are false or overstated and our criminal justice system is rightly based the concept of innocent-until-proven-guilty. I was falsely accused and lost my job, because that is just what a lot of companies do now to the rank-and-file accused.
3
While we all appreciate Ms. Hill’s contribution to the debate on sexual harassment, shouldn’t she and we be directing our ire toward Clarence Thomas, the person she accused of committing said sexual harassment?
6
I watched the Thomas hearings in horror. and I wept for Hill. for the humiliation she endured and the blatant sexism of Grassley, Hatch and Biden. and Ford went thru the same ordeal, minus Biden but plus Graham.
6
@jhbev And Ford was never able to prove a thing.
All hat and no cattle. Compare this problem to nuclear war, human rights, starvation or the environment or naming the new royal baby. It does not matter, it is not in the top five problems in the world. Everybody put on the sad face about sexual violence injustices and inequities. This is not the most important conversation in the world! It is important but way down on the world list.
What? Anita?
This opinion looks self serving and a chance to reclaim the limelight for the dismissed victim.
7
Thank you Anita Hill.
You are an exemplary human being.
Happy to have you helping women and men give voice to their hurts.
Ptsd isn’t a fun place to be in and many are in that realm from abuse.
3
Dr. Hill makes sense, makes excellent points, and makes a common, and damaging mistake. She conflates sexual harassment in the workplace with sexual violence. One belongs in the HR department (and in the offender's file - whether or not they remain employed). The other belongs in a police reports, courtrooms and, hopefully, with just penalties. They are not the same, despite being in the same realm of human misbehavior.
To talk about both as one is to risk obfuscating crimes of violence, and providing cover to harassers ("It's not like I raped her.").
Sexual harassment should be punished. Sexual violence should be prosecuted.
3
I am horrified that after Anita Hill and Christine Ford, we have two justices on the Supreme Court who were credibly accused of sexual harassment and abuse. Will they ever be held responsible? How far have we come since Anita Hill? It is so discouraging.
6
@Leah
Define the word "credible" as used in your post.
There were witnesses -- female as well as male in Ford's case -- who contradicted the accusations.
3
@Leah - It takes more - at least it should - than an accusation to ruin somebody's career.
1
Ms. Hill is right to refuse the Bidden request for forgiveness. It is oppportunistic and would just further politicize our perspective on this social issue. There really is no disagreement that sexual harassment, discrimination and assault are wrong. There is only this constant disagreement in specific cases that become platforms for political divisivenesss and grandstanding. We have to get beyond the selfish cruelty of our politicians in the same way we seem to have resolved tribal politics on so many other important social issues. Bring them out of the closet and understand the hurt to our friends, relatives and children. Let Me Tooism do its job. Bravo Anita Hill.
1
Thank you Professor Hill. Especially for your praise of Christine Blasey Ford and for calling out Senatior Grassley. I would object, however, to your description of Grassley's behavior as ham-handed- too gentle a word. I would describe his behavior as savage.
7
Perhaps I'm being cynical but this appears to be, at least in part, a take down of Biden. One of many to appear recently.
9
If we can continue to administer capital punishment, despite having executed some innocent people, we can believe all survivors, even if some accusations are false.
It is very disturbing that the headline for this article on today's web edition does not accurately reflect the content of Professor Hill's thoughtful essay. While "Believe Survivors. Full Stop" may be the opinion of the the headline writer, this position is not advocated at any point in in Professor Hill's article. Instead, she calls for a process in which people who come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct are treated with respect, listened to seriously, and the allegations are given a full and fair nonpartisan investigation and hearing, all fundamentals of our justice system. It is even more concerning that a large percentage of the commenters appear to attribute the headline to the author and focus on this position in their comments. I expect better of the New York Times.
6
It was very hard to believe Ford when she could remember nothing about the incident - where, when, who was there, how she got home. The Dems pulled her in to try to derail Kavanaugh and it didn't work.
2
@Jackson
Perhaps Kavanaugh should have been derailed by his near-hysterical behavior at his hearing and his completely inappropriate display of bias or for his previous lies under oath. To me, he showed that the kind of behavior Ford described was completely in character.
2
Justices Kavanaugh and and Thomas were subjected to an intense smear campaign which, thankfully, both survived. You cannot assign guilt in the absence of hard evidence.
3
Thank you, Prof Hill. Both you and Dr. Blasey Ford showed great courage and patriotism in coming forward. The contempt with which you were treated is a stain on this country. As evidenced by the knee-jerk defensiveness in the comments, there is a long, long way to go before survivors will be heard and respected and perpetrators held accountable.
2
One of Kavanugh's accusers later admitted she made up the story and lied for political purposes.
Other women have said they were offered money to make up false accusations against Trump.
So it is hard to automatically believe "all" women.
1
I respect Ms Hill enormously. And maybe I'm cynical. But this piece appears at least in part a continuation of the pile on of Biden.
4
@Talbot
"Pile on"? The man has been against desegregation of schools, has been in bed with corporate America for decades. Because of his failure to call the waiting and willing corroborating witnesses to Hill's testimony, I decided long ago I would never vote for him. Why do we need to elect more politicians like Biden? To continue the status quo?
@Talbot
I agree. By my count this is the seventh consecutive article in the Times taking a negative view of Biden.
Unfortunately, sexual assault has been politicized and the claims of women are being attacked by the likes of Fox News. All claims should be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, especially on college campuses. That is why Title IX investigators along with police should investigate claims on America's campuses.
Let the next Democratic president nominate Prof. Hill to the Supreme Court !
2
Anita Hill is back and getting disproportionate attention and a platform for not especially new ideas on sexual violence. And why? Simply because of Joe Biden’s presidential bid. Kind of ironic and I see no incentive for her to budge much and relegate Biden’s dubious malfeasance to where it should be—the past.
Unfortunately we cannot look to the government to change as the Commander in Chief has bragged on tape about his sexual harassment and he was elected anyway. I'm not hopeful for progress.
1
By supporting Christine Blasey Ford but not Juanita Broaddrick, Professor Hill demonstrates that she cares more about politics than justice.
Grassley.
Republican.
Political expediency.
All in one breath.
Excellent opinion piece until she brought Christine ford into the debate. As a believer and supporter of the #metoo movement, Christine Ford’s testimony failed to pass the test, and was seen by many as an ugly attempt by democrats to smear the reputation and appointment of conservative judge, Brett Kavanaugh.
2
"The Times may need your voice. We might--or might not--welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise. Comments are moderated for civility and reviewer preferences."
3
Sexual violence is a dreadful stain on society, and must stop! But having said that, one has to take care not to go too far down this road.
I know, from painful personal experience. First, I was a survivor of repeated sexual abuse by a physician - when no-one believed me, because I was a child. Second, I was the victim of a stalker who falsely accused me of (among other things) sexual abuse.
We must stamp out sexual violence; we must take care.
As a "double victim", I know.
62
@OldGuy
Sexual violence fractures your soul. The abuse, the violence becomes heavy chains. I hope your old wounds have healed. I don’t know if time has help you.
Your experience also illustrates that people lie. “You have to believe survivors. Full stop,” is a terrible, absurd idea. People are people. Even good people not always tell the truth.
You keep taking care of yourself.
6
Although I was sympathetic with Anita Hill's circumstances these many years ago and certainly did not want to see Clarence Thomas elevated to the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment (and we can surely see what a disaster this has been throughout his tenure), for Ms. Hill at this time to assert the damage she suffered back then and what she believes is the long-lasting impact on women, while taking a swipe at Joe Biden...well, her timing is suspect and indeed likely to contribute to undermining what I believe is the best prospect to defeat Donald Trump.
The fact is that we have heard nothing from Ms. Hill for 28 years. If she had been loud and forceful these intervening years, I would certainly respect what she is doing now.
At this point, however, I see her as taking an untimely and indeed damaging opportunity to strike at not only Joe Biden but the Democratic Party to state her case. It's not like she does not have something to say, of course, but that she has NOT been saying it for 28 years and now voices her opinion represents for me a more self-centered piling on and as such clearly unhelpful to the prospects of defeating Donald Trump, the first and foremost work not only the Democratic Party but for those Americans who see our democracy in jeopardy.
So many folks are arguing for due process! So many folks with power still arguing that justice needs to come more slowly or...the country might do something unfair? There will be a backlash? Same old story. Thank goodness social media has given a voice and power to so many.
2
As a privileged white woman in my 60's I just want to point out that our African American sisters have been exceptional leaders in addressing social issues.
Mamie Till Bradley, Rosa Parks, Dr. Hill---just a few of a long list.
I can well imagine the temptation to stay out of the fray on this question, Dr. Hill. Instead, once again you model the courage to step up and provide the very leadership you discuss.
Thank you for your courage, stamina, and determination.
11
What’s up with your headline on the front page of the electronic edition (“Believe Survivors. Full Stop.”), that changes to “Anita Hill: Let’s Talk About How To End Sexual Violence” when you click on it? Then on top of the article we see a photograph of a handwritten sign saying “# Believe Survivors.” Then we read the article itself, and nowhere in it do the words “believe survivors” appear. And not just the literal words, but even the sentiment.
Could it be that if the headline topping the article was on the front page, far fewer readers would click on it? That’s all I can figure. I know it raises my hackles when the claim is made that all accusers should be automatically believed, and I was curious about Hill’s justification for saying it. I might not have read it otherwise. But of course she said no such thing (and it was still a good article).
10
@Boring Tool
Yeah, that was weird. It should have said "Survivors Must Be Heard. Full Stop." - or something similar.
I struggle with this issue of whether or not survivors should be automatically believed.
Here's one random thought (not necessarily the complete solution, by any means): Perhaps survivors should - under law - be presumed to be telling the truth, i.e. there should be a rebuttable presumption of truth that the alleged perpetrator must overcome. (I practiced law for quite awhile, hence the legalese.)
We're all trying to figure out how the details of addressing #MeToo work. I've gotta add here that it "raises MY hackles" as a survivor, as a victim who never even considered telling her friends/parents let alone accosting the perpetrator/s that allowing/supporting/encouraging women to be heard is a LONG time coming.
1
@Boring Tool
"Believe Survivors" doesn't mean prosecute and convict accused molesters. Rather, it means that accusations of sexual predation be treated as seriously as accusations of any other type of crime. Such accusations warrant a credible investigation to determine if the evidence warrants indictment, just as as would of any other type of putative criminal activity.
Many crimes, including murder, by their very nature, are committed in private, thus there are no eye witnesses other than the principals. But that does not warrant a presumption that no crime having was committed, thus no investigation need be undertaken.
A credible investigation was denied Anita Hill and Christina Blasey Ford. The Principals, accuser and accused, were not personally interviewed under oath by law enforcement professionals. Key witnesses were not even called to testify, let alone under oath. Lie detector tests were not given.
If you, Mr. Tool, were the victim of a crime of which there were no eye witnesses, would you not consider it a travesty if an employer, a colleague or friends called you a liar? If law enforcement refused to even investigate?
Thank you, Anita Hill! Eloquent as ever, and sadly, so right on. When I read that many middle class white women support Biden, I wonder how could they, with Clarence Thomas sitting on the Supreme Court for life??
7
Thank you Ms. Hill. VP Biden should craft a policy that puts an end to sexual harassment and protects its victims. An actionable plan is much more practical than polite apologies and or acceptance of the same. 1991 was another time. It would be a shame if, with all the energy behind the “me too” movement, the momentum is lost. Harvey Weinstein should go to jail. Period.
5
One thing many of these letters speak about is the burden of proof--innocence until proven guilty. The hearings for Supreme Court nominees were not on trial. This was not a court of law. Nominees (like presidents I might add) should be held to a higher bar. If there is any "doubt" as to the character, ethics of these nominees, they should not be admitted to the Supreme Court. They are not being sent to prison -- they just don't get the job because they are not qualified for the job.
9
By that standard, no one will be appointed. There will always be someone with a heartbreaking story how that person made them feel uncomfortable, or sexually assaulted, made inappropriate comments, showed homophobic tendencies, is an atheist, etc
2
The front-page heading, "Believe Survivors. Full Stop." is very misleading, and does not reflect the content of Anita Hill's opinion piece. To the contrary, she wrote:
"The Senate leaders should adopt a fair and transparent process for responding to complaints raised about prospective presidential appointees with investigations conducted by an independent party."
That's the opposite of uncritical acceptance of accusations.
15
Thank you Ms. Hill. So well spoken.
The whole Kavanaugh hearing and confirmation made me sick. It was a travesty.
I would love to see you as a Supreme Court Justice, instead of Kavanaugh - you have the wisdom, the courage, the compassion and fairness that he doesn't. You would be a fair and impartial judge of what is right and true. If it were up to me, I would appoint you to the highest court in the land.
23
It makes me happy to read Anita Hill's words that she is still hopeful.
Her coming forward in 1991 and bravely standing up to the bullying and boorishness of the Senate panel that refused to do its job, resulting in the confirmation of arguably the least qualified Justice to serve on the Supreme Court in the past 40 years, was an inspiration to the vast majority of women, and a huge percentage of men from that time on.
That Christine Blasey Ford suffered as a young teen even worse at the hands of another severely unqualified nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, who was ushered into confirmation by a repulsive Republican majority, while utterly shameful, does not dim the massive outpouring of support for Ms. Blasey Ford, or the #MeToo movement.
