By

CBSNews /

CBS/ October 20, 2010, 4:42 PM

Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas: The Backstory

Oklahoma City Thunder small forward Kevin Durant (35) heads down court against the Miami Heat during the second half at Game 2 of the NBA finals basketball series, Thursday, June 14, 2012, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Oklahoma City Thunder small forward Kevin Durant (35) heads down court against the Miami Heat during the second half at Game 2 of the NBA finals basketball series, Thursday, June 14, 2012, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson) / Jeff Roberson

With a brief voicemail message, the wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has revived the scandalous allegations from 19 years ago that Thomas had sexually harassed former employee Anita Hill.

Virginia Thomas left a message earlier this month with Hill, now a Brandeis professor, asking for an apology for the allegations made during Thomas' Senate confirmation hearings.

(Scroll down to watch Clarence Thomas on "60 Minutes" in 2007)

Anita Hill: No Apology to Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas' Wife Seeks Apology from Anita Hill

The testimony from Hill, a former aide to Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, led Thomas to refer to her as "my most traitorous adversary" in his 2007 book "My Grandfather's Son."

In 1991, Hill submitted a confidential statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that Thomas had sexually harassed her 10 years earlier, when they were both single. The FBI had already investigated the charges and given the committee what was called an inconclusive report. The committee decided not to pursue the matter. But two days before the full Senate was expected to confirm Thomas, Hill's statement was leaked to reporters.

"It was only after they had been leaked illegally, to the public and the press, that then it's outta hand. It's in the feeding frenzy," Thomas told "60 Minutes" Correspondent Steve Kroft in 2007 profile.

Clarence Thomas: The Justice Nobody Knows
The Private Clarence Thomas (Part 1)
The Private Clarence Thomas (Part 2)

Under pressure from women's groups and Democrats in the Congress, Hill was summoned before the Judiciary Committee to testify before live television cameras. More than 20 million households tuned in to watch the proceedings.

Audio Clips from Anita Hill's 1991 Testimony

Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3

Hill accused Thomas of making inappropriate remarks. She said one such comment came as Thomas was drinking a soft drink in the 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?'" Hill told senators.

Hill also testified that Thomas would boast about being well-endowed and has experience in pleasing women intimately. She also said she felt uncomfortable about her job situation.

"I began to feel severe stress on the job," Hill told the committee. "I began to be concerned that Clarence Thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me."

When it came time for Thomas to publicly respond to Hill's allegations, he turned the tables on his interrogators and for all intents and purposes ended the debate.

"This is a circus. It's a national disgrace," Thomas said during the hearing. "It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

On Oct. 15, 1991, the Senate confirmed Thomas' nomination 52-48, the closest Supreme Court confirmation vote in history.

In the voicemail message, the contents of which were confirmed by CBS News, Virginia Thomas said, "I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day."

In a statement Tuesday, Hill said she "certainly thought the call was inappropriate," and she contacted Brandeis security officials, who later informed the FBI, after hearing it. She said she had "no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

In her statement, Thomas said she meant no offense.

"I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same."


More from Interview
Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved.
30 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
rwhprism says:
Mrs. Hill's testimony was specific, clear and credible. What she stated was not outlandish or particularly damning. It was just bad judgment on the part of Clarence Thomas in my opinion. Mrs. Hill didn't even claim that Mr. Thomas should not be confirmed. She merely stated that she thought her experience was relevant. It was relevant. It showed clearly that Clarence Thomas had made some bad judgments in the workplace.

For Mrs. Thomas to ask for an apology at this point is stupid. She is asking the messenger to apologize for being shot years ago.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
Let's bring that right wing sucker back on trial. It might be the next best thing than impeaching him for the Citizens United ruling against democracy and free speech.
reply
dance-like-devrish25 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Are you as clueless as you seem or did you just misspeak? Judges can not be impeached because of an unpopular decision. And what do you mean lets put him back on trial. He was never on trial to begin with so how can he go "back"?
noloyalisti replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Yes, they can be impeached for judicial incompetence. And the Citizens United decision was clearly that. They are also supposed to uphold the Constitution and some of their other decisions, like upholding the Bushoccio Crime Family Military Commissions Act was pretty grievous.

And he was essentially on trial in front of the Congressional Judiciary committees before his narrow and ill-founded confirmation.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bacaangel says:
Justice Thomas' wife ironically reminds voters what the teabaggers and the GOP party is really all about -- hypocrisy, smoke & mirrors and lies! The Thomas' profess to be Christians and yet the Christian religion asks that we Forgive those who transgress against us, and to do good to those who despise us or hurt us. I do not see this Christian attitude in the actions of Mrs. Thomas, after 19 YEARS, it is really sad that she can't move on without an apology. I mean, is she a Christian or what? Certainly, as a Christain, she should know that it matters more God thinks than what the world thinks or Anita Hill. There is much hypocrisy going on here. It seems they are Christians in name only and not in deeds. And yet sadly, many GOP are Christians in name only. Not all, just most!
reply
bobnjersey replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
[It seems they are Christians in name only and not in deeds. And yet sadly, many GOP are Christians in name only. Not all, just most!]
------------------------------------------------------
there actions and perspective can only be fully understood once you understand that most of these politically active 'christians' are really driven not by religion ... but by a serious personality disorder known as authoritarianism. the profile has decades of research behind it ... and not one of them will ever see it within themselves ... believing that it's everyone else who has the distorted world view. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
It's great because Thomas is an extremist, big corporation "rights" loving, activist wacko judge. He should have gone to jail for what he did, instead he is on the SCOTUS. What an embarrassment.

