Quiet Mountain Essays
Copyright ©, 2007
The Supreme Court Debacle of 1991
by
Judith K. Witherow
The Supreme Court, stacked with conservative judges, has always been a primary worry for feminists and those who value freedom above the ideologies of nine individuals.
Judges with lifetime appointments who lean toward the right in courts holding power over us is incredibly frightening. It’s also true of federal judgeships, but the word “supreme” defines where power is truly based.
It should be counted on that equality from the highest court in the land is beyond frivolous thinking. Presidents rub their hands in glee at the chance to stack the bench with like-minded judges who favor beliefs they hold dear. This is especially true when rulings concern reproductive rights, gender bias, sexual orientation, civil rights, affirmative action, and numerous laws controlling women’s bodies.
When Thurgood Marshall, the first African American appointed to the Supreme Court, retired in 1991, there was an empty seat that would be seriously hard to fill. Marshall was the moving force in the battle to achieve civil rights throughout the country, among many other far-reaching votes.
His decision to retire after serving since 1967 gave President George Bush a chance to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court. He chose Clarence Thomas, an African American who was forty-three years old. Thomas had only two years of experience as a federal judge. His inexperience apparently had little to do with what the long-held Republican White House had in mind.
His nomination was immediately under fire by numerous groups that included feminists (NOW in particular), the NAACP, the National Bar Association, the Urban League and other groups concerned with racial and gender equality. It seemed like his nomination would be quickly withdrawn. Nothing was further from the truth, but at the time we didn’t know how cowardly and gynophobic his nomination would become.
The loud voices demanding that Thomas have his name withdrawn provided barely a glitch on the screen of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing. Thomas was asked about his view on legal abortions, and at the time said he hadn’t formed an opinion on that issue. This statement was accepted without further questioning. To the surprise of many, the committee voted seven to seven and sent the nomination to the Senate leaving it to determine the outcome.
The committee vote led many to believe that we weren’t going to receive anything resembling a fair examination unless we began asking numerous questions of our own. The heroine, who came forward despite apparent embarrassment, and to face outright accusations about the truth of her statements, was Professor Anita Hill.
Ms. Hill worked as Thomas’s assistant at the U.S. Department of Education. It was during this time she volunteered that she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas. After Thomas became Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Ms. Hill also became a part of the Commission’s staff. These facts led many to believe that her testimony against Thomas wasn’t truthful. Many wondered: if she was being truthful, why had she continued to work with him? To this day, women who make similar accusations are still being asked this question. However, women who have experienced workplace sexual harassment know the answers - fear of not being believed, hope the offender will stop the heinous behavior, or shame they somehow did something to deserve what happened, can all play a part in a woman's decision to remain in such a work environment. Feminists view past offenses differently, but time has not altered the attitudes of many others.
It takes someone truly strong to stand up to the second assault they will receive when they dare to speak out about past events that have occurred. Education, race, class or culture has nothing to do with how each of us responds to degradation by those who practice perversion in its many forms. Treated as though she were the offender - not Thomas, and under intense questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee members, Hill’s Juris Doctor degree from Yale (among other degrees) left her just as unable to defend herself as anyone else commanded to prove their innocence in a multitude of situations.
One of the remarks Hill said that Thomas made was, “Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, “Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?” When questioned by the FBI, Hill accused Thomas of often using sexually vulgar and offensive language when speaking to her.
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee gave these comments to the media and the feeding frenzy began.
Thomas, in turn, denied everything. His infamous comment would effectively shut down further questioning and imply that believing Hill over him could somehow be construed as racist, even though both were African American. His rebuttal to all that Hill had said was to call it “a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks.” (Sexism??) There’s no reason for me to believe differently. I’ll always feel the truth came down on Hill's side; but the boys in power saw it differently, and they held the reins of power.
David Brock, a 1990's conservative journalist, further decided Hill's fate by calling her “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” In his 2002 book, Blinded by the Right, he confessed he made up this and other unfounded remarks to ingratiate himself to conservatives. He admitted to going after Hill to sully her reputation, and relied on false and unfounded information.
I say it’s a bit late to swallow your callous lies and hate, David! It was her life, versus a mere book for you to sell.
Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52 to 48. Contrary to his declaration that he had no set beliefs, he has continually aligned himself with the conservatives on the Court. His votes on reproductive and civil rights bear this out.
Anyone who follows the voting structure that takes place in our government can’t fail to notice that even the most atrocious votes pass or fail by a close margin. How ironic. It looks like someone takes a head count before anything is brought up for a final vote. Paranoia?
Sometimes Justice lifts an edge of her blindfold and gives us a peek at what women do when they feel they have been trampled once too often.
In November of 1991, a number of lesbian/feminist friends of mine and my partner Sue, got together to plan what we would be doing for our annual Women’s Fair and fundraiser. We were full of anger about Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court, and how despicably Professor Anita Hill had been treated during her testimony concerning his sexual harassment.
Making buttons for sale was always one of our money making ways to fund projects and promote actions. I came up with the idea to use the Thomas denial about the pubic hair on the Coke to benefit the women’s movement. We decided to buy a large number of bottles of Coke for the label. We used these for the backing on each button. Everyone met at Sue’s and my home. The five of us donated as much pubic hair as each thought she could spare for the good of the action. The hair was placed on the part of the label making sure the word “Coke” showed prominently, along with said pubic hair. The rowdiness of the night equaled our anger at the entire incident that had taken place.
We took our buttons to the Women’s Fair, and without a doubt they were the highlight—except for the presence of now House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, of the 110th Congress. Hoyer, a Democrat, has always been an advocate of women’s rights. It was assumed that Hoyer would attend the event because he was a congressman from our district. I told everyone to just get him near the buttons, and I’d make sure he stayed there while Sue took pictures. It was our way to show how you could be totally innocent, but what others perceived could often be very different.
When Hoyer appeared, I took him by the arm. (His female aide was with him.) I innocently led him to the table where we had the buttons placed. His first words were, “Why in the world would you women be promoting a soft drink product?” I told him to look closer. When he saw the pubic hair, he tried to move away as fast as possible. Sue took three photographs while I held onto his arm so tightly he couldn’t move. His aide was shocked, and, laughingly, couldn’t help him out of the situation.
Never let it be said that women can’t be as devious as men. If a woman has been harmed, it’s our duty to do whatever we feel is necessary to call attention to the problem at hand. What we did in no way comes close to what happened to Anita Hill. She will be forever impacted by what happened to her because she told the truth. For his part, Clarence Thomas has proven his lack of qualifications in the manner we believed he would. Steny Hoyer, however, appears to be as respectful and forthright as he was when he was our Congressman. I say this, but in all honesty we’ve been played too many times to accept anything as fact. Hopefully, Majority Leader Hoyer will work for the benefit of all women, but only time will tell if that belief remains correct.
1991 protest button
photo by Sue Lenaerts
Steny Hoyer, Judith K.Witherow, Aide in 1991
photo by Sue Lenaerts
Contributor's Notes...
Judith K. Witherow, an American Indian (Cherokee), was raised in rural Appalachian poverty. Ms. Witherow writes about experiences with disability, gender, sexual orientation, race and class. In 2007, she was awarded “Community Builder for Decades” by Pacifica Radio. Ms. Witherow guest-edited Sinister Wisdom: Death, Grief and Surviving, recently reviewed at AmuseJanetMason.com web-zine.
Home Intro Next Essay Submissions Fem. Links Women's Res. Calendar Cool Links Contact Archives