It is way past time for people to stand up against the Grassley and Graham politicians, along with the Trump base to say "We are fed up, and we are not going to take it anymore".
16
Thank you Professor Hill for your powerful and elegant statement. I was outraged at your treatment 28 years ago and I was outraged by the repeat of this treatment of Dr. Ford in 2018. I fervently hope both male and female leaders are listening. I brought up my daughter to be tough as nails and to speak up (shout) loud and clear on behalf of herself. As my granddaughter’s granny nanny, I am bringing her up to be even tougher. No pink or princess outfits for the females in this family. No clipped wings either. Our women are taught to fly with the eagles with no apologies.
17
Believing survivors is not the point. It’s easy to agree to believe people you think are telling the truth. Unless you mean believe accusers (across the board, women or men) you’re not making a difference. Since proof is practically impossible given how abusers work and third parties can make up their own minds, nothing changes when you advocate believing survivors. Unless you are arguing for guilty until proved innocent, based on statistics, you don’t change anyone’s mind. Should we all assume that someone accused is guilty, and proceed to make them argue their innocence, because most of the time that is where the truth lies? Nothing cut and dried about this issue, except statistics heavily favor the accusers over the accused.
6
Thank you for this, and for your courage all those years ago, Prof Hill. Your testimony mattered then and it matters now; you taught us all how to speak truth to power w dignity and grace.
347
@sue denim I was a preteen at the time and even then knew that she was a hero. I often wonder how these things can be so clear to some and offensive & unthinkable to others. She is a remarkable woman and a hero, for sure.
12
@sue denim-In a just Universe, today Prof. Anita Hill would be sitting on the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas would be a disgraced felon and documented in case for the history books that no one is above the law, especially the laws they were appointed to enforce.
4
"If the Senate Judiciary Committee, led then by Mr. Biden, had done its job and held a hearing that showed that its members understood the seriousness of sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence...."
I think that sexual violence and any other forms of illicit violence should be dealt with seriously, but was the harassment Ms. Hill reported a case of sexual violence?
Ms. Hill asks us to recall the testimony of Ms. Ford, where "the process appeared to be concerned with political expediency more than with the truth." Maybe so, but it would be unrealistic to expect a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry, over thirty years after the alleged incident, to substitute for a criminal investigation that, if pursued at the time, would have had the goal of discovering the truth.
7
Believing survivors is not the point. It’s easy to agree to believe people you think are telling the truth. Unless you mean believe accusers (across the board, women or men) you’re not making a difference. Since proof is practically impossible given how abusers work and third parties can make up their own minds, nothing changes when you advocate believing survivors. Unless you are arguing for guilty until proved innocent, based on statistics, you don’t change anyone’s mind. Should we all assume that someone accused is guilty, and proceed to make them argue their innocence, because most of the time that is where the truth lies? Nothing cut and dried about this issue, except statistics heavily favor the accusers over the accused.
3
You and your family suffered a great injustice 28 years ago that was painful to watch. The cavalier voicemail left on your office answering machine 10 years ago by Mrs Thomas, requesting an apology from you to Justice Thomas, was sheer arrogance and intimidation. There were no repercussions for her committing that reprehensible act. Her husband is a Justice on the Supreme Court yet conflicts of interests including the extensive conservative lobbying have been ignored throughout her career. Many thanks Professor Hill for including all victims of harassment and violence in this issue but most of all for your persistence for justice. You are one deserving of admiration in a society that lacks the ethics and morals in the majority of it's elected officials.
18
As I read this article and came across Ms. Hill's photograph, I was moved to tears. So many years later, her picture seems to exude wisdom, strength and a deep knowing.
13
@Ann-Louise Howard
I couldn't agree more to your description of Ms. Hill's photograph. I recall having watched the hearings at the time and feeling her pain for generations to come. I thought at the time as I believe now, that reversal of roles at the hearing, would have been true justice. Namely, Prof. Hill was then and now more qualified as Supreme Court Justice than the man she accused.
1
Professor Hill, political candidates and officeholders need to be held equally accountable for their behavior and charges of harassment or abuse.
There are a multitude of issues at stake when we choose our next nominee.
On the issue of sexual harassment and assault, I, for one, am not over the Thomas-Hill hearings. At present, I could not bring myself to vote for anyone who was, at minimum, complicit in that shameful theater. As Professor Hill rightly points out, we had a nauseating sequel recently with the Kavanaugh-Ford hearings. Things haven't changed. It isn't time to move on.
Is there anything Joe can do to make amends? To get American women to believe he cares about us?
I have an idea.
Ask Professor Hill to be the Chair of a Special Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault. Ask her what she needs to make it work -- who needs to be hired, how much money it to properly fund it, the office space in Washington, the cost of a leave of absence from Brandeis.
Give the Task Force everything it needs.
Then, ask her to campaign with you on this platform. Offer her the compensation she deserves. On the campaign trail, promise that you, Joe Biden, will do everything in your power to stop sexual harassment and assault, and that in fact, you have hired one of the world's leading authorities to run your operation.
If and when you get elected, Joe, give the Task Force what it needs to propose and enact meaningful change nationwide -- the resources and platform that the issue demands.
This is your solution, Joe. She is extraordinarily qualified for the job. And people like me might support your campaign.
15
We don’t need any more task forces and/or reports that gather dust on a shelf. We need concrete action and real change that will transform social and societal norms on sexual violence. Our former VP already had his chance to lead that change and he blew it. Any Democratic candidate but Biden in 2020.
1
How about instead of the Task Force we will establish a federal agency empowered with unlimited budget, independent of any legislative bodies and filled them with unelected fine women like Ms. Hill or Ms.Ford? How about we going to stop entertain numerous baseless and false allegations and allow to substitute slandering innocent people for some abstract justice
1
@Zareen
So, Biden can appoint Ms. Hill can to lead the charge and solve the problem that she is asking to be solved.
She is quite intelligent and is a fighter for women so she can definitely get the job done.
Problem solved.
I agree that sexual harassment is an issue we're slowly coming to terms with as a society. But as the testimony of the victims should be better acknowledged, we shouldn't become so biased in that direction that false accusations aren't as carefully considered as well. In a hypersensitive age, where one off the cuff remark can get one fired because someone sees it as offensive, careful resolution is clearly required.
17
@Patrick I think it is a bit late in the game to want careful resolution.
@Patrick, I agree. As terrible as sexual harassment and abuse of women is, it can be matched by false accusations of innocent men.
1
@Kathy Barker, What troubles you about "careful resolution".
1
We have two indelible blots on our Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.
Anita Hill was not believed in October 1991 when she told the nation that Judge Thomas was unfit for the Court. She was humiliated and dismissed because she was a woman--a salable commodity to the all-male Senate Committee on the Judiciary (of which Joseph Biden was the chair) and all but laughed out of the room. Her treatment was merely the extension of a culture war perpetrated upon women from the beginning of time.
The men in that Senate hearing room were offended and angry that one of their own--even if he was black--had been targeted for sexual obsessions in the workplace, a dynamic that women were groomed to ignore, to endure, to succumb. "How dare she?", they asked, incredulously.
Men are great when it comes to looking the other way when their "privileges" and their "rights" are challenged or threatened by women. It's based on no respect, and that's what Ms. Hill received then.
Today, Mr. Biden wants us to believe that what happened 27-plus years ago should be taken in perspective. Whenever the Court issues a ruling, most of us know that the decision is not really legitimate because an unworthy man--and now two--sit upon its tribunal, smirking at having gotten away with something they knew was wrong but were content to do it anyway. They were men (or boys) and that's all that counted.
Ms. Hill was Everywoman in America then as now.
81
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
I always appreciate your comments Red Sox, this one especially. And yes, what Profs Hill and Blasey-Ford endured was classic bullying and gaslighting, like nudge nudge wink wink we'll pretend we have no idea what she's talking about, "it's all so confounding, let's ponder it all with great pedantry," all to keep our boys club intact, while silencing other women less brave than these heroes, worthy of a purple heart.
5
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Biden however voted against Thomas' confirmation.
1
To have a meaningful conversation about this we must first ask ourselves to what standard of proof should we expect to hold accusers and the accused? There is no doubt that many many women have remained silent about abusive behavior, and I am not commenting to disparage them in any way. But we are a nation of laws, and one of the most critical components to the rule of law is innocence until proven guilty. This is not a pure system that works 100% of the time. Sometimes the guilty go free and sometimes the innocent are prosecuted. What makes this conversation so important, and dangerous, today, is that social media and instant news has created a paradigm in which an accusation alone is equal to a conviction. This has led to the accused being vilified, attacked, dismissed from college, and in some cases fired from their jobs before they even have a chance to mount a defense. Add a dose of hysteria around what constitutes "consent" and what would have been a fumbling misunderstanding among two people 20 years ago is now viewed as a form of rape. Worse still, a scenario of he said/she said, with absolutely no proof whatsoever, is suddenly viewed by many as undoubtedly true just because someone has come forward to make the accusation. We need to take a collective breath and find the middle ground here.
15
@John
One thing many of these letters speak about is the burden of proof--innocence until proven guilty. The hearings for Supreme Court nominees were not on trial. This was not a court of law. Nominees (like presidents I might add) should be held to a higher bar. If there is any "doubt" as to the character, ethics of these nominees, they should not be admitted to the Supreme Court. They are not being sent to prison -- they just don't get the job because they are not qualified for the job.
1
@Frosty
But that's what happened. The Senators heard and read testimony, discussed, and voted that the men in question are qualified. Hence they are qualified under our system. The Senators were fully able to not give them the 'job' based upon their belief of evidence presented. You simply don't like the outcome.
@John. Legal processes have systematically failed women. "Investigators" who intimidate victims then fail to get rape kits analyzed, courts that let people like Brock Turner off in clear cases of sexual assault, and shams like the Clarence Thomas debacle and its disgusting reprise with the Kavanaugh hearings, the cringe-worthy short sentence (and years of getting off) by Bill Cosby who drugged and raped women for decades, make it very clear that the law will not protect women. Instead, legislators systematically play out their power contests over the right to control and violate women's bodies. Public shaming is the only weapon that most women have, and usually that backfires as well, as the victim in turns get shamed. Even most "vilified" men have paid little price for their crimes, and women pay the price every day with their bodies, with jobs that they are forced to leave if they try to avoid being abused or complain, and with the blackballing that abusers like Harvey Weinstein have inflicted on them, stalling their careers. When the legal system stops systematically discriminating against women, I'll accept your argument that the legal system should be used. Until then, bring on the public shaming because we all have a right to know who the dangerous criminals are.
1
What a well argued, graceful and from the heart opinion piece by Ms Hill. I admire her courage immensely and see why she has not been tapped for higher posts in our govt's legal system. She will not compromise her principles for momentary gain, whether political or or in the social media, so her bosses would always be afraid that she would not follow their commands to avoid doing the right thing.
I have however felt for sometime that the #metoo movement is going too far when it treats any allegation with the same brush. A serious sexual harassment is not the same as an unwanted pat on the back and by doing so the movement risks both disbelief and anger among the rest of the population of both sexes.
In America anything new tends to go to extremes before a backlash brings it to an acceptable middle. I sincerely hope that those who are in the vanguard of the #metoo movement keep this in mind. This movement is too important for all of us to go through such a backlash.
11
@Meenal Mamdani
" A serious sexual harassment is not the same as an unwanted pat on the back and by doing so the movement risks both disbelief and anger among the rest of the population of both sexes."
Agree.
1
Thank you, Professor Hill, for emphasizing the big picture and how we can move ahead with the work to heal.
7
The standard for becoming a justice of the Supreme Court must be higher than the standard for staying out of jail.
"Presumption of innocence" is applicable in a criminal case, as is the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Neither Thomas nor Kavanaugh was at risk of being sent to prison. Someone who seeks a position on the Supreme Court must demonstrate high moral character.*
A positive case must be made that the prospective justice is not only competent, but can be trusted* with the highest legal authority.
Instead of seeking to bring out all the facts and all relevant testimony, in both cases senators acted as defense attorneys and prosecuted a case against the accusers. We all have our opinions and suspicions, but what we do know for sure is that because the procedure for confirming them was so mismanaged, the reputations of the two justices and that of the court will always be under a cloud.
*High moral character and trustworthiness are no longer required for US government offices. See Trump, Donald
12
@writeon1: If we decide that somebody is not trustworthy or does not have high moral character without having good evidence for it--if we don't presume innocence and demand that the evidence overcome that presumption, in a way that a reasonable person would accept--then, in an important sense, our standards are not higher.
1
@Mark: If we refuse to hear the evidence and instead create a political circus to attack the victim, our standards are low indeed. Who could listen to Kavanaugh's own testimony and think the man had high moral character?????
2
I love every word Professor Hill shared today, but one issue I keep slamming into during the course of my own pro-MeToo advocacy has been the question of due process and the impact a "Believe Survivors" mentality has on our traditional understanding of due process. Often in the course of debate, I have reminded folks that due process laws were written by men and thus are naturally inclined to favor their interests, including paranoia about false accusations. The coupling of the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven with the tactical reality that most sexual violence and harassment necessarily occurs in settings and scenarios opportunistically sought to minimize witnesses and trails of evidence that would make proving guilt possible means that there is a circumstantial chasm between the natural moral imperative and the legal thresholds ordering our entire justice system. The quest for progress is very likely going to involve a challenging exploration of how we can re-calibrate the system and our social understanding to do equal justice for both sides of sexual impropriety situations. I desperately hope we're up to the task.
