♪♪
BONNIE: HELLO.
I'’’M BONNIE ERBE.
WELCOME TO "TO THE CONTRARY," A
DISCUSSION OF NEWS AND SOCIAL
TRENDS FROM DIVERSE
PERSPECTIVES.
30 YEARS AGO, ANITA HILL
TESTIFIED TO A SENATE HEARING
ABOUT SUPREME COURT NOMINEE
CLARENCE THOMAS.
IT WAS A BOLD MOVE.
HILL TOLD THE ALL-WHITE MALE
PANEL THAT THOMAS SEXUALLY
HARASSED HER WHEN SHE WORKED FOR
HIM AT THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
EMPLOYMENT -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.
THOMAS WAS STILL SELECTED TO
SERVE ON THE HIGH COURT, BUT
HILL'’’S BOLD TESTIMONY SERVED AS
THE CATALYST FOR OTHER WOMEN TO
COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT IN
THE WORKPLACE.
IT ALSO SET ANITA HILL ON A
30-YEAR JOURNEY TO END GENDER
VIOLENCE.
TODAY, HILL IS A PROFESSOR OF
SOCIAL POLICY AND WOMEN'’’S GENDER
AND SEXUALITY STUDIES AT RAND
ICE UNIVERSITY.
SHE JOINS ME TODAY TO TALK ABOUT
HER NEW BOOK "BELIEVING."
WELCOME, ANITA HILL.
WE ARE SO THRILLED TO HAVE YOU.
MS. HILL: IT IS A PLEASURE TO BE
ON YOUR PROGRAM.
BONNIE: FIRST, TELL THE
AUDIENCE, WHY THE TITLE
"BELIEVING?"
MS. HILL: IT REALLY CAME FROM
LISTENING TO VICTIMS AND
SURVIVORS, HEARING ON THEM --
HEARING FROM THEM, AND REALLY
BELIEVING THAT WE NEEDED TO DO
BETTER FROM ALL STANDPOINTS OF
THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT WE ARE
EXPERIENCING, IF IT IS BULLYING
OR SEXUAL ASSAULT OR HARASSMENT
OR RAPE OR INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE.
BONNIE: HAVE WE GOTTEN THERE
YET?
MS. HILL: IN THE 30 YEARS, WE
CERTAINLY HAVE NOT GOTTEN WHERE
WE NEED TO BE.
I THINK WE HAVE MADE SOME
PROGRESS.
WE HAVE LEARNED TO IDENTIFY
BEHAVIORS.
WE HAVE TAPPED INTO AND MAYBE
ADJUSTED SOME OF OUR CULTURAL
RESPONSES TO THE PROBLEM.
I THINK THERE'’’S LESS VICTIM
BLAMING GOING ON, BUT THAT'’’S NOT
ENTIRELY OVER.
WE STILL DISMISS THE HARM THIS
PROBLEM CAUSES INDIVIDUALS AND
COMMUNITIES IN OUR SOCIETY AT
LARGE.
WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN THERE WITH
OUR STRUCTURES.
WE STILL HAVE POLICIES AND
PROCESSES IN PLACE THAT REALLY
HAVE FAILED US AND WILL CONTINUE
TO FAIL US UNTIL WE CHANGE THEM.
BONNIE: I REMEMBER COVERING THAT
HEARING.
I WAS WORKING FOR A RADIO
NETWORK AS A SUPREME COURT
CORRESPONDENT AT THE TIME.
I REMEMBER THINKING OF YOU AS A
REALLY BRAVE, REALLY SCARED
INDIVIDUAL, AND OF COURSE,
APPROPRIATELY SO.
THAT HEARING SHATTERED THE
UNIVERSE.
THERE YOU WERE, CONFRONTING A
MAN WHO EVERYBODY PRETTY MUCH
KNEW WAS GOING TO GET THROUGH
REGARDLESS.
HOW DID YOU FEEL?
MS. HILL: FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE
BEEN CALLED BRAVE OR COURAGEOUS,
AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND
THAT BEING COURAGEOUS DOES NOT
MEAN BEING FEARLESS.
WHEN YOU ARE COURAGEOUS, YOU
TAKE ON YOUR FEARS, AND THAT IS
EXACTLY WHAT I TRIED TO DO, TO
TAKE ON MY FEARS.
I THOUGHT, AND I THINK EVEN
TODAY, THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF
NOT TESTIFYING WERE BIGGER THAN
ANY FEARS I HAD ABOUT
TESTIFYING.
