JUDY WOODRUFF: The situation now with Kavanaugh's confirmation evokes memories of a different
confrontation that played out some 27 years ago.
In 1991, Anita Hill was a law professor at the University of Oklahoma who came forward
publicly to accuse a former boss, then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, of sexual harassment.
Yesterday, The New York Times published an opinion column from Hill with her own prescriptions
for what the central figures in the current confrontation could learn from 1991.
Anita Hill is now a professor of law at Brandeis University and an author focusing on issues
of gender, race and social policy.
And she joins me now.
Anita Hill, welcome back to the "NewsHour."
Just to look at what's going on right now, the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders are
saying they want Professor Blasey Ford to testify, that they don't believe in FBI investigation
is necessary.
Their own staff is investigating.
And they're making it sound as if they're going to go ahead whether she's there or not.
Under those circumstances, should she testify?
ANITA HILL, Professor of Law, Brandeis University: You know, that's a decision that she has to
make for herself.
My belief is that, without an investigation, there cannot be an effective hearing.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So when the Senate -- senators on the Judiciary Committee say their own staff
is carrying out an investigation, you're saying that's not sufficient?
ANITA HILL: I'm saying it's not sufficient, not because they -- I know what their staffs'
qualifications are.
But I doubt that they are qualified to carry out this investigation in a neutral fashion.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let's go back to 1991.
I want to show our audience -- this is an excerpt from the confirmation hearings, Clarence
Thomas hearings, that year.
You were being questioned at this point by then Senator Arlen Specter.
Let's listen.
SEN.
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania: You testified this morning, in response to Senator Biden,
that the most embarrassing question involved -- this is not too bad -- women's large breasts.
That's a word we use all the time.
That was the most embarrassing aspect of what Judge Thomas had said to you.
ANITA HILL: No, the most embarrassing aspect was his description of the act of these individuals,
these women, that -- the acts that those particular people would engage in.
It wasn't just the breasts.
It was the continuation of his story about what happened in those films with the people
of -- with this characteristic -- physical characteristic.
SEN.
ARLEN SPECTER: With the physical characteristic of?
ANITA HILL: The largest breasts.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Professor Hill, what was your assessment of the senators' question
-- questioning of you, as you look back on it?
ANITA HILL: Well, as I look back on it, I think that there is evidence that that -- clearly,
evidence that the staffers shouldn't be the ones designing this hearing at this point.
Senator Specter had already indicated prior to my testimony that he believed Clarence
Thomas, that he didn't go into that hearing with an open mind.
And what followed were questions that reflected that he didn't have an open mind and wasn't
interested really in pursuing the truth of my testimony, but was more interested in discrediting
me.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, as you know, I'm sure what these Republican senators on the committee
right now are saying is there have already been half-a-dozen FBI investigations of Judge
Kavanaugh, and they question whether they're going to learn much more.
In other words, they are not inclined to expect that anything new is going to come out.
ANITA HILL: And the senators have already indicated that they have made up their mind
about this individual.
All of this, to me, just points to the fact that they are not prepared to have this hearing.
If they don't understand the difference between a general investigation by the FBI and a specific
investigation into the allegations that have been raised about this sexual assault, or
potential sexual assault that occurred, if they don't understand that difference, then
they are really not prepared to go into this phase of the hearing.
JUDY WOODRUFF: If it turns out, Professor Hill, that there is no way to verify Professor
Blasey Ford's allegation, what are we left with here?
If there's no evidence that surfaces, no account -- account that surfaces to back her up or
refute what she said?
ANITA HILL: You know, one the things that I won't assume is the idea that there is no
evidence, because I am not a professional that does these kind of investigations.
When you get a professional involved, they will know the questions to ask, they will
know the places to go, they will know the people to call on as witnesses to complete
what is a thorough investigation.
So there -- there's a lot more than we can learn.
I think, so often, we get -- fall into this trap saying, oh, this is a he said/she said
situation.
And that rarely is the case.
There is very often -- and most often, I would say -- ways that testimony can be corroborated,
either through other individuals or other circumstances that are similar.
And we need to let that play out and to make sure that we have turned over every stone
to get to the facts of this situation.
I think it's in the best interest of both Dr. Blasey Ford, as well as the interest of
Judge Kavanaugh.
But I certainly think it is in the best interest of the American public and the court.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Given what you just said, I want to ask, in this current partisan, divided
environment we are living in, in this country, is it possible for something like this, for
an allegation to come up when someone is being nominated to an important position, and for
them to get a fair hearing?
ANITA HILL: It's possible, if people are willing to put aside partisanship for higher ideals,
for the betterment of the court or for what is in the best interest of the public.
I will say this.
When individuals come forward and raise claims, they do so at great risk.
We know from the information that has been published and the story that has followed
sense Dr. Blasey was revealed as the person who wrote the letter to -- and gave it to
her representative, we know that, in fact, there have been threats to her life.
We know that she is now in hiding because of those threats.
We can't promise her an outcome in a fair hearing, but what we ought to be able to promise
her is a fair hearing and a thorough investigation.
And I think it's a reflection, not only on this particular hearing, but also a particular
-- a reflection on the ability of individuals who are our representatives to do their job,
especially when it comes to the Supreme Court.
I think it's ironic that we have senators who are deciding about who is going to sit
on the highest court, but they can't really put partisanship side long enough to put together
a fair hearing to get to the truth about this situation.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Professor Anita Hill, we thank you very much.
ANITA HILL: Thank you.