5
@Michael Way: Fortunately, for that--"re-calibrating" the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proved--there will be surely be ample precedent or models in the practice in other countries. I am not a historian, but would Soviet Russia, under Stalin, be a good place to start?
1
@Mark
The invocation of totalitarian regimes is only a good place to start if one's goal is to shut down conversation by framing said conversation around extremes rather than nuance. While a specific sustainable policy solution may seem elusive today, I for one have faith that we who've been to the moon are in fact smart enough to thread this and many other needles of justice. Just as it's both possible and necessary to acknowledge that police officers need to secure their own safety AND that black male citizens should not be slaughtered like enemy combatants in a war zone, it's both possible and necessary to acknowledge that the accused are entitled to due process but our existing standards of due process are entirely unsuited for verifying allegations of sexual impropriety in a way that provides any satisfactory measure of justice or civic protection for survivors and potential victims. The failure or unwillingness to acknowledge is an implicit ratification of impropriety. If we wish to continue believing we are more than a barbaric society with a civilized veneer, it would seem we can benefit from digging deeper, wrestling with the difficulties, and working together to come up with some better answers.
1
@Michael Way: Why do you think it is difficult to verify allegations of sexual impropriety? Do you think it has to do with "our existing standards of due process," because they are in some way "unsuited" to do it? I am skeptical about that. I think it's in the nature of the events alleged that it's difficult to know what happened. I am skeptical that "re-calibrating" such standards is going to take us closer to justice, no matter how much we dig and wrestle.
1
Joe Biden deserves this repudiation of his behavior, along with the rest of that judiciary committee that rallied to believe Clarence Thomas over Ms Hill. Biden's response also reflected unconscious racial bias --the idea that a highly educated black, professional women would lie on Clarence Thomas, before the US Senate, for no personal gain, should have escaped credulity for Biden like it did for me. However, I believe Joe Biden is a better man than that and hopefully, has learned something from this. I would still vote for him in spite of this--without reservation. Trump's past and present despicable behavior dwarfs anything any current or future candidate could do. This reality should temper our response to valid stories like this. There is nothing more important to our country than the defeating Trump in 2020.
10
@EPMD, I agree with you. As someone from Biden's generation, I need to explain that almost all of us were brought up with unconscious racial bias (and patronizing attitudes toward women) that tend to remain part of our psyche. We need to fight every day to recognize it, fight it, discard it and become better and more caring people.
9
The day after your Senate hearings I was on my way to make rounds at the hospital. As I crossed from the garage to the doctors lounge, all of the memories of the gauntlet that I ran to get to this point flooded my mind. I applaud your courage then and now.
In my office, I started hearing from my patients, Lawyers, Doctors, Architects, Urban planners, about their experiences. We discussed their responses to harassment in their fields. Some of the problems were in the past some current.
I want you to know that your courage in speaking out did indeed start a process of enablement for many. We saw the problem enacted in front of us right in our living room. No slogan was necessary to cement my resolve. Congress looks different now, as do the classes in medical and law school.
I applaud you and thank you.
14
#Metoo might have started in 1991? I don’t think so. The Tawana Brawley episode of 1987 was still too fresh in people’s minds. And the problem remains that we can’t simply believe every person who claims to be a survivor of injustice.
Biden worked to keep the truth hidden, which is a whole different story. Whether or not you can believe someone based on their word alone is a separate issue from preventing people from offering corroboration.
14
I would take survivors seriously and be supportive. However, this does not mean I would blindly believe someone simply because they assert they are “survivors.” In fact I think the term survivors is absurd. Yes, people face harassment of all kinds, but when a person who was an adult at the time of the event in question then they have to take on some responsibility to actively resist, yet the term survivor would seem to indicate their life was in actual danger when, frankly, in most cases this was not the case at all. In Anita’s case why did she not simply resign? Why did she move with Mr. Thomas from one job to another? Asking these questions is reasonable and logical.
13
@Thomas Smith
" I think the term survivors is absurd."
Not really. It is a carefully calculated change of wording. Everybody likes to be a "survivor", but some people are ashamed to be called a "victim". Being labeled a survivor encourages more people to "come out", which has positive and negative consequences, I think.
No. The underpinning of our democracy depends on "certain inalienable rights," chief among them is the presumption of innocence. All other human rights stem from this.
There are unscrupulous people in every walk of life, at every economic and societal level. People justify "bearing false witness" in an infinite variety of ways, and always have, wether for personal reasons (what was done to me) or extra-personal reasons (what they did to us).
Since there is no perfect arbiter of the truth, we can only rely on a preponderance of evidence, under oath, under penalty of the law. It does pit the rights of all against me if I have a complaint that I can't prove, but that is why it is called the "burden" of proof.
Wholesale "belief" because of generalized transgression is reckless, witch-trial territory. What might work for you this time can falsely convict you another time.
13
@Allen. Excellent!
I think it's essential that more real cases and their outcomes, including from different work place settings, come to light. Be fully described in the press. With both sides giving their testimony.
For example, we need to know why cases linger in universities for decades when 'everyone' knows that a certain professor is a harasser. How does this happen??? We need all the details.
There was huge progress in the '80s when sexual harassment was declared a form of discrimination - but despite that - what the standards are and what punishment fits what crimes remains a mystery to most people all these years later.
And of course due precess is essential. Without that there's no justice. Even though we know that most victims don't report for fear of not being believed, retaliation, or the certainty that nothing will be done even if they are believed.
Despite so much progress thanks to Ms Hill and then MeToo, we seem stuck. Unable to solve this problem. Why?
3
Seven consecutive articles with an anti-Biden bias. Let me point out just one thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden getting a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Let's not forget it
includes unremittingly negative coverage like we've seen on these pages recently. And yes I know the subject of Ms. Hills reflection is not Biden, per se. But oblique, parenthetical dismissal is the worst criticism of all.
15
@brian. A good point. However, Biden’s timing is just too opportunistic for me to take him seriously. It’s seems to me he was simply trying to preempt criticism for his prior behavior. I have n problem with his conduct during the hearings, but I have a real problem this kind of pandering.
5
@brian This isn't about Mr. Biden, not even parenthetically. This is about our gov't not taking sexual abuse/assault seriously and seeing the damage it does on all levels. I would suggest your point of view is reflective of the very problem she addresses in that you see it as a political hit job rather than a plea for those in power to facilitate change to help those with the least amount of power.
@brian
I agree. The barrage of negative articles about Biden cannot be mistaken as coincidence. Clearly the Times is opposed to Biden's candidacy. Yet we have no idea who, in the absurdly large mob of candidates, the Times does, or would, support.
2
Agree this is a serious issue, but in thinking of the recent Blassey Ford example, with no corroborating evidence, a witness with vague memories, we must err on the side of presumed innocence.
15
@dave In both instances, there were corroborating witnesses who were not called to testify. This is the reason we need a consistent and transparent process.
14
@dave Agree Dave. If we "Believe Women, full stop" then we've concluded that in order to protect women, we have to take away due process for men. The Kavanaugh hearings were for political expediency, but not for Republicans. I think emphasis should be placed on prevention, not punishment. I am with Ms. Hill on this aspect of her article. Whether at the workplace or on campus, we need a process for this.
2
@stopper222, I have heard many times about these corroborating witnesses who were left sitting in a hallway without being called. We need to know more about them why they were not called. Even though I am leaning in support of Biden in his current quest, I need to hear from him about this.
2
We need more younger people in the Senate to get these things done, and they will be done.
The generation there now does not understand, and a phone call from Biden is not enough.
Thank you for what you have done in your life with that terrible confirmation fiasco.
12
Merely because people claim to be survivors does not mean that we must automatically believe them. I will respect all survivors but only after they rebut the accused person's presumption of innocence.
11
In general, people can get behind the notion 'justice delayed is justice denied'. There is little evidence in the media that women are comfortable with the notion that they are 'the weaker sex'. I absolutely agree that what happened to Blasey was uncomfortable for her and a bit of excitement for the boys. In other cultures she might have had redress through channels closer than the national government, and in those cultures more likely would have reported the incident closer to the time it happened. Perhaps in those cultures such an event would not have occurred. What did occur however, was so to speak, put in the bank. When its value hit peak, out it came. And a very unfunny farce ensued, played out through grotesque masks. 'I like beer'. Yes Judge.
4
Prof. Hill was a hero for her age.
Too bad nobody noticed.
Vindication later is better than never.
Nice that Mr. Biden called; the more appropriate phone call of course would be from Justice Thomas.
But Justice Thomas still seems to prefer silence.
390
Thomas sure does like his silence. He doesn’t even speak much on the bench.
33
@Joshua Schwartz Perhaps you didn't notice, but women sure did.
44
@Joshua Schwartz
Odd that Ms Hill did not use this space to call for his apology as she has done often with Biden. Biden, after all, did not sexually harass her.
3
Should we automatically "believe" survivors? Or should we take them seriously, conduct an investigation, and then act if their claims are credible?
The former position -- belief without question -- is untenable because not everyone who makes an allegation of sexual misconduct is telling the truth (Duke Lacrosse scandal, fake news story in Rolling Stone about UVa fraternity, etc.). Yes, false accusations are rare, but they undeniably exist. And insisting that every survivor automatically be "believed" without any evaluation of the evidence is a dumb and self-defeating strategy. Do you want to fix the problem, or just attack men?
Instead, the approach should be that all survivors should be taken very seriously and have their claims investigated thoroughly. And *if* the claims are shown to be credible, then believed. That's the only way a free and fair society handles things, the only way the feminist movement will have any credibility and the moral high ground on this issue, and the only way anyone is actually going to stop sexual abuse.
349
@Nobody You have built a straw man by misrepresenting Ms. Hill's proposals. Here are her statements:
"If we acknowledge the severity of the problem and demand processes in which all sexual harassment and assault survivors are heard and not dismissed or punished for coming forward, our leaders will step up."
"Survivors and their supporters need acknowledgment and justice."
"The Senate leaders should adopt a fair and transparent process for responding to complaints raised about prospective presidential appointees with investigations conducted by an independent party."
"Congress also should pass bills like the Be Heard Act ..."
"In the long term, our leaders need to address the larger inequalities that enable sexual misconduct to flourish."
"Sexual violence is a national crisis that requires a national solution. We miss that point if we end the discussion at whether I should forgive Mr. Biden. This crisis calls for all leaders to step up and say:'The healing from sexual violence must begin now. I will take up that challenge.”
Anita Hill faced a mocking Senate panel during the Clarence Thomas hearing. Twenty eight years later Christine Blasey Ford faced a mocking Senate panel in the Brett Kavanaugh hearing. Neither woman deserved the mockery of the United States Senate.
Ms. Hill's actual proposals would put an end to such mockery before the Senate disgraces itself again.
121
@OldBoatMan. "Nobody's" comments do not set up a straw man at all. She (or he) is making a critical distinction in societal response to a charge of sexual assault. (It may be a straw man to observe that Hill and Blasey Ford were mocked, since "Nobody" never brought that up.) We can accept the word of the accuser "full stop" as the title of this fine essay says, or we can take such charges with utmost seriousness and conduct an investigation equal to that seriousness.
I think the distinction is vital. In both senate hearings, no credible or transparent investigation took place, even though there was public knowledge of crucial witnesses and actual evidence. Aside from the treatment of these two brave witnesses, a despicable tragedy in a country that promises redress of grievances, the failure to investigate a credible charge haunts and taints both sets of hearings.
50
@Nobody - You make a good point about claims considered to be credible after an investigation. This is exactly what happened with Christine Blasey Ford. Ironically, those who voted for Kavanaugh made sure to say that - while Blasey Ford is entirely credible - there's not enough proof to deny him a Supreme Court seat.
It would be nice if "credible" tipped the balance toward honoring the accuser, but the truth is that there are still those who feign indignance at the act while stripping the accuser of her right to not only be believed, but to make a difference.
We find her credible, yet there's no DNA evidence, is simply another way to say, "Actually, we don't care."
45
The due process argument should not be a blanket response to all allegations by victims, who know that perpetrators usually check to make sure no one else is in the room. Insisting that an accused is innocent unless (not until) proven guilty serves to protect those who operate in these secret spaces and wield power over their victims.
We've delved deeper into sexual abuse since the Hill hearings, and can no longer claim that physical and verbal sexual assaults must involve proof and witnesses. We've also learned that intentionally false allegations are far too rare to change how we view the accusers. This type of crime is unique enough require a change in belief systems about what justice is and should be for sexual assaults.
Another point, though, regarding the CDC stat that 1 out of 3 women and 1 out of 4 men are victims of unwanted sexual touching at some point in their lives; this is misused by men's rights advocates to imply women are nearly as often the perpetrators. The stat clarifies that male victims are usually assaulted by male perpetrators. This is an important distinction as women continue to be under attack for having the audacity to ask that they be believed, and the CDC stat is used against them.
3
@SD "due process" is not an argument. It is a right, an entitlement, a legal requirement.
Of course there needs to be proof and witnesses!
Nothing should make us alter our belief systems about what justice is.
That's scary stuff that your are proposing.