SO I WAS ABLE TO OVERCOME THOSE
BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT AN
APPOINTMENT TO THE HIGHEST COURT
IN OUR LAND FOR A LIFETIME
TENURE WAS BIGGER THAN ONE
INDIVIDUAL'’’S FEARS AND THAT IF
WE DID NOT CONFRONT -- IF I DID
NOT TESTIFY TO WHAT I KNEW ABOUT
HIS BEHAVIOR, THAT THE COMMITTEE
WOULD NOT HAVE COMPLETE
INFORMATION TO EVALUATE THE
CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF
CLARENCE THOMAS FOR THE POSITION
ON THE COURT.
BONNIE: AND YET, HE WAS
CONFIRMED REGARDLESS BY A
COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY THEN
SENATOR JOE BIDEN.
WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU -- YOU
KNOW, YOU HAVE AN INSIDE TRACK
AT LEAST 30 YEARS AGO OF THE
THOUGHTS OF NOW PRESIDENT BIDEN.
DO YOU FEEL YOU WERE TREATED
FAIRLY?
MS. HILL: I THINK THE WHOLE
PROCESS WAS REALLY FLAWED.
THERE WERE SOME SPECIFIC
INSTANCES WHERE THE REPUBLICAN
SENATORS WERE ALLOWED TO ASK
WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO ASK OF
ME, BUT THEY WERE LIMITED IN
TERMS OF WHAT THEY COULD ASK OF
CLARENCE THOMAS.
THERE WERE FLAWS I BELIEVE WITH
THE INVESTIGATION.
THE INVESTIGATION WAS CONTROLLED
BY A BODY, THE FBI, THAT WAS
REALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
PRESIDENT.
WE LEARNED THAT AGAIN IN 2018
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP LIMITED THE
INVESTIGATION INTO JUDGE
KAVANAUGH DURING HIS
CONFIRMATION HEARING.
BUT THE THING THAT I THINK
BOTHERS ME THE MOST ABOUT THE
WAY THE PROCESS WAS HANDLED WAS
THAT THERE WERE THREE
CORROBORATING WITNESSES AND EVEN
A FOURTH WHO HAD THEIR OWN
EXPERIENCES OF HARASSING
BEHAVIOR AND INAPPROPRIATE
BEHAVIOR THAT THOMAS HAD DONE
WITH THEM, AND THEY WERE NOT
CALLED.
THEY WERE NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY
PUBLICLY.
INSTEAD, THEIR TESTIMONY WAS PUT
IN THE RECORD IN WRITTEN FORM,
AND WE HAVE NOT ACTUALLY IN A
PUBLIC WAY HEARD FROM THEM SINCE
THEN.
I'’’M NOT SURE THEY WANT TO BOTHER
TO TESTIFY, BUT I THINK THERE
WAS JUST A TRAVESTY NOT TO CALL
THOSE WITNESSES BECAUSE THESE
WERE WOMEN I DID NOT KNOW.
THEY WERE NOT SAYING WHAT HAD
HAPPENED TO ME.
THEY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT
THAT.
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THEIR
OWN EXPERIENCES OF HAVING BEEN
HARASSED BY CLARENCE THOMAS.
BONNIE: NUMBERS CERTAINLY HELPS
A LOT IN TERMS OF BELIEVABILITY,
CORRECT?
MS. HILL: UNFORTUNATELY, WE
STILL -- SO OFTEN, WOMEN ARE
COMING UP AGAINST VERY POWERFUL
MEN, AND IT STILL TAKES MULTIPLE
WITNESSES, MULTIPLE VICTIMS TO
COME FORWARD IN ORDER TO
CONVINCE A BODY OR EVEN THE
PUBLIC THAT SOMEONE HAS ENGAGED
IN VIOLENCE OR OTHER MISCONDUCT,
SO IT DOES MATTER.
IT ESPECIALLY DID MATTER IN 1991
WHEN THE TOPIC IN TERMS OF THE
PUBLIC CONVERSATION WAS VERY,
VERY NEW, AND PEOPLE NEEDED TO
HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION,
INCLUDING INFORMATION FROM
EXPERT WITNESSES ON THE TOPIC OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHO WERE NOT
CALLED.
BONNIE: WHEN YOU DEAL -- WHEN
YOU DID DECIDE TO COME FORWARD
30 YEARS AGO, DID YOU EVER IN
YOUR MIND THINK YOU WOULD BECOME
THE FEMINIST ICON YOU HAVE
BECOME?
