A few months ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his autobiography. In it, he took the opportunity to lambaste Anita Hill, his former clerk and, now, law professor, for her accusations of sexual harrassment against him when he was nominated for the Supreme Court more than a decade ago. Talk about a guy who holds a grudge.
Thomas’s statements against her got a lot of media play, including a segment on 60 Minutes. The next day, Hill published an op-ed piece in the New York Times that was also widely-publicized. I was among the many people who read her piece and came away impressed with her composure and resolve in the face of a new round of attacks against her by both Thomas and many media types. I was so impressed, in fact, I looked up her current e-mail address at Brandeis University and sent her a note.
Undoubtedly, she received a voluminous amount of letters and e-mails in the wake of Thomas’s book and her N.Y. Times piece. Yet, yesterday, she still was gracious enough to send me a short return note. To say finding Anita Hill’s name in my e-mail inbox was a surprise would be a bit of an understatement. I thought you might be interested to read her note and my initial correspondence.
Dear Mr. Placher,
Thank you so much for sharing your story and for your thoughtful and supportive message. May we both continue to grow in understanding and personal resolve.
Best wishes for a healthy, happy and prosperous new year!
Sincerely,
Anita Hill
Tim Placher wrote:
Dear Ms. Hill,My name is Tim Placher. I’m an attorney, but now work as a teacher, in Joliet, Illinois. I read your fine piece in the NY Times regarding Clarence Thomas’ book and its attacks on you. I’m writing to share my personal exerience with coming forward about a high-ranking person’s inappropriate behavior (although in my case, the behavior was more on the criminal end of the spectrum).When I was a kid, I was a victim of priest abuse. My experience was not as bad as many boys, but it certainly affected my life in a negative way. Just last year, I came forward and told my story after my local bishop made some statements claiming ignorance of my abuser and discounting the story of another man who had sued this priest over the abuse done to him.What compels me to write is my amazement at the way you find yourself still under attack all these years after those Senate hearings. My experience was completely different, and I think I know why.When I told my story, I did so in the context of a first-person column in the newspaper. For the preceding 5 years, I had worked a side job as a columnist for two Chicago-area papers. When my story hit print, I expected to have to endure the slings and arrows of those who believed I had an axe to grind or was looking to make some cash off my diocese. To my surprise, though, I was inundated with postive feedback–hundreds of messages, notes and phone calls. There were never more than a handful of negative comments made in the paper or in the local braodcast media.I realized that my time as a columnist had created a public persona for me that people trusted. So when I made bold assertions about a priest and strongly criticized the local bishop, people believed they knew me well enough to trust my words. In our diocese, we had one of the worst priest-abuse problems per capita in the country. Yet, I was one of the few people who came forward who wasn’t assailed by critics and the local church heirarchy.I came to understand how people in authority become vested with an air of credibility that has its roots more in how we project our own desire to respect them than in any real credibility they have earned. For most priest abuser situations, people want so badly to believe in the men who work in their own parishes, they shun people who accuse them. I think the same type of thing was at work in your charges against Thomas. For too many people, the balance of credibility automatically shifts in favor of the person with the loftier societal position. You, although an attorney and graduate of a fine law school, lost out in this balancing of societal station. People want to believe a Supreme Court nominee is a good person, so they discount anyone who would question them.At the time of your initial appearance in the national spotlight, I know how this type of thinking worked to erode my own inclination to take you at your word. As I’ve grown a bit older and wiser about the foibles of all people, both great and small, I understand how difficult it would be to take on a person with the built in credibility of a high office (or in your case, a nominee to high office). When I took a stand regarding my personal situation, the balance of credibilities leaned in my direction. Consequently, I was spared the difficulties you and other people experience.In sum, Ms. Hill, I admire what you did back then. After reading your op-ed piece, I have even greater admiration for the even-keeled way in which you continue to stand up for what you know was right, despite your continuing relative disadvantage in this credibility game.Tim PlacherJoliet, IL