2
I recall the Clarence Thomas hearings vividly and am grateful that Anita Hill is staying engaged in the struggle for solutions to the rampant sexual harassment that still exists. My view is that Joe Biden was permanently tainted by his action (non-action) as chairman. But, I really resent that very little focus is given to the culprit, Clarence Thomas, in this debate and how little acknowledgement that he has not had to face any consequences to this day. Why is there no demand for his impeachment?
619
@moodygirl
With a SCOTUS now firmly in control of "conservative" Republicans, not a chance. Funny how "conservative" is associated with so much anti- social behavior.
80
@moodygirl Ha! regrettably, there will be no impeachment neither for Thomas nor for Kavanaugh. If there is a consolation, you, professor Anita Hill and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford are two role models for all of us women and men, and you both have already a place in the history of the women movement and an human dignity and respect. Thank you to you both
116
@moodygirl
Thomas will be on the bench forever and never opens his mouth.
Kavanaugh said during his hearing
"YOU WILL REAP THE WHIRLWIND!"
I believe that was the first time a Justice was confirmed after threatening the entire country.
203
Perhaps what is so disturbing to me are the number of comments about not believing victims and believing in "due process." Has anyone read To Kill a Mockingbird?" Due process is not neutral. As the innumerable cases against young African American men have shown the judicial system is designed in such a way that those on the margins are often not given a fair say. Due process in the case of sexual assault contains an embedded assumption of victim blaming that reflects the structures of our society. Where I wish Professor Hill had pushed her argument further is to acknowledge that these deeper power structures that are reflected in daily attitudes. Power structures are not simply about oppression but also about privilege. Privilege has many forms and yes it can be female and yes, it can be non-white. But at the end its the power dynamic within a relationship, supported by other structures that maintains entitlement, which allows people to bemoan the innocent when accused. How many of those same people condemn wrongly accused impoverished young men who are incarcerated for decades?
22
@Mita Choudhury social media is not neutral either. Are you advocating trial by public opinion?
1
@Matt
Well said. And, at least, de facto, that's exactly what's happening here and now on these pages.
I don't believe ending sexual violence is the most important conversation at this time. There are far more serious issues in the world such as school shootings, foreign wars, starving children, etc. The key word is survivor.
5
@Aaron Adams - Everything you mention is connected, The world we live in today, especially the western democracies, are based on historic dominance by white societies that are themselves based on rule by men. The dominance of men is backed up by some interpretations of religious teachings, particularly the "people of the book" - religions based on various versions of what we call the Bible - Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
The traditional power structure of these societies is based on a "power over" form of laws and mores. School shootings and foreign wars are a prime example of people wanting to exert power over people. Starving children is the end result of power over people.
Sexual assault is not about sex. It's about power over someone - the person who is sexually assaulted.
The problems we face in the world all come from structures based on having power over things, not just people but over everything in this world including animals and the environment itself.
We can't make things better until we understand that we need to work *with* people, not force by domination.
Yes, that is an ideal but many are actively working to create a better and more life-affirming world by working with people, not by coercion and dominance.
We can't change the world until we understand that the cause of war, famine, murder and rape is right in front of us all the time and things won't change until we as individuals and as societies change our ways.
One world. All connected.
5
@Aaron Adams
It is not either/or; or a priority list that gets addressed sequentially. Addressing all these issues can begin at the same time. Finally, sexual assault is a serious issue and worthy of immediate address.
Another commentator, Mon Ray, has perfectly expressed my thoughts about how Prof. Hill, who should know better, elides due process from her analysis: "He said/she said disputes cannot be settled outside a court of law, where both accused and accuser are allowed to produce evidence and corroboration of their stories." I will just add this about Joe Biden. Biden was obligated to, and did, conduct the Anita Hill hearing according to the rules. At the end, he BELIEVED Ms. Hill and voted against the Clarence Thomas nomination. Joe Biden has also been the moving force behind the federal Violence Against Women Act which has done a great deal to protect women against sexual violence -- especially immigrant women, many of whom are women of color. I really think he gets it.
8
This is America. Persons accused of crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Evidence-free accusations are not accepted as final determinants of truth.
He said/she said disputes cannot be settled outside a court of law, where both accused and accuser are allowed to produce evidence and corroboration of their stories.
Without such rules and procedures, justice slides down the slippery slope toward rule by lynch mobs, in which anyone can accuse others of anything.
Of course, rape and sexual harassment are serious crimes that should be brought to light and punished; but due process is due process.
14
Thank you for this , Dr. Hill. I do remember those hearings and being shocked at the treatment given you by a group of mostly all white men. I admired your courage then, and I admire it now.
Thankfully, when I watch hearings in the Senate and House today, it has become much more diverse...both gender -wise and racially. And I believe those hearings impelled this change.
Sadly, the Kavanaugh hearings make it clear that more change has to happen.
22
@Jane Really, Seriously? She has never offered any evidence what so ever to back up her false accusations, the same as BF did in the Kavanaugh hearings.
This is america, just because someone says something years later does not make it true.
Thank you! Thank you Professor Hill. I watched your testimony with great interest because it happened to me. I was 11 years old and he was in his 40s. I was weak, disabled, and frightened. To this day, I hate what he did to me. The statistics are so alarming: one in three girls and one in four boys. I cannot wrap my mind around it. You were and still are one of the bravest women I have ever seen. I know it takes courage to talk about it, but it take extraordinary courage to speak so publicly and have your painful experience in the history books. I admire you so much and I believe every single word you said. We can do more to protect our children and our fellow citizens. My body is private.....it belongs to me.....your attention to it is uncomfortable and unwelcome. Please keep me and my loved ones free from assault. As a society, we can do better.
15
I'm a survivor. But I also have a husband, father, brother, and men I care about who could be victimized by a vindictive and dishonest person in a "believe all women" climate. And yes, there are women who lie and play victim - for attention, money, revenge, all sorts of reasons. Women are people, and some of them, like men, are bad people.
Sexual harassment and assault do not negate the need to have solid evidence if you are going to come forward with an accusation that could destroy someone's life and career.
In my own situation I waited too long, did not have solid evidence, did not press charges, and that was my choice. I wish things had been different, but they weren't.
I could have benefited from better educated BEFORE it happened about consent and abuse so I could have recognized the situation for what it was when I was in it and gone to police in a more timely fashion, when I would have had physical evidence.
But just saying "believe all women!" is a cheap shortcut, one that could hurt innocent men (many of whom have women in their lives who love them), and one that avoids teaching young women the necessary steps to protect themselves, assert themselves, and encourages them speak out to authority in a timely fashion if they are victims.
And the hysteria of "believe all women" and the very loose definition many people seem to have of assault nowadays encourages frivolous and ambiguous accusations that create a climate that casts doubt on real instances.
28
@A F
I am disgusted with the treatment of too many people who have undergone sexual assault or harassment when they speak out about it. My suggested stance is similar to the line from the disarmament talks. I work hard to follow a “believe, but verify” approach to people who come forward with claims of such assault or harassment. I have dealt with such cases when I was a team lead in the early 90s, and later as a high school teacher, and union leader.
What I saw in both Dr. Hill’s and Dr. Blasey Ford’s cases was a group of people who were unwilling to believe someone who was clearly a victim. Yes, there are people who would come forward with false claims (hence the “verify” portion), and some of them may be accomplished actors, but in general, victims who come forward face the high possibility of such harsh treatment that the percentage of false claims is, thankfully, small (hence the “believe” portion).
I will always remember the treatment Dr. Blasey Ford received from Senator Graham and Brett Kavanaugh’s treatment of the questions asked by Senator Klobuchar as some of the most egregious examples of failing to act in a responsible and humane way in such situations. Kavanaugh’s response alone should have been disqualifying for his appointment.
I am also sorry for the treatment you received and the failure to “believe, but verify” by those who treated you that way.
8
I believed Anita Hill. I believe the women. I also don't hold Joe Biden fully responsible for the outcome of the Thomas hearings. If Biden is the most electable candidate I will vote for him regardless. Anything to defeat Trump.
18
@Kathleen Miller I hope I never have to have you on a jury, believing people when there is no evidence.
Oh I believe her because she is a "WOMAN"
The injustice that Ms Hill was made to abide resulted in a Justice who is unabidable.
Justice now would not have Biden being abided as a serious candidate.
Democrats again risk choosing a person who will not get enough support from a skeptical public to be elected.
Biden's failings and taints will hand another four years to trump, and doom America for decades to come.
9
What happened during the Thomas hearings 30 years ago happened again last year with Kavanaugh. Republicans in both cases. Republicans are now trying hard to overturn Roe v Wade. It is an attitude embedded in their minds. They are now protecting someone who lies openly and often, as do the people around him, Sarah Sanders as one example. Nothing has changed. If Trump is re-elected, it will just get worse.
31
@JBonn What happened was the rule of law prevailed. Don't make years old accusations without evidence and expect to be believed.
4
I'll give Ms. Hill points for mentioning that men can be victims too. That's fairly unusual in contemporary discussions where men are portrayed as predators in waiting for helpless women (cf. Gillette Ad).
But she still uses the the same "survivors" label for instances that are based on unexamined allegations or rumors. Bias is bias - even if you're sympathetic to the need for improvements.
9
I was a college student when I watched Anita Hill on TV. I was so impressed with her, and disgusted by the politicians. Now, almost 30 years later, I'm confused. My memory being imperfect, and given my lack of any strong political interest at the time, I think I just assumed it was only the Republicans that had disgusted me so much. So when I hear all this about Biden, I don't get it. And I want someone to show me what he did, so I can know one way or the other. I don't watch TV, I prefer to get my news from the NYT, etc. Have I missed the story somewhere? Why won't the media just show me what he did, instead of just presenting an endless stream of opinions about it?
14
@Me May I recommend Robin Tolmach Lakoff's chapter about the hearings in her book "The Language War." She analyses how words, timing, and interruption were used to discredit and intimidate Anita Hill. You will learn not only about Joe Biden's role, but Arlen Specter's as well, and that of the press in framing the issue. But the most compelling information, aired frequently at the time of Judge Kavanaugh's hearing, is the footage involving Joe Biden as interrogator: his language, verbal and body, and demeanor towards Ms. Hill suggest utter contempt for her. He really did his best to discredit her. It wasn't pretty then, and it isn't pretty now.
18
@Ambroisine That's quite helpful, actually. Thank you.
1
@Me - You could do some research online. You could read the books Ms. Hill wrote. You can read books written about the hearings. You could search newspaper records for coverage at the time. I would be surprised if there were not a rich pool of information in academic papers and publications.
If you run into on line pay walls, try going to a library... particularly, see if you can get privileges at a university library.
If you really want to know about something, check it out yourself. Don't complain because it's not being offered to you on a platter.
Besides, research can give you multiple perspectives and you can make up your own mind instead of being spoon-fed by the frequently-biased media.
Do some work. You might enjoy the experience.
1
Time to end our political board game and realize that Joe Biden and Anita Hill would make a great Dem team as President and Vice President. As a black college professor and a strong voice for women's rights, Professor Hill would make a powerful contribution to sense in America in these times when we seem to be forgetting who we are. Peace.
10
Many people do not come forward because of economic reasons. Until this country has HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE this will certainly continue. Imagine you may lose your job if you accuse someone, imagine you will not have any health insurance, imagine the impact this may have on a person’s life. There are so few protections to the American worker, no wonder people stay silent. We need more Unions and we need health care for all, otherwise people run too high a risk in complaining about harassment. This is the reality.
42
I feel bad for Anita Hill. She was used by the Committee, and now she's being used again. For a law professor to say that one should always believe one party to a proceeding is not convincing.
32
@Michael Livingston I read her argument to be about the structural conditions that make harassment so common. It’s not that accused should be denied due process, but that accusers can come forward and be heard in the first place.
29
I agree. I read and reread Anita Hill’s article several times and she does not say to just believe the accuser. She says to listen and fully investigate and hopefully this will encourage victims to come forward sooner.
27
@Michele Lauer-Bader Note the online, front-page headline: "Believe survivors. Full stop," and the photo at the head of the article. Perhaps those eye-catchers, rather than the more moderate content of Hill's article, is what the commentators are responding to.
3
Imagine a different scenario, one in which Anita Hill DOES forgive Joe Biden, and they team up to supercharge the It's On Us campaign. Instead, we have this acrimony that does nothing to advance social policy.
I wonder how many readers just skimmed this piece, looking for the acceptance of an apology? Because she's missed an opportunity, the public eye moves on.
I hope the Biden campaign decides to roll out an expanded version of his Violence Against Women Act. Imagine Anita Hill being a public consultant on this work. Oh well.
31
@Sam Daniels,
These comments about the two "teaming up" are disturbing to me. As if she is under some social or political obligation to support the person she has a valid issue with. She does not.
6
@Sam Daniels Why on earth should she forgive someone who never cared to apologize for his treatment of her/the hearing until he knew it would affect him? That is in no way truly genuine. And no one is owed forgiveness. The real person who "missed an opportunity" is Biden. If he had taken tangible steps and real action to change the conversation around sexual assault, I am sure Anita Biden would have joined his efforts. What she's not going to do is accept his apology when it has nothing to do with creating change and everything to do with his political ambitions.