MS. HILL: NO, I DIDN'’’T.
THERE WERE MIXED FEELINGS AT THE
TIME ABOUT MY TESTIMONY, IF I
SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT COME
FORWARD, IF I HAD ACTUALLY
HELPED OR HURT THE CAUSE OF
GENDER EQUITY.
SO I DID NOT EXPECT THAT, BUT MY
EVOLUTION TO THIS POINT HAS COME
AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF HEARING
FROM VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS WHO
WANT A VOICE, WHO WANT
SOLUTIONS, WHO WANT WHAT HAS
HAPPENED TO THEM -- AGAIN,
WHATEVER THE BEHAVIOR -- THEY
WANT IT TO STOP, AND THEY DON'’’T
WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO OTHER
PEOPLE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEY
HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD ENOUGH FROM.
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PART OF
THE SOLUTION IN WAYS THAT WILL
HELP AND -- HELP AND -- HELP END
THE PROBLEM.
I'’’M HERE NOT TO SPEAK FOR THEM
BUT TO GIVE THEM SPACE TO SPEAK
AND TO CHALLENGE OUR LEADERSHIP
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE
WILLING TO STEP UP AND MAKE
CHANGE.
BONNIE: YOU ARE A PROFESSOR, AS
WE TALKED ABOUT, WOMEN'’’S RIGHTS,
STUDIES OF GENDER VIOLENCE.
HOW DO YOU PUT WHAT HAPPENED TO
YOU, WHAT CLARENCE THOMAS DID TO
YOU, WHICH INCLUDED TALKING
ABOUT PUBIC HAIR ON A COKE
BOTTLE, REFERENCING HIS PRIVATE
MAIL PARTS, AND PORNOGRAPHY,
WHICH THAT PART MANY PEOPLE HAVE
COME OUT AND CONFIRMED -- WHAT
DO YOU THINK ABOUT LUMPING THAT
BEHAVIOR IN WITH RAPE, SEXUAL
ASSAULT, WHAT, FOR EXAMPLE,
CHRISTINE BLASE FORD SUFFERED AT
THE HANDS OF THEN JUDGE
KAVANAUGH?
HOW DOES JUST SAYING THINGS TO
YOU, CONFRONTING YOU, FRONTING
YOU, POSSIBLY GIVING THE WOMAN
AT THE OTHER END OF THESE
CONVERSATIONS A PTSD KIND OF
EXPERIENCE BUT NOT TOUCHING YOU?
HOW DO YOU LUMP THAT IN WITH
ACTUAL HANDS-ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE?
MS. HILL: WELL, SEXUAL
HARASSMENT IS DEFINED BY THE
LAW.
IT DOES NOT NEED TO INCLUDE
TOUCHING.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT HAS BEEN
CLEAR FOR YEARS THAT CREATING A
PSYCHOLOGICALLY HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT IS ENOUGH TO CREATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION.
THAT IS ONE THING.
THAT WAS ONE OF I THINK THE
MISUNDERSTANDINGS PEOPLE HAD IN
1991, THAT THERE HAD TO BE SOME
KIND OF PHYSICAL TOUCHING IN
ORDER FOR IT TO BE SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT ANY KIND.
SECONDLY, OF THE WORLD,
DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, AND EVEN
THE UNITED NATIONS HAS BEEN
LOOKING AT WHAT COUNTS AS GENDER
VIOLENCE, AND I HAVE INCLUDED
NOT ONLY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, BUT
ECONOMIC VIOLENCE AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL
VIOLENCE.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS IN THE
WORKPLACE, WHEN SOMEONE IS
CONSTANTLY DISCUSSING
PORNOGRAPHY OR THEIR OWN SEXUAL
INTERESTS AND COUPLING THAT WITH
PRESSING FOR DATES OR A SEXUAL
OR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP IS
ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT.
BONNIE: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING
AS YOU FOLLOWED THE CHRISTINE
BLASEY FORD TESTIMONY IN THE
SENATE, ABOUT HAVING BEEN
ESSENTIALLY BEEN SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED, RAPED BY A YOUNGER,
DRUNK COLLEGE STUDENT BRETT
KAVANAUGH?
MS. HILL: I ABSOLUTELY THOUGHT
THAT THE DECK WAS STACKED
AGAINST HER FROM THE BEGINNING.
SHE HAD NO PLACE THAT SHE KNEW
OF HOW TO REPORT THE BEHAVIOR
DURING THE TIME LEADING UP TO
THE CONFIRMATION HEARING.
