♪♪

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