2
@Sam Daniels - yes, it was a missed opportunity considering he is the Democratic front runner regardless of anyone's opinion. She just gave republicans fodder. I hold her in high regard. She has power, but is she wielding it wisely? I don't know. A solid piece, but who suggested the discussion would end if she forgives Biden? She lost me there. In any case, I'm hoping that Biden will be the champion women sorely need right now if he truly wants to make a difference - as we watch states going mad with draconian laws. When will men stand up for women? That's what it's going to take.
1
I still remember watching the hearing on TV and listened it in radio. I always trusted Prof. Hill's story based on her testimony. I admire Prof. Hill's courage and always consider her as a hero. However, given this said, I am not sure whether I would agree with Prof Hill's suggestion that the "me-too" movement and empowerment of women would have started some 20 years earlier, had the committee led by Biden believed her testimony.
Biden always believed Prof. Hill's testimony and he voted against Thomas' appointment. I think that during the hearing he actually said openly this to Prof. Hill and expressed his appreciation for her courage. It is really difficult to see how the Republican committee members would have changed their (predetermined) positions to vote differently, even if the hearing had been managed somewhat differently by Biden.
Social progress is always a slow process. That hearing was an important part of this process and Prof. Hill was a major progressive force behind it. For example, there was no female member in Biden's committee (how many female senators were there at the time?), and Mr. Biden recognized it. He said since that hearing, he made sure that every committee he has chaired would have female members -- a practice that has now extended to every corner of our society.
While Prof. Hill is undoubtedly a hero for the movement, Biden is a friend and major force for the movement. Let's unite to fight the real enemy to end sexual harassment.
20
Right. Start by trusting them, and then verify it. 95% of the time they will be telling the truth. The 5% who lie will almost always eventually expose themselves during investigation. Case in point would be Jussie Smollett who put together a fairly sophisticated plan to create a fake crime. The police handled this perfectly: first they believed him, and then they realized the story just didn't add up. That's exactly the right way to handle every assault situation.
44
How about we believe people who, after full and fair investigations
guided by due process, are determined to be telling the truth?
25
@kiln, because full and fair investigations and due process don’t happen enough for victims to trust the system.
17
Much better idea.
I so remember the hearings and the faux outrage of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The same grandstanding occurred with Blasey Ford. Chuck Grassley has obviously not evolved; he’s still the pontificating, bloviating coot, just older and more out of touch. I’m so sorry, Ms. Hill. It was not fair then and the hostility expressed in some of these comments is not fair now.
So we ended up with the empty suit Thomas on the Supreme Court. He sure had a lot to say back then. He has hardly said a word since. Bad deal all around. And Biden went along to get along. At least he didn’t vote to confirm Thomas but that’s of little comfort I’m sure.
You are a hero to me. You comported yourself with dignity and grace. History will remember you well.
120
First step is determining whether they are actually a survivor
Based on your definition of survivor, no, we should not just believe them
17
Investigate claims. Make criminal charges when evidence exists. Full stop. Or do we simply, for example, 'lock her up' because someone says a criminal act has occurred, without investigation and due process?
21
I think we should change the mantra to exhaustively investigate the claim and take vigorous and appropriate action rather than believe the survivor. And I say this as someone who has been harassed at work and who was sexually assaulted (not raped, though) by a stranger in broad daylight on the street as a teenager.
Also, Ms. Hill by hurting the most electable Democratic candidate you're just bolstering Trump's chances to get reelected. I'm not quite sure how that will help stem sexual violence and sexual harassment.
26
Biden is not the most electable candidate. Senator Elizabeth Warren is. Prove me wrong.
26
@Andres Galvez. She’s the candidate I’m supporting, but I can’t say for sure she is the most electable and neither can you. You could only do that by having two alternate sets of reality at the same time.
6
@bm1877 I don’t know if you’re saying that Biden is more electable because he’s a centrist or because he’s a man. I have a problem with the meme that male = electable. It feels like too many people were traumatized by Hillary’s failure as a candidate to risk trying with another woman. Personally I’d prefer a centrist woman but without the corporatist ties that (in part) doomed Hillary. She would have made an effective president, but let’s face it, her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other issues did more to damage her than her candidacy. She’s as “old school” as Biden, if not more so.
4
Thank you, Anita Hill. I agree with your assertions that the changes we are seeing today through the #MeToo movement could have begun in 1991 if Joe Biden had believed you, if he had done his job as chair of Senate Judiciary Committee. One could argue that if the culture of tolerance of sexual harassment throughout society had been effectively addressed in 1991, there would not be a misogynist residing in the White House now. This is why women are not willing to give Joe Biden a pass one his inappropriate behavior now. We have seen that if we don't speak up, if harassers are not called out and forced to suffer consequences, nothing will change.
17
When the Times first put up this opinion piece by Professor Hill it caught me by surprise. The Joe Biden partial apology had blown over and judging by some of the comments, personally she had nothing to gain from this. In my mind that makes her even more courageous for opening herself up for further scrutiny just to keep the conversation going.
The person of power often use that advantage over the weak that Ms Hill cites in her piece not just to sexually harass but for all forms of harassment as well.
BTW the silence of the accused is deafening.
14
Sorry, Ms. Hill, but it won't wash. You can't throw out nearly a millennium of common law, including due process, rules of evidence and the right to confront your accusers in a fair hearing because it's "woke" or politically correct.
28
@ras Believe those who support sexual violence... and apply due process that is respectful of everyone involved. Coming forward to report sexual violence is pointless if no one believes it. That's why so many do not report. That is why things won't change unless survivors are believed enough to engender a proper investigation.
To say believing survivors is that same things as eradicating the rights of the accused is to be deliberately blind to injustice.
2
Believe accusers of [rape, assault, murder, financial crimes, fill in the blank]. Period. Full stop. If society would only do this, we would be far better off according to the Nytimes. We know statistically, this would be a safe bet as the vast majority of accusers are telling the truth. Unfortunately, this exact truth would lead to a world inconsistent with our system of justice. Period. Full stop.
18
Sexual violence is most definitely a real and disturbing aspect of our reality and ought to be adequately and absolutely addressed, but women who've been assaulted have a key part to play in the eventual solution. There's far too many incidences of women coming late to the party with accusations that may be real, but are compromised by months, years or even decades of silence. If sexual assault is truly going to be addressed in a way that will terrify possible offenders, women have to make it a point to step up within hours, not years, so that the process of punishing the offender isn't reduced to a he said-she said, but instead physical evidence that's admissible in court.
4
I clearly remember the hearings on Mr Clarence Thomas.
I could see his lies. I could see Prof Hill's honesty.
It was clear.
My husband and I were late meeting his business friend and
wife for a dinner that evening and apologized for being late with the excuse that we had been listening to "the hearings."
We were shocked to learn their opinion was the exact opposite of ours. It was a cool dinner and a very good lesson for us that other
good people do not nesessarly share our opinions; and, it is better to be still until we know WHO we are talking to.
11
@V So, in a sense, they were 'believing the victim'; they simply saw the situation from the other side, as if he were the victim of a smear campaign. Due process is better than, simply, belief.
6
@Roger
Sadly, in these kind of cases, due process has very often resulted in the victim being victimized yet again. As was Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford.
14
In the 1690s the most important conversation was finding the witches. We are a country of laws, notwithstanding our current and temporary aberration of Donald Trump.
It is quite frankly hard to imagine someone of Ms. Hill's education and experience believing that false accusations aren't a permanent part of any nation's law enforcement/judicial system. That's why one is presumed innocent until their guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and one person's accusation (of any crime) should never be enough to deprive that person of their freedom...or reputation.
19
Actually, do not believe "survivors".
You don't know if they're survivors of anything unless and until there's been some sort of due process.
23
Wine country dude? That says a lot to me, as a survivor of a rape. Let me know exactly what part of teh wine country, I want to avoid it as long as I live.
@Jacalyn Carley
That's unfair. I've never even contemplated a trip to Berlin.
The NYT introduces this article thusly:
"Believe Survivors. Full Stop."
To Anita Hill's credit, her argument is more thoughtful and nuanced than the catchy click-bait tag line, which would be very alarming if that truly reflected her thinking.
Can we please retire the "full stop" trope? It's not useful.
122
@Bob, I agree. so many of the comments to this article are based on the title, and the commenters are clearly not reading the article. Thank you.
9
@Bob
I say believe. Period. Even if evidence is provided the abuser still gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
@Meighley
Agree with you on Thomas...as there was evidence. But there was ZERO corroborating evidence on Kavanaugh other than the foggy 40 year-old memory of an apparently sincere woman.
"Believe period?" In this political climate the the fake accusers would be coming out of the woodwork for anyone. (See the attempted smear against Mayor Pete.)
Sorry, but there has to be some minimal standard for credibility.
1
Joe Biden’s disgraceful treatment of Anita Hill and his long standing opposition to school integration disqualifies him from the Democratic nomination. Biden is just another old, rich, white man who believes that he is entitled to be President.
31
@Common ground Thank you for saddling us with 4 more years of President Trump.
7
@Common ground blame Clarence Thomas and the people who confirmed him.
1
@Joe
Are you saying that not supporting Biden will cause trump to be re-elected? Why are you so sure he’ll be the Democratic nominee? I certainly hope he’s not but would still vote for him over trump. And that’s a pretty low bar. I have no respect whatsoever for Biden, but at least he’s not evil.
1
Believe survivors? What about the Duke lacrosse players that were vilified and had their lives destroyed for a liar?
I’ll prefer the presumption of innocence thank you very much. Its worked for our courts for far longer and is more fair.
27
@Jay Lincoln If the Duke case had happened this year, the young men would be in prison and the "victim" would be well paid and celebrated on the lecture circuit. And the lawyers would be villains. The DNA and other tests would be conveniently ignored; in effect, they wouldn't have existed.
9
@Jay Lincoln Amazing how a tiny number of cases like the Duke one get cited over and over like some type of epidemic when the reality is it’s near impossible for sexual assault survivors to get believed, let alone any justice in the courts. Only 6 out of 1000 assaults see convictions and not because 994 were “innocent.” Your outrage is severely misplaced.
2
actually it isn't
I have somehow gotten over the sexual harassment and abuse - why can't you? As a disabled woman, I can assure you I've had far worse done to me than what was done to you. I was 7 when a man drove up and pulled out his you know what. That was just the beginning. I couldn't run - so I was an easy target.
4
@Kiko
"Getting over it" is not possible as long as this behavior continues, as long as it is not condemned, and as long as the women who risk speaking out are not believed.
20
I'm not sure why NY Times subheaded the link "Believe survivors. Full Stop." That is untenable, contrary to basic concepts of legal process, and most importantly does not seem to be what Ms. Hill is saying. It seems she is saying have an honest process, follow that process, and take allegations seriously. That I can certainly get behind.
185
@Matt, Thank you. So many of these commenters are responsing emotionally to the title and clearly have not read the article.
3
@Matt..It is possible that women would make false accusations, especially of well known men, because of the resulting fame. Without Clarence Thomas, who would have ever heard of Anita Hill?
1
@Matt
Agreed. Great column. Terrible and misleading editorial choice on the headline.
5
How about if Biden wins the presidency, you are appointed to the Supreme Court?
7
@Ruth That was never her plan, yet that is the small minded view of the committee in her time. People like you think women who come forward are after some prize and don't believe they are saying, Look, this candidate is not qualified for this job. Just like Dr. Blasey Ford, she came forward to reveal this person is not qualified to be on SCOTUS. He wasn't & still isn't. He was just Scalia's echo. A few months ago he finally said something on his own, and it made the news. His answer to why he never speaks? He feels its rude to ask questions! WHAAAAAAT? So what's his purpose in being on the Court?
The harm that is done by sexual violence is not minor. The insinuations lawyers, law enforcement, and even therapists and friends make can worsen the effects. Most men don't have to deal with sexual harassment on regular basis. They have no idea what it does to a person's well being. Yes, sexual harassment is violence. It's intrusive, threatening, and can progress further to actual physical violence with a sexual component.
Imagine that you were a young girl who was on the edge of puberty and you were molested by a family member or someone you were supposed to trust. Think of how it feels when your body responds and you don't even understand what is being done to you. The violence is your innocence being stolen from you against your will. It's being forced to feel "pleasure" when you didn't ask for it. That's just one scenario. Part of almost every scenario is that the child/teen doesn't feel safe enough to tell any adults what has happened.
The reverberations of sexual violence extend into families, into relationships, job choices, even intellectual achievements. If you are always afraid and feel the need to be hyper-alert to avoid any sort of danger your body reacts to it. It's stressful. Most men don't worry about how they dress, where they walk, who they speak to, or if what they are doing can be misconstrued as a sexual come on. Women have to. Women are too often blamed while men get away with it.
5/9/2019 8:42pm
46
You are not the right person to talk about this. Whether you were right or wrong, many people think you lied. The fight should be waged by someone whose case is quite clear. And that person is not you.
5
Ummm, yes it is. And in case you missed what went down in those hearings, the debate was mainly in the interpretation of what DID happen, and then further debate over whether it should be considered 'bad' behavior, once it was established that something had, indeed, happened.
If you want to rekindle that debate, have at it. The rest of us will go on respecting the facts, as they were established, and avoid the standard obfuscation applied as misdirection where guilt is obvious.
Dr. Hill had the right to be believed until proper investigation found conflicting evidence. Failure to find such evidence does not invalidate her claims; it leaves them intact.
That wouldn't be sufficient for conviction in criminal proceedings, but as several readers have already noted, this was not a court of law. The standard for judgement is completely different.