SHE WAS BLAMED IN FACT FOR GOING
TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN ABOUT THAT.
THAT WAS USED AGAINST HER, EVEN
THOUGH THE SENATE HAD NO
PROCESS, AND I KEEP COMING BACK
TO THE PROCESS, AND IT IS
IMPORTANT, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF
HOW IT FAILED ME OR NOT JUST
BECAUSE OF HOW IT FAILED
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORWARD, BUT
BECAUSE IT IS A REFLECTION ON
OUR GOVERNMENT'’’S ABILITY TO
ADDRESS THIS POLICY IN A FAIR
WAY.
WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLAINTS COME
FORWARD, THERE IS STILL NO
PROCESS AS FAR AS I KNOW IN THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR
PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD.
EVEN MORE SO, IT IS ALSO A
REFLECTION OF SOME OF THE MANY
FLAWED PROCESSES THAT
INDIVIDUALS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
BONNIE: SO LET'’’S TALK ABOUT THAT
PROCESS.
WHAT SHOULD IT BE, AND WHAT
SHOULD IT BE FOR A WOMAN WHO IS
NOT GOING BEFORE THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON A SUPREME
COURT NOMINEE, BUT, FOR EXAMPLE,
THEY $2.14 AN HOUR WOMAN WHO
WAITS TABLES IN A BAR IN
LOUISIANA -- WHAT SHOULD BE THE
PROCESS FOR EVERYONE FROM THAT
WOMAN UP TO YOUR SITUATION?
MS. HILL: IN THE BEGINNING,
THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS.
YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT
COVERED BY ANY PROCESSES AT ALL.
MAYBE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
COVERED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
ARE LESS THAN WHAT THE ACT
COVERS.
THEY COULD BE GIG WORKERS.
THEY COULD BE INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE NOT
EMPLOYEES AT ALL.
THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE
NO PROCESSES AT ALL, BUT IN THE
EVENT THAT THERE IS A PROCESS,
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN IS THAT THE PROCESS HAS
TO BE CLEAR.
IT HAS TO BE MADE EVIDENT TO THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE WORKING IN A
WORKFORCE, AND THERE NEEDS TO BE
SOME TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCESSIBILITY.
ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT I GET
, AND I'’’VE DONE RESEARCH ON THIS
AT THE HOLLYWOOD COMMISSION, IS
THAT THE PROCESSES ARE SO REMOTE
, AND ONE NEVER KNOWS WHEN YOU
ENTER THE PROCESS EXACTLY WHAT
IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT.
YOU DON'’’T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO
INVESTIGATE YOUR CLAIM, IF THERE
WILL BE AN INVESTIGATION.
THEY DON'’’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
HOW THE PROCESS IS GOING TO
PROCEED, AND YOU ARE LEFT WITH
DOUBT BECAUSE -- AND THIS IS
ALSO SOMETHING I FOUND -- MOSTLY
PEOPLE BELIEVE IF YOU ARE
COMPLAINING AGAINST A POWERFUL
INDIVIDUAL, THERE WILL BE NO
ACCOUNTABILITY, THAT THAT $2.14
AN HOUR RESTAURANT WORKER WILL
BE SEEN AS EXPENDABLE, WHEREAS
IF YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE
TOP CHEF, THAT PERSON IS NOT
EXPENDABLE.
IT IS A COMBINATION OF CLARITY
AND FAIRNESS AND ACCESSIBILITY,
BUT IT IS ALSO A QUESTION OF
ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN YOU FIND
THERE HAS BEEN WRONGDOING.
BONNIE: TELL ME HOW YOU THINK
THAT PROCESS SHOULD WORK.
SHOULD THERE BE A CENTRAL
LOCATION?
WHAT SHOULD THE PATH OF
ACCOUNTABILITY BE?
MS. HILL: THE PATH OF
ACCOUNTABILITY SHOULD NOT EVEN
START WITH THE EEOC.
THAT IS WHY I SAY IT HAS TO BE
CLEAR.
IT HAS TO BE AVAILABLE.
THERE HAVE TO BE PEOPLE EDUCATED
ABOUT THE PROCESS BY THE
EMPLOYER, SO THAT IS THE FIRST
THING, AND THERE HAS TO BE SOME
ASSURANCE BASED ON BEHAVIOR THAT
THERE WILL BE ACCOUNTABILITY IF
YOU ACCESS THAT PROCESS.