But it does make one suspicious about what dastardly act against America this poor excuse of a right wing Supreme Court has in store.
reply
dance-like-devrish25 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Wow, you are such a racist. Right away you assume a black man must be guilty when accused of sexual misconduct. You want to put him in jail based on the words of one individual. And its pretty obvious that Ms. Hill has a tendancy to over-react. Did she really need to call security because Mrs. Thomes called her? Give me a break. You may try and present yourself as open minded, but when the chips are down, you're nothing but a bigot.
bobnjersey replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
[Wow, you are such a racist. Right away you assume a black man must be guilty when accused of sexual misconduct. ]
--------------------------------------------------
point specifically to the words or words used in the original post that infers a racist tone ... or the assumption that a black man must be guilty.
See all 4 Replies
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bundye says:
Mrs. Thomas' call was uncalled for. It's water under the bridge, and now she's trying to start a typhoon. Leave bygones be bygones. What could she possibly accomplish by brining this up again. But, I see, no one asked Mr. Thomas his opinion????
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tiredofstupidity says:
Most of YOU people are nuts!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
thebob-bob says:
This is clearly a pre-emptive strike by the Conservatives. The extreme rightwing elements on the SCOTUS are about to do something even more heinous that installing GW Bush in the White House. Something more outrageous than granting (by their creator?) inalienable rights of free speech to State-created Corporate entities. By cranking up this issue, the next criticism of the The Court can be deflected as that "same old anti-Thomas lynch mob".

Mrs. Thomas wouldn't be the first wife who thought that her successful, loving, church-going husband was incapable of being a philandering louse.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Libby49va says:
I wonder how many of these commenters have been sexually harassed in the workplace? I have and I don't doubt Anita Hill's testimony for a minute. It was very unprofessional, not to mention very poor manners for Virginia Thomas to call Ms. Hill asking her to apologize to Clarance. What he did was reprehensible, and that he was confirmed to the Supreme Court was, in my mind, a huge miscarriage of justice and mistake.

Ms. Hill took upon herself to notify Congress of something that speaks volumes of Mr. Thomas's character. Something she did not have to do. She could have remained quiet, but she stood up and put herself in the limelight to relay a particularly painful experience. I applaud what she did.

I just wish that Congress had had the balls at the time to deny Thomas' confirmation.
reply
documemts replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
They should have. He's a dud.
proudVietVet56 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Libby49va; Welcome to America's political leaders. We read about Senators, congressmen, Aides, Lawyers, Justices, Mayors, Govenors AND Presidential canadates/President (Bill Clinton) cheating EVERY SINGLE DAY. I agree with you totally. How do we fix the problem?? VOTE THE TRASH OUT and hold the new administration responsible for their actions, both public and private.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
angeinDC says:
As a lifelong Washingtonian, I am intimately familiar with this story and actually lived in Clarence Thomas' neighborhood in Alexandria at one point. I'm a staunch democrat, but I can't say anything negative about him. He has always been professional, polite and a very intelligent man. I do believe that Anita Hill is a bit of an opportunist, and wonder how exactly news agencies obtained copies of voicemails left on her work voice mail.....
reply
tiredofstupidity replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
What difference does it make how the voicemail got out? The issue is that the call was made in the first place! How dare this woman call Ms. Hill and ask for an apology. And I don't think Ms. Hill made it a secret that she immediately called and turned it over to authorities, who then turned it over to the FBI.
Sooners1911 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I attended High School with Anita Faye Hill, (Faye as we called her). We graduated from a very small school, where everyone knew everyone. I believe there were 60 some students in our high school graduating class to give you an idea of how small. Faye was our valedictorian. In the term of three years of attending school with Faye, I not only got to know her, but knew of her family as well. There was a high respect for her and her family as honest, truthful folks. This opinion of Faye Hill was shared by all whom knew her. I followed the case with much interest and thought the GOP committee members doing the questioning were on a witch hunt, especially, Senator Arlen Spector. Is there any doubt in my mind as to the truth of Anita Faye's accusations concerning Clarence Thomas, not a bit! In my mind and knowing Faye Hill, she was telling the truth. Perhaps, Clarence Thomas does not feel his comments were sexual in content or perhaps He felt they were unprovable. As for opportunist and Faye Hill, what exactly did she or has she gained in the years since then. In reality she was scrutinized.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
stoneagepeople says:
We Americans at this moment in time must stay focused; are plates are full without throwing distractions on top of everything else. I thought the matter of Anita Hill vs Clarence Thomas was settled years ago.
reply
proudVietVet56 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I agree 100%. Put all 3 of them on Jerry Springer or Maury to handle. We have bigger fish to fry...... er... Voted OUT of office (Oduma).
See all 30 Comments