--Tom and Kay
21
@Tom Rogers The case has to be taken to people who did not "automatically" believe her. There is not much point in her preaching to the Choir.
Also, I do not recall that she accused Thomas of "violence," only of talking in a way that made her uncomfortable. So she is not the right person to lead the fight against sexual violence.
"Automatic support" from people like you is not the right way to spread a message. That was my point.
1
@Ludwig Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill&she changed jobs to get away from him,but he followed her to the new job;that's quite clear;this was not a legal case, it was a hearing to determine the character & qualifications of a juror on SCOTUS;if you harass then follow the person to continue your harassment, you are not suited to SCOTUS, judges are expected to be fair, reasonable, impartial, and never give even the appearance of partiality;Thomas played the race card, calling this a political lynching; Ms. Hill is also black, but an all male committee wanted to save the career of a black male so they threw Ms. Hill's testimony under the bus;she was not up for appointment to SCOTUS, that was never the issue;she, like Dr. Blasey Ford, wanted to make clear based on their knowledge of these men, they are not fit to be on SCOTUS;but the GOP prefers to stick together than to stick to the truth, then and now. Thomas' years of silence on the Court & Kavanaugh's violent, abusive, spiteful rant to the Committe trying to defend himself prove that neither of these men should be on the Supreme Court.
Thank you, Professor Hill.
15
I salute you !
18
Commenting on the SCOTUS process: No one is entitled to be a Supreme Court Justice. What was clear during the Thomas and Kavanaugh hearings is that FBI background checks for a high office with a lifetime appointment should be far more thorough (and not under purview of the White House). The checks should be to the depth necessary to unearth disparaging information well before a nominee is brought before the Senate. If anyone comes out of the blue with allegations of improprieties or possible criminal conduct, the FBI should be able to continue the investigation in private. If anomalies cannot be resolved, then the nominee should be thanked for their service and dismissed from contention. Allegations that need to be pursued through the court system can also proceed. A sincerely concerned citizen with allegations against a nominee would have been given due consideration, and the nominee’s public reputation would not have been harmed without due process. The President can then nominate someone else. I made my case for a fairer SCOTUS process at: https://www.smerconish.com/news/2018/11/19/a-fairer-scotus-process
23
I believe that a woman is as capable as a man. Anything a man can do, a woman can do just as well. As we all know, a man is quite capable of making a false accusation. Are you saying that a woman is incapable of doing so? Does she lack the intellect, the nerve, the determination to pull it off? Is she inferior?
10
Anita Hill was a senior employee at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Yale educated lawyer. If the testimony she gave ten years later is true, she owes the taxpayers a refund of her salary during the time she worked for the federal government if she was allowing Thomas to harass women without consequence.
If her testimony is true, she put her personal career and advancement above her obligation to protect workers from discrimination.
She owes Joe Biden an apology for, once again, telling tales for personal gain. She made a career out of her accusations about Thomas.
7
@ebmem Your misogynistic views are evident;Anita Hill owes no one an apology; what other women did Thomas harass? this hearing was about what happened to her not an investigation of the department;what personal gain? She was ridiculed by those who never support a woman against a man; She left govt. work & began teaching contract law;she also saw social policy and legal resolutions were not on the same page;she studied social policy, womens rights, and now is a Professor teaching these combined topics at Brandeis University. Her documentary "Speak Truth to Power" began when Thomas' wife called Hill & asked her to apologize to her husband;Hill thought this was a friend joking,no it was his wife;only then did Hill create this documentary of all that she went through to tell the truth & not be believed by white political insiders. You should watch the documentary before you give Ms. Hill any of your fallacious advice.
@ebmem really? Where have you been for the last 30 years? She didn't owe anyone anything. She knew she wouldn't be believed. Your comment here proves it. Her being a Yale-educated lawyer means nothing. That committee proved that. Please educate yourself about sexual harassment, rape, and how victims who press charges are treated and were treated. Very little has changed since the Thomas hearings.
1
Anita Hill is a survivor who should have been treated better.
Jussie Smolllett claimed to be a survivor, but was not. Without looking for evidence, how do we tell the difference?
7
I am a female who was accused of sexual misconduct, and I am also a business owner with an employee accused of sexual harassment. Both claims were proven to be false but only after lots of anguish and money. I’m a very liberal person, but these experiences opened my eyes that people lie and sexual misconduct is an increasingly effective accusation to serve a variety of purposes. If I have borne witness to false accusations twice in just three years, then they’re more common than anyone would like to believe. I believe you, Ms. Hill, and I believe Ms. Ford, but I can no longer believe everyone.
80
@Angela
I am sorry that you had to suffer these false accusations. I myself have been through that too, but it was much worse being on the receiving end of real harassment and abuse.
Dealing with false accusations is critical to maintaining the integrity of the system. It is critically important to be able to weed out the few false claims, especially to support the credibility of the vastly more numerous real claims.
Today in my opinion the entire way of dealing with abuse needs to be revamped, as neither the victims nor the exonerated are justly served. The situation has become a crisis in our society, with few proposing realistic steps toward solution, as Professor Hill does here.
4
@Angela
Thank you for making this statement, Angela!
You are correct and I have also witnessed the self serving lies and excesses this movement has invited and celebrated. In this brave new landscape, for every real lecherous fool called out, a dozen other decent people have been wrongly punished because we're already in a "full-stop" environment.
Thank you, Anita Hill, for your insight and service. We cannot rest on this issue until there is no rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment anywhere in the world. A long way to go, but yes - we would be a lot farther down that road had the Senate hearing led by Joe Biden treated you with basic respect, and allowed the women who wanted to corroborate your testimony to speak. If there is a silver lining to the so-out-of-touch-with-our-times Biden campaign it is the chance to revisit the 1991 hearings, and reflect on how our culture failed you and all women. And with that, the hope of illuminating how much we have left to do.
Thank you for your voice. Thank you for your tireless service. Wishing all strength to keep speaking out. And please know that millions of younger voices are rising to join you.
15
I really have a hard time believing that everything would have been different if only Biden had handled Ms. Hill’s accusations differently. Clarence Thomas would have been confirmed regardless. I notice that Ms. Hill does not mention him here. Surely his behavior is more important than Biden’s?
Ms. Hill, I believe you. You were wronged. But it’s been thirty years. The statute for being mad at Joe Biden has expired for me. I care about what he would do today, not what he didn’t do in the 80s.
16
I so much appreciate Ms. Hill’s perseverance on issue of sexual assault and how it continues to be treated on all levels of social construct.
18
This entire article is very misleading and does a disservice to those who actually suffer sexual violence. Even if Ms. Hill's testimony was accurate, (which I doubt), it was her job as an intelligent, capable women to call Justice Thomas's bluff and tell him to knock it off and now. Blasey Ford's testimony was equally without any credibility, in both cases the goal, late in the process of a Supreme Court confirmation, were designed to derail a nominee to embarrass the President regardless of the impact on the nominee who could not possible continue as an appellate court judge if the charges were found credible. The accusers, neither of whom suffered sexual violence, goals were wholly political and in no way were they trying to draw attention to an issue that needs government attention. Look, government has no role in policing boorish behavior which is not sexual assault. Each person needs to stand their ground and not tolerate boorish behavior by coworkers, customers or whomever, government isn't capable of intervention in these cases. Actual sexual assault does need to be investigated, aggressively prosecuted and hopefully result in the perp going to jail. That is not, in any way, what Blasey Ford or Hill experienced, if they experienced anything at all.
7
@Steve O
"Blasey Ford's testimony was equally without any credibility".
Perhaps to you, but she was treated just as badly as Anita.
Things haven't changed.
"That is not, in any way, what Blasey Ford or Hill experienced, if they experienced anything at all".
You would have fitted in perfectly sitting next to Lindsey Graham.
31
Sexual harassment and sexual assault are part of the same playbook, one held by every male.
It's not necessarily a playbook that's in use, but it doesn't disappear, ever.
Getting this detail straight is required before we can make any progress against either.
Denying that it's the central issue of our failure to deal with these issues is what enables them to persist. Once there's enough momentum, anybody not on board will be left behind.
It's already an ugly situation; what happened to Dr. Hill in '91 was ugly, an embarrassment for any true American. It's likely to get uglier, not what any of us could want.
Maybe we should join together to deal with these problems openly and honestly, yes?
--Tom and Kay
7
Neither Thomas NOR Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court.
BOTH those hearings were a sham. Ms. Ford wasn't writing a tell-all bestseller so she could make a bundle, and Judge K. DID push her down on a bed and assault her with his creepy friend looking on. I would stress that a little flirting is not the end of the world in the workplace or at a party. Ladies might want to learn a little self-defense as well. But callous and unwanted behavior and worse takes place too often and fueled by too much alcohol or other drugs is "fun" for one person and a literal nightmare for the other. Losing a valuable job over "not being cooperative" when it comes to derogatory language or forcible behavior can mean not being able to pay your bills or support a family. The military should put top people in positions of authority regardless of the name or rank of the offender to review cases objectively. And increased discrimination of soldiers who don't meet the predator-in-chiefs' definition of "normal" sexuality needs to be reviewed by the judiciary as unconstitutional. People should lighten up a little if someone is ill-mannered and given a fair warning, and at the same time persistence in "acting like a jerk", and in more serious instances being deliberately offensive must be dealt with without delay. And if the U.S. Senate can't figure out how to conduct a fair hearing, perhaps the appointment should be postponed indefinitely...
21
We need to use language accurately and responsibly. Two of the most misused terms are "heroes" and "survivors". Survivors is a term meaning those who have escaped severe injury or death due to natural disasters, deadly attacks (such as mass shootings), war atrocities, death camps, animal or human criminal deadly attacks, plane or serious car accidents, and similar life threatening experiences.
People who have been subject to things like sexual harassment are "victims". To call them "survivors" diminishes the impact on the other cases I mentioned.
14
As a lifelong partner to a woman who has heroically survived multiple instances of sexual assault, I believe I can speak for anyone who has been traumatized by uninvited and threatening sexual behavior of any kind in saying I'm not certain you understand the meaning of the word 'survive'.
Kay is a survivor. I've watched her do it, and helped where I was able. The experience is unforgettable. One of her favorite mantras is "It's everywhere."
This stuff is built into the core of the species. No female lives anywhere 'safe', because such a place doesn't exist. And every woman has survived a traumatic experience on some level.
The fact the same patterns of behavior are applied to and among males is an indicator of how close we are as a species to seeing what it is in each of us that stands at the heart of such behavior. Once we stop lying to ourselves about who and what we are, on the most fundamental level, the problem will be well and truly conquered.
--Tom
13
Read up on why many “victims” choose to call themselves “survivors.” Indeed, just look the words up in the dictionary.
Victim: One that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent.
Survivor: To continue to function or prosper
Survivors are choosing to deal with the trauma and move on. Victims oftentimes are stuck in the “act” that was forced upon them.
Surviving = Hope and Renewal
Feeling Victimized = Fear and Helplessness
Which state of mind would you rather live in?
6
@J Darby
I agree. It's fine when a person feels that way and deems that designation appropriate for his / her coping. External observers can't really judge the impact of sexual harassment. But using it as a blanket term for anyone who encountered "sexual misconduct" like the NYT does it by policy in her articles - it is ridculous. Now anyone who ever got groped once or treated to a tasteless joke is a "survivor" and sides with people who survived deadly atrocities? Cheap! (but it fits with the sensitive times!) By the way, I am a "torture survivor" because I once was treated badly by a mall detective who hit me and held me locked for a certain time (before he realized he had no claim and let me go).
1
Indeed.
And then what? How do we properly handle these crimes? What is the proper punishment?
1
@Mathew
How do we handle these crimes? What is the proper punishment?
Well, we could start by not installing perpetrators of these crimes as judges in the highest court in the country and work down from there.
A girl can dream.
8
The Times does this wise essay a disservice by the addition of a graphic and a headline (the one currently appearing on the top page) containing the slogan “Believe Survivors”.
That slogan begs a crucial question by conflating survivors with accusers. Once we accept that we’re hearing from a survivor, belief has been accomplished. The question is whether accusers should be rubber-stamped as survivors.
This is not a quibble. It’s a distinction that matters to many people, who fear that an ad hoc social movement is becoming an accepted means of summary character execution. The rejoinder, “If it weren’t true, they wouldn’t declare it to the world,” is persuasive; it basically persuades me. But informal persuasion is a dangerous substitute for due process.
Ms. Hill’s op-ed provokes thought. It should not be compromised by a slogan that merely evokes a response.
73
...let alone a hashtag that encourages shouting instead of thought OR response—and even worse, encourages it to be done on treasonous marketing sites like Twitter.
@Longestaffe
"The question is whether accusers should be rubber-stamped as survivors."
No, the question is if accusers should be rubber stamped as liars. That's the response of many here. The rate of false rape claims is 2% - the same as other crimes. If you report a theft, nobody questions if it really happened. If a woman reports a rape - only about 40% are reported - the questions about her behavior begin. Of the 40% reported only 1/2 are prosecuted. That may answer the question as to why they are not reported to the police. BTW - any idea how many thousands of rape kits sit on shelves, unprocessed?
3
America may not survive this Trump presidency, or God forbid four more years.