THAT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE MAKING
SURE THAT THERE IS A FULL
INVESTIGATION THAT IS NOT
LIMITING, THAT THE INVESTIGATION
INCLUDES CONTEXT OF THE
BEHAVIOR, THAT IT IS WELL
STATED, MADE PUBLIC, NOT BEHIND
SOME SCREEN THAT PEOPLE CANNOT
ACCESS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE
NOT SITTING IN FRONT OF A
COMPUTER ALL THE TIME IN YOUR
JOB BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO
ARE SITTING AT A DESK.
THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF WAYS.
TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT A PROCESS
SHOULD BE WILL DEPEND ON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WORK THAT
PEOPLE ARE IN.
BONNIE: WHAT IS THE APPEAL IF
YOU GO TO YOUR EMPLOYER AND YOU
ARE BLOWN OFF -- YOU KNOW, IT
GOES THROUGH SOME SHAM PROCESS,
AND IT GOES NOWHERE?
DO YOU GO TO THE POLICE, TO THE
FBI?
WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP?
MS. HILL: THE NEXT STEP -- YOU
ARE TALKING ABOUT WORKPLACE
HARASSMENT, IT CAN VARY.
IF THERE IS A SEXUAL HARASSMENT
LAW, YOU CAN GO TO POLICE.
YOU CAN GO TO THE POLICE FROM
THE BEGINNING.
IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT, YOU
CAN GO TO YOUR STATE AGENCY,
YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCY, AND
THEY USUALLY ARE IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH THE EEOC OR YOU CAN GO
DIRECTLY TO THE EEOC IF THAT
DOES NOT EXIST.
ONCE AGAIN, WHAT YOU HAVE TO
HAVE IN THAT PROCESS IS, REALLY,
AN AGENCY THAT RIGOROUSLY
ENFORCES AND PRIORITIZES WHAT IS
CLAIMED AS A CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATION.
BONNIE: SO THESE LOCALITIES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IF IT IS AN
ISSUE OF COUNTY LAW OR STATE LAW
-- THAT IS STILL AN AWFUL LOT OF
LAWS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE
PASSED TO GET THIS PROCESS
AVAILABLE IN EVERY LOCATION IN
THE U.S., CORRECT?
>> WELL, THE WAY THE EEOC WORKS
IN THE WAY IT WORKS FOR CERTAIN
EMPLOYMENT ARRANGEMENTS, IF THE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IS HIGH
ENOUGH, THE EEOC WOULD FUNCTION
AS THE AGENCY TO GO TO.
THERE MAY BE SUPPLEMENTAL LAWS
WITH STATES, BUT THE EEOC IS THE
GO TO ORGANIZATION FROM THE
MAJORITY OF THE WORKERS WHO ARE
EMPLOYEES IN THIS COUNTRY, SO IF
THERE ARE OTHER WORKERS, OTHER
TYPE OF WORKERS, CONTRACTORS,
FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE GIG WORKERS,
THAN THERE ARE LAWS THAT MIGHT
COVER THEM.
THERE MIGHT BE STATE LAWS.
THERE MIGHT BE CITIES, LOCAL
LAWS THAT MIGHT COVER THEIR
SITUATION.
WHAT I'’’M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT
THE PROBLEM IS BIG ENOUGH THAT
WE SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED
ASKING IF THERE WILL BE TOO MANY
LAWS TO COVER THAT.
THE PROBLEM IS BIG ENOUGH THAT
WE SHOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST,
WHATEVER IT TAKES, AND THAT
SHOULD PROBABLY ULTIMATELY
INVOLVE COORDINATION BETWEEN
STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT WE ARE
NOT THERE YET.
WE HAVE NOT PUT THE SYSTEM
TOGETHER.
WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT
INDIVIDUAL POLICIES.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SYSTEMS
THAT NEED TO BE IN PLACE TO
ADDRESS JUST THE PROBLEM OF
HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE, AND
YOU HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTEN INTO
THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
AND THE LOW RATE OF CONVICTIONS,
NOT ONLY LOW RATE OF
CONVICTIONS, BUT EVEN IN SEXUAL
ASSAULT IS -- EVEN WHEN SEXUAL
ASSAULT OR RAPE IS REPORTED TO
POLICE, THERE IS A LOW RATE OF
INVESTIGATIONS.
THERE IS A LOW RATE OF REFERRAL,
OF COMPLAINTS TO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.