The most Prof. Hill can accomplish by insisting that Joe Biden grovel for her "forgiveness" is to decrease his stature with exactly the votes he needs to beat Trump. If Biden mistakenly responds to Ms. Hill the way she wants, I cringe to think of how Trump will bray about it over and over, and voters who may be able to be pried away from Trump will be less likely to do so, and Ms. Hill and those who are encouraging her will have themselves to blame.
2
@C. Richard--Did you even read what she wrote? Nowhere does she ask Biden to "grovel." Nowhere does she suggest that she wants another conversation with him. Indeed, while she says that "there has been a lot of discussion about whether he offered me the right words," she does not tell us whether or not she thinks he did. The whole point of her article is that that's not the important point now. So your assumption that you know how she "wants" Biden to respond to her--or that she wants him to respond at all--is groundless.
35
@C. Richard No Where does Prof. Hill state or imply or insist Joe Biden grovel for forgiveness. you are insisting on words she never said;Prof. Hill states what happened when Biden lead the Committee, she is telling the facts, as she is entitled to;so once again, we have a male ranting about what he thinks a woman said, not what she actually said, and then heaping blame on her and her supporters for trump's re-election. Misogyny in its most subtle yet venomous form.
@sandra What is "sexual violence" doing at the heading of this article? What Hill experienced doesn't qualify except in the most fevered imagination as "violence". The subtext in this headline and article is that Biden was at best insensitive, and still is, toward sexual violence, and that is grossly dishonest. Hill's experience is in no way comparable to that of Kavanaugh's 15-year old victim.
Meanwhile Hill and her supporters luxuriate in their vicarious pleasure at Hill's and their victimhood, and then will bemoan the "deplorables" who reelect Trump next year.
Thank you, Ms. Hill, thank you.
36
On the New York Times home page, this article is entitled: "Believe Survivors. Full Stop." To which I would respond: "No." Because I refuse to believe *anybody* about *anything*, unless some kind of evidence is provided.
32
@Niles Gazic
Exactly. In no other arena are people expected to believe allegations without any evidence. There was no evidence supporting Dr. Ford's allegations. Not even the people that she said were supposedly at incident supported her.
13
@Niles Gazic. Testimony is evidence.
10
@James
It is telling that her parents and brothers have made no public comment. As if a girl could have a near death experience and her family would not notice.
1
Thank you, Anita Hill. You are actually one of the founding mothers of the #metoo movement. And your brave actions and wise words will continue to resonate with survivors of sexual violence worldwide. We will not be silenced anymore.
36
From the tone of the majority of these comments, it is clear we still have a very long way to go.
I am grateful to Anita Hill, and yet I must resist giving in to despair that so few people still actually seem understand what she is so eloquently saying.
24
@ebmem She never said sexual violence, she said clearly sexual harassment which is unacceptable for a person who will be on Scotus; that is totally false and a tired old republican fall back statement, she made a living off her tales; she made her living by teaching contract law, and then by being a Prof. at Brandeis where her studies of social policy and law are creating new ways of preventing sexual harassment from continuing. Don't state anything you can't cite. She only made her documentary "Speak Truth to Power" a few years ago because Thomas' wife called her and asked her to apologize to her husband. So it is Thomas who is damaging victims by keeping up the lie with his wife. Go see the Documentary, free at the library.
2
Ms. Hill,
Get over it!
Please move on.
We are all sorry for what you went through - but today we need to focus on dealing with Trump. That is the most important conversation we must stay focused on.
You are losing credibility and respect you had all these years.
We need to protect America from an existential threat of Trumps presidency.
4
@Mrinal Remember that we have female candidates so advocating for women in general will have an effect on them too. I noticed a great deal of misogyny and hatred aimed at HRC, some of it simply because she's an older woman.
23
@Mrinal
Hmmm.... Trying to make sense of the apparent assertion that we have to choose between the issues of sexual abuse and Trump dumping on our democracy. Oh yeah, I now see the light! We are still a great enough nation and culture to deal well and honorably with both.
8
@Mrinal
You want us to forget sexual violence??? Do you also want us to forget the environment, the effect Russia had on the election, the attack on voting rights especially of poor and minority citizens, the rise in hate groups and crime, thousands of children in camps separated from their parents??? ALL of these things should be used in our attempt to defeat Trump in 2020. Ms. Hill should keep on talking and we should listen to what she's saying. His admitted sexual harassment and violence should never be forgotten.
18
We need a national Truth and Reconciliation Year to hear from survivors. And we need to start including incest and sexual abuse of children by family members, and we also need to include all child abuse.
We need to start including rape, sexual abuse, and child abuse survivors in our national discussions about PTSD.
18
I watched the entire Hill, Thomas hearing and I did not believe her then and I don't believe her now.
9
@irene I'll bet you'll vouch for the truthiness of Donald Trump as well.
17
"After Dr. Blasey’s courageous testimony...a new generation was forced to conclude that politics trumped a basic and essential expectation: that claims of sexual abuse would be taken seriously."
I don't know what planet you're living on. My generation is the new generation, so let me tell you what the whole Kavanaugh debacle forced us to conclude:
Even outlandish, unevinced, poorly-remembered, un-prosecutable and apparently slanderous accusations of sexual misbehavior have the power to convene Congressional hearings, put the accuser on the cover of Time Magazine as a hero, and grind the international news cycle to a halt for weeks.
21
@rumplebuttskin
Why didn't Trump allow the FBI investigation to go forward? Why are MEN so eager to protect other men? Why do MEN hate/fear women?
26
@rumplebuttskin
My guesses are:
1. You are male and
2.a. You don't know anyone who has ever been subjected to sexual abuse or violence, and/or
2.b. You just don't know that it happened, and/or
2.c. You wouldn't recognize it if you saw it, and/or
2.d. You wouldn't recognize it if you did it.
27
@Pete my gender identity is as a woman who thinks you are wrong. Always and in all ways.
1
Sexual violence is a crime. Under our legal system, an individual is innocent of criminal activity until proven guilty in a court of law.
10
Thomas wasn't even accused of sexual violence or any other violence.
Any intentional act that traumatizes another person is a violent act.
Dr. Hill's testimony rang true; the fact that she had been traumatized, and was being further affected by the circumstances of the hearings, was obvious to us. We've seen how victims react, how coping with the effects of trauma affects the way they speak and respond to questions, how they describe details of the traumatizing event.
There is a difference when the act has a sexual component, as opposed to, say, the trauma of the experience of battle. Elements of PTSD are similar in both cases, for exactly the same reasons: the victim faces a changed reality, with implications that seem to reverberate infinitely into their future.
On the flip side, there are subtle cues that the perpetrator projects when responding to questions, regardless of what he claims took place. Clarence Thomas displayed those in every posture, his demeanor, even the modulation of his voice. We were left certain he did exactly what Dr. Hill claimed, probably worse, and every bit of it was meant to be sexual.
We're still angry about what happened; we're angry about what he did to her, how the hearings progressed, and that he sits without a hint of remorse on the highest court.
T&K
8
Thanks, Tom and Kay, for your contribution to this commentary thread, to your intelligence and tenacity.
Many of the doubting and ugly ones seem to be males.
Each one needs to prove, concretely and definitely themselves are NOT a perpetrator.
AS the survivor of a brutal rape, so much of the commentary here reads as just that — men justifying and polishing their own sick history.
Thanks again.
Is President Trump daring the Democrats to impeach him? Yes. Can they? Probably not with Mitch McConnell leading the Senate. Pelosi is sharper than everyone else and she is against it. Without her endorsement, there would be no opportunity to bounce the President. Voting him out is the best recourse and the DP should be able to garner the WH and Senate simultaneously.
3
Thank you Ms Hill, you did not deserve the treatment you received and none of the men should have been re-elected as dog catchers.
Certainly not running for President.
I do believe that Mr Biden would be a better choice than our current officeholder, but that’s not enough. People make mistakes but that hearing was not a mistake but an egregious miscarriage of justice. The all white male Democratic Senators did not want to be seen questioning an African American man on national television. But they did not have any problems with treating the women poorly, denying them an opportunity to be heard.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
It was politically expedient to confirm Clarence Thomas as s justice but morally reprehensible.
If you want to lead this country you should be prepared to do the right thing even when it’s not popular or easy. A lesson most of us learn as a child, many politicians, Mitch McConnell as an example, still haven’t.
Quit treating your jobs like a game if Risk. Our country is at stake.
18
Professor Hill, you will be well remembered, in the History Of Women in America. Your tormentors, not so much.
My sincere thanks and best wishes.
43
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Ditto!
10
Well, they're not really eligible for the Woman's list, but good point, anyway.
1
Ms. Hill, you are one of history's most courageous and beautiful women, and I remember weeping after seeing you tell the truth at the Thomas hearings and being beaten down. We have come a long way but still have far to go. I am glad you are in the world and remain a witness to once was and (apparently) continues to be an accepted double standard in our culture.
50
Can someone help me understand the concepts of: "Due process" and "innocent until proven guilty"
Due they apply to all charges or just certain ones?
32
Clarence Thomas was up for a job interview for one of the country's most important jobs, not on trial. For a job interview, there are no "standards of guilt", just questions of suitability. If, for such a prominent job, there are serious questions, it's clear that one should just move on to the next candidate.
100
Due process is only valid on a level playing field. That implies everyone in the game, whatever it may be, is identified in their entirety before the process gets going.
It's not unfair in any way to begin with the understanding that every male on the field carries with him a predatory nature, which he may or may not have learned to control.
We can argue the merits of his effort, whether he is unfairly accused of failing to control it, but it is wrong to cry out at the mere notice that, being male, he carries all of a human male's genetic heritage. Denial of his nature isn't relevant to the effort to determine the facts, in the same sense that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
--Tom and Kay
8
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. But due process, while a legal concept, has a moral foundation. Justice Thomas was not on trial for his freedom, but waiting to pass judgment until hearing all of the facts and seeking in good faith to suppress possible biases in evaluating the evidence are healthy endeavors.
We have seen too many people falsely accused of an array of crimes, including sexual assault. Thus, reserving judgment, particularly in the face of ambiguous or even insubstantial evidence, is wise and morally commendable.
8
Anita Hill has had her moment in the limelight, but it's over now. We need to concentrate on beating Trump in 2020. Joe Biden never touched Ms. Hill during the Thomas hearing, and the reality is that even as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee there was little he could do to limit the Republicans' questioning of her. Biden voted against confirming Thomas. It's time to move on.
27
@Dave D Anita Hill and the women of the world will tell you when it's time to move on.
And it is not that time at all.
2
Thank you, Ms. Hill. I was a very young woman when I watched your testimony. I was naive about the politics. I was naive (by the grace of God) about the evil; in fact I had not yet encountered it in my world.
And yet, You Were So Compelling.
You Were So Brave.
My heart knew the truth when you spoke it.
Thank you, Ms. Hill for awakening many, many Americans.
56
I love you, Anita Hill, for all you're doing. Sexual violence, beyond the obvious harm it does to specific people, diminishes the quality of life and potential for all of us, of both genders. I particularly appreciate your noting that men suffer this issue as well. Silencing people always comes from fear. Thank you for your courage to continue to speak up.
112
Ms. Hill I believed you back 30 years ago as I did more recently Dr. Blasey.
I think however you can not lump sexual harassment and sexual violence together even though admittedly one may or can lead to the other. I do agree with your outline for government action to stem the harassment and the violence but I am no more confidant in our representatives, our president and our Supreme Court in taking remedial and preventative action than they have for curbing gun deaths and violence in this country. I don't know what it is going to take to change this, maybe far more women in government. Personally I have given up hoping and try to do my small part by speaking up when I need to about sexual harassment when I see it and speak with my male colleagues and friends about it.
It was nice to hear from you, You would be an excellent spokesperson for #MeToo.
10
On the contrary, sexual violence and sexual harassment are merely adjacent pages in the same book. We'll never fix one without fixing the other.
The first step is understanding how they both stem from the same underlying collection of impulses and predefined behavioral patterns, all neatly gathered together in a tidy package known as the human primitive behavioral strategy.
--Tom and Kay
7
@Tom and Kay Rogers
I think that I acknowledged that one can lead to the other but a person may sexually harass someone say verbally without acting out in a physical way their impulses.
Brava Anita Hill. I think sexual violence and the oppression of women is not only a national crisis but a worldwide crisis, and it has been for millennia. You can read Ancient Greek literature and be astonished at the level of outright misogyny running through it. Subsequently misogyny freely continued for the next thousands of years. NOW is the time to put a stop to it, at long last. I hope that not only the women in my country but women in places like Saudi Arabia will finally be seen and treated as equals. It's high time and it's what we women richly deserve as your fellow human beings.
23
Thanks for mentioning the men. We almost never hear from them, even with MeToo, because of the fallout and stigma. Men are predators, no one wants to hear that they have been abused too.
14
Abused man are still predators, possessing all the same behavioral templates as any other male.
That fact opens up a path to a much more confusing constellation of potential behaviors, sometimes difficult to interpret. By comparison females' responses are much more linear, in a sense (as wrong as it seems to state it this way) almost predictable.
That fact is often exploited by male predators, an element of the dynamic of male - female primitive strategy behavioral encounters.
The female primitive strategy behaviors contain no predatory elements, only responses to predation. Females are not natural sexual predators, which doesn't prevent acts of imitation, of course.
But the likelihood of predatory impulses underlying false accusations by a female victim is vanishingly small. If a woman claims she's been attacked, the odds are she's telling some version of the truth.