THEN THERE IS AN EVEN LOWER RATE
OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ACCEPTING THE CASE AND PUTTING
THE CASE BEFORE A JURY.
THERE ARE SOMETIMES JUDGES THAT
INTERVENE EVEN AFTER A JURY
DECISION HAS BEEN RAISED, AS
RECENTLY HAPPENED IN THE BILL
COSBY CASE.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A COMPLEX
SYSTEM, AND IT IS NOT GOING TO
BE EASY.
THE PROBLEM IS COMPLEX, BUT WE
HAVE TO START.
WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE
URGENCY IS TO STOP THIS BEHAVIOR
BECAUSE IT IS NOT ONLY HARMING
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DIRECT
VICTIMS.
IT IS HARMING FAMILIES.
IT IS HARMING COMMUNITIES.
IT IS HARMING, REALLY, OUR
ENTIRE NATION, BUT SPECIFICALLY
OUR INSTITUTIONS WHERE THIS
BEHAVIOR IS HAPPENING.
BONNIE: DO YOU THINK BUT FOR
ANITA HILL, THE ME TO MOVEMENT
WOULD NOT HAVE STARTED?
MS. HILL: I THINK THE HEARINGS
IN 1991 AND MY TESTIMONY WAS ONE
CATALYST.
I THINK THERE WAS A MOMENTUM
THAT BEGAN TO BUILD IN 1991 FROM
FEMINISTS, FROM ORGANIZERS WHO
PUT TOGETHER ADVOCACY EFFORTS,
FROM STUDENTS WHO IN COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES HAD BEEN HOPING
FOR SAFER ENVIRONMENTS.
I THINK IT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF
RESEARCHERS LIKE A WOMAN NAMED
LOUISE FITZGERALD, WHO STUDIED
THE TOPIC WELL BEFORE ANYONE WAS
TALKING ABOUT IT IN THE PUBLIC
SPHERE, AND IT BUILT.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT BUILT OVER
THE YEARS.
SOCIAL MEDIA ALLOWED IT TO ERECT
IN A WAY THAT I DON'’’T THINK
ANYONE OF US EXPECTED, BUT WE'’’VE
GOT TO TAKE ALL OF THAT ENERGY
AND COME TOGETHER WITH SOLUTIONS
.
WHAT THOSE SOLUTIONS ARE IS NOT
CLEAR.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS
TO HAPPEN IS THAT SURVIVORS AND
VICTIMS HAVE TO BE PART OF
MAKING THEM, AND OUR LEADERSHIP
HAS TO FOLLOW.
BONNIE: LASTLY, DO YOU THINK THE
#METOO MOVEMENT, AS LARGE AS IT
WAS, AS MUCH PUBLICITY AS IT HAS
GOTTEN -- DO YOU THINK IT HAS
HAD LASTING EFFECT, EVEN JUST IN
HOLLYWOOD?
I HAVE BEEN TOLD THE CASTING
COUCH MENTALITY HAS NOT GONE
AWAY.
MS. HILL: OH, THAT HAS NOT GONE
AWAY COMPLETELY.
THAT IS A CULTURAL ASPECT WE ARE
WORKING TO ATTEMPT TO REVERSE,
AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE COMING
INTO THE HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY WHO
ARE RESISTING THAT, BUT HISTORY
IS HARD TO UNDO, AND THAT PART
OF THE CULTURE IS NOT GOING TO
GO AWAY OVERNIGHT OR IN THE SPAN
OF THREE OR FOUR YEARS, BUT THAT
IS NOT TO EXCUSE ANY OF US FROM
ACTING NOW AND DOING WHATEVER WE
CAN IN OUR POWER TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT DOES BECOME HISTORY, A
DEAD HISTORY, NOT AN ONGOING
LEGACY.
BONNIE: PROFESSOR ANITA HILL,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING ON
AND TALKING TO US ABOUT YOUR NEW
BOOK, "BELIEVING."
BEST OF LUCK TO YOU WITH THAT.
THAT IS IT FOR "TO THE
CONTRARY."
PLEASE, LET'’’S CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION ON FACEBOOK,
INSTAGRAM, TWITTER, AND OUR
WEBSITE, WWW. PBS.ORG.
AND IF YOU AGREE OR THINK TO THE
CONTRARY, PLEASE JOIN US NEXT
TIME.
FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR TO SEE AN
ONLINE VERSION OF THIS EPISODE
OF "TO THE CONTRARY," PLEASE
VISIT OUR PBS WEBSITE AT
PBS.ORG/TOTHE