--T&K
Did I miss the column Prof. Hill wrote about donald trump's behavior? What then Senator Biden did was lousy but it's time to put these things in order of what is most important. Getting a crazy man out of the White House is what is MOST important right now.
11
@Gerard Iannelli There will be no joy in replacing Trump with Trump Lite. Which Biden is on many levels, not least of which is his propensity to regard women's bodies as objects. Not going to happen.
@Gerard Iannelli
Yes, you did miss the column Professor Hill wrote about Donald Trump's behavior -- Oct. 10, 2016 in the Boston Globe. One of the points she made in that article is apropos to your comment: "Response to sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence must start with the belief that women matter as much as the powerful men they encounter." Frankly, I and other women are tired of being told to wait for this issue to be put in the pecking order of "what is most important." Asking leaders to develop processes where women get a fair and transparent hearing does not negate getting a crazy man out of the WH. We can do both. Addressing the issues outlined by Professor Hill in this column is one way for candidates to distinguish their policies from those of the current WH.
8
The subtitle to this article on the front page says "Believe Survivors. Full Stop." The accompanying photo says Believe Survivors. The article says there are many victims out there and allegations ought to be taken seriously. These are not remotely the same thing. Making this message confusing does not help victims and may alienate men who would otherwise be entirely supportive.
130
Blasey's testimony was evidence of actual sexual violence, and attempted rape, against a 15 year old high school.
Anita Hill's testimony was of an extremely awkward relationship between a grown woman and a grown woman, not a 15 year old girl, not involving attempted sexual violence or rape between 2 mature capable professionals, both distinguished lawyers at the time.
The Democratically controlled Senate voted to confirm Thomas after Hill's testimony, but Biden did not.
12
@David Indeed. And further, later stories reported that Anital Hill requested and obtained from Clarence Thomas recommendation for a teaching job at a university, got the recommendation and got the job. There was also a story that she and Thomas were house guests at a mutual acquaintance's home, after her "terrible experience."
It was also said that she was concerned for her career, a twenty-six year old black woman with a law degree from an Ivy league school, and therefore didn't speak up against Thomas over his "terrible" behavior.
This was at a time when citizenship required 19 year old males to enter military service where they might lose their lives, and Ms. Hill was unwilling to risk her career to do the right thing about Thomas.
6
@David . You make it sound as if they were equals. He was her boss and was older than she was.
You seem to want to paint what he did as "between consenting adults," "an extremely awkward relationship," so what's the big deal. . .
What the big deal is, is that sexual harassment is against the law and was against the law when Thomas was subjecting Hill to it. After all these years you still miss the point of Hill's article: sexual harassment IS serious.
18
@Emily Levine
with 20/20 hindsight after all of these years, it is not too clear now that Thomas is a sexual predator.
I believed Anita Hill that Thomas was extremely awkward in his relationship with women, and he apparently had a crush on the wrong woman.
That is the real world in the relationship between adults, and Anita was an adult woman with an Ivy League education, a distinguished lawyer, someone who should have been quite capable of defending herself. Not chronologically a child.
The timing and venue of her public televised complaints about their adult relationships are undeniably political. While I was never in favor of Thomas's confirmation, the TV hearings were terribly unfair to Thomas at a personal human level.
I no longer agree with her judgement.
4
Why don't just you Anita..... you believe the survivor's. I choose to believe the court and a jury. Better law's are needed, not blanket "i believe you" as though you knew it was true. This is how godawful stereotypes start. Truth is, i've never met a woman who was not sugar and spice and everything nice. I understand the severity of being over powered by a man or anyone in any way. Still, both sides of the story need to be told before "believe the survivor's is valid.
11
My question:
If you say I did it, and I didn’t, then what?
Seriously, why do,we,have to believe you. I would point out the duke lacrosse case, or the uva fraternity stories. The world almost destroyed them and it was a lie.
You should be heard, but the accusations are not automatically believed. That requires real evidence or corroboration.
There was not a single piece of evidence to support accusations against Kavanaugh.
Not one!
Let’s be careful, and not reactionary.
26
There was evidence: testimony of the victim.
8
@Shp
Mr Kavanaugh's behavior at his hearing was evidence of his unsuitability.
13
@Shp
When someone tells you they’ve been robbed, do you immediately wonder if they might be lying?
Or do you assume they are telling the truth, barring there is no compelling evidence to the contrary?
Why on earth would you think women (or men) who claim to have been sexually harassed or raped, would be any more likely to lie than people claiming to be victims of a robbery, or any other crime?
1
I believe Anita Hill. I think she testified credibly and consistently about a recent experience which she endured by Justice Thomas.
But I’m not just going to reflexively believe anyone. Women lie. Men lie. Human beings are flawed individuals and unintentionally concoct memories.
And as a lawyer, I have seen rape accusations which were fabricated for monetary gain and other motives. Though I think the #MeToo movement is largely good, I hope the right of due process is not forgotten.
66
@Mark
If you're really a lawyer, which I doubt, you will understand that #metoo has little to do with due process, as it focuses primarily on harassment that women face at work. Getting fired from your job is not a due process issue unless you fall into a narrow category of workers.
1
Prof Hill, thank you for your courage in testifying in 1991. I was in middle school at the time. I recall a night and day difference in how sexual harassment was treated before your testimony vs after.
Before your testimony, the response to complaints was, “What is all the fuss about?” Afterwards, they were taken much more seriously.
Of course, we still have a long way to go (sadly). But please don’t underestimate the positive impact of your brave testimony!
31
Professor Hill showed a lot of courage in 1991 going before a Senate panel she had to suspect would belittle her experience.
She's still showing a lot of courage today writing a piece like this, considering how much the opportunities for trolling and harassment at a distance have increased since that time.
The fact that she still has to exercise that courage is an indication, #MeToo and other movements notwithstanding, of how little things have changed in almost three decades.
One would hope there is still the possibility of change, but I suspect it's not going to happen without it being both top down (getting people in authority to listen and believe) and bottom up (training children from the moment of birth to treat each other as human beings worthy of dignity).
And it's going to require monetary penalties when people are found guilty of sexual harassment, not just shaming, because apparently you can't get a lot of people to change a behavior in a rapacious capitalist society unless it costs them money.
And THAT may be the biggest problem of all.
18
Thank you, Professor Hill, for your writing and your resilience. Your testimony during the Thomas hearings was a model of focused, ethical, professional behavior despite the posturing and histrionics of Mr. Thomas and members of the committee.
It would be a positive if one of the many contenders for the Democratic nomination borrowed your concluding sentence to develop real solutions to sexual harassment and violence in the workplace and in every arena. “The healing from sexual violence must begin now. I will take up that challenge.”
Apologies are empty gestures if unaccompanied by concrete policies that hold sexual harassers accountable.
53
"Words of condolence can never substitute for action aimed at ending the harm."
And words like this from a person like you should inspire responsible leaders to take that action.
Thank you, Dr. Hill.
90
Thank you, Prof. Hill. Courage is contagious. It's time for action aimed at reparation, accountability and prevention of further harm. Thoughts, prayers and words of condolence are gone with the wind.
44
Although in full concurrence with your pleas, a reminder: we still live in a 'macho' society where belittling women, let alone abusing them sexually, seems permissible, hence, ramming through individuals 'a la Kavanaugh' and 'a la Clarence Thomas' to one of the highest and most sensitive offices in the land was a fait accompli irregardless of the facts presented, the harm done, the blaming of the victim. We have a lot to atone to and it may take a long time to find real gender equality...as it must start at infancy, learning to love each other or at least drawing basic respect.
15
What a clear and reasonable approach to the problem! If only people in a position to accomplish this change would listen. But let us take heart nonetheless.
22
I so appreciate this commentary which is informed by lived experience.. both Prof. Hill’s and those who entrusted her with their own stories.
Unless and until sexual assault is taken seriously by those up the chain of command, those who are bosses, politicians, etc.. instead of sweeping complaints under the rug, covering for their buddies, and blaming the assaulted... this pain will continue.
How may more children will be traumatized before we see real action?
How many women and men must suffer assault and that attendant trauma before the abusers are held accountable?
How large a percentage of our population needs to be harmed before an emergency is declared?
74
Professor Hill:
I believed you then and I believe you now. But I think you exagerate the "ripple effect" of having been treated better. LBJ signed the civil rights, the voting rights and the fair housing acts during his administration which ended 50 years ago. And look what we have, Donald Trump!
82
If we're going to talk, we need to know what we're talking about.
We've spent lots of years researching exactly that, just the knowledge needed to correctly frame the effort to fix this permanently. It's been an agonizing task, and what we've learned so far is complex beyond anyone's expectation. There are some concrete answers, but sharing these with others who should be interested has so far met with little success.
Right now, that's the real problem; there are lots of committed voices out there, all acting from honest motives and pure hearts, but without a clear understanding of what we need to address, how the underlying behaviors arise, what controls them, what we should look for, and so on.
We've seen several waves of this effort since we started our work in the late Sixties, each a little closer to grabbing the brass ring than the last. This one seems to have more natural momentum than we've seen previously; we're redoubling our efforts to reach others with our own, somewhat specialized understanding, in hopes that together we might finally be able to make a lasting difference.
The memory of Anita Hill's experience before Congress still brings us a pain we can't shake. If we can help fix that, it would bring us great joy, and a little of the peace we sought when we started our journey together.
--Tom and Kay
18
@Tom and Kay Rogers: What research are you referring to?
2
We set out in collage to study behavior on a deep level, in particular the drives and impulses intrinsic to being a member of the species. We gathered what was available at the time, much more detailed information than most realize existed, most of it from the Forties, Fifties, and Sixties, across multiple disciplines.
We ran into a wall; understanding neural structures had progressed only so far, not enough to hypothesize a framework supporting behavior. In 1977 we met James Albus at a conference, and he provided us with details of his CMAC neural network model (the first, before such things were even called that).
Ten years later, while juggling the usual necessities of family, paying jobs, life in general, we were able to complete an initial model of a framework that bridges neuroanatomy and behavioral science for a few critical areas of human neural function. We've shared details of our work with anyone who shares our particular areas of interest.
We continue to refine the substantially complete framework we set out to construct fifty years ago. A few well-proven elements have been privately published at the request of several corespondents, such as a short novella aimed at teens that we generated for a friend who adopted a young girl who had been sexually abused and was struggling to adapt. It was also used as materiel for a sexual assault seminar presented by a committee of the AAAS. A book outlining our framework is underway; we both still work full time.
--T&K
If people in government who are clearly found guilty of sexual harassment on the job had to pay out of their OWN pockets the legal fees and punitive damage award to the victim (s) and not the government office they work for, a lot of harassment would stop. in the private sector, people lose their jobs for such behavior because they are a liability to the employer.
149
I just want to say how appreciative I am to have your voice and wisdom in these renewed discussions... I suspect it helps many survivors constant sometimes one can not just survive but thrive after this kind of abuse and then the betrayal trauma on top of it. As a lesser note, as a psychologist treating trauma with EMDR, people affected by these and other abuses should also know there are effective ways of healing... thank you again...
138
@Rebecca ... that was supposed to be "... survivors consider that...". ;-)
1
Prof. Hill has many excellent points. Unfortunately, the #MeToo Movement has now tended to generalize and stereotype all men as predators. This is not productive either. We need conversation, not angry blaming. Patriarchy is in need of fixing, to be sure. But anger and resentment will not bring about humanist solutions.
34
Unfortunately, the results of our work fit the same model the #MeToo movement seems to have instinctively adopted. Our model doesn't rely on instinct; we've based our work on neural research going back to the Seventies, and no new science has yet suggested it's incorrect or incomplete.
Chase this problem down, and it's certain that male members of our species all possess a behavioral strategy for mating that is predatory. That unpleasant fact is not going to go away, simply because it's our nature. What we can do is learn to control it.
We all possess a different, egalitarian modern behavioral strategy that is much more successful. We all make a choice of which mating behavior to apply, but few of us have an accurate understanding of how that choice is made.
Absent that information, it's going to be tough to make a permanent change in male behavior.
But make no mistake: one of the two male behavioral models for mating behavior is purely predatory, dictating exactly the range of experiences Dr. Hill cites. The #MeToo movement is entirely correct in taking that position, and no amount of argument is going to change the truth of that fact.
The only recourse is to push it back into hiding, and only a dedicated predator would want that.
--Tom and Kay
14
@Juh CLU
With 20/20 hindsight re the Hill Thomas hearings and Thomas' behavior since then confirm that Justice Thomas is a sexual predator?
They both apparently as adults were extraordinarily awkward in their relationships with members of the opposite sex and with each other.
Anita Hill is still credible in terms of her being
extremely uncomfortable with Thomas.
The Democratically controlled Senate did at the end of the day confirm Thomas as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Biden did not vote to confirm Thomas.
Was the entire public hearing on international TV in accord with due process??
5
@Juh CLU
Are you saying that the natural anger and resentment that victims feel is counterproductive? Isn't that a bit like blaming the victim? Some is raped & it is natural for that person to feel angry & resentful. How does claiming that these natural and NORMAL feelings are part of the "problem" help anyone but the predator?
12
Bravo, Prof. Hill. I hope somehow people with the pull to revise the narrative read your piece and think hard about ways to get a conversation started that will lead to real action.
164