{"id":123915,"date":"2017-10-15T02:43:33","date_gmt":"2017-10-15T06:43:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=123915"},"modified":"2017-10-15T02:43:33","modified_gmt":"2017-10-15T06:43:33","slug":"nearly-3-decades-later-anita-hill-sees-the-needle-moving","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2017\/10\/15\/nearly-3-decades-later-anita-hill-sees-the-needle-moving\/","title":{"rendered":"Nearly 3 decades later, Anita Hill sees the needle moving"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"It's<\/a>
It’s been 26 years since Anita Hill, soft-spoken and deliberate in her bright blue suit, sat before a Senate panel and detailed the lurid sexual harassment charges that would transfix a nation. (Photo By Tim Pierce – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0)<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It’s been 26 years since Anita Hill, soft-spoken and deliberate in her bright blue suit, sat before a Senate panel and detailed the lurid sexual harassment charges that would transfix a nation. Clarence Thomas went on to the Supreme Court, but Hill’s testimony was a watershed moment that raised awareness in incalculable ways.<\/p>\n

Will the sordid Harvey Weinstein scandal be recalled as another one of those watershed moments, its reverberations spilling out of Hollywood into the everyday workplace? Hill is one of those who think it will.<\/p>\n

\u201cI absolutely think we needed something to push the needle, and this has done it,\u201d Hill said in an interview from Brandeis University, where she has led a quiet academic life since 1998.<\/p>\n

All along, Hill says, there have been bits and pieces that have moved that needle a bit. But the Weinstein story, with its ever-growing cascade of disturbing revelations, reminds her of her own ordeal. \u201cI think one of the reasons 1991 was so impactful was how public it was \u2014 people had faces and voices, and it was almost like a long conversation about how these things play out. This Weinstein story feels like a long conversation too, with different parts getting developed and different people being brought into it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since the story broke more than a week ago, some 30 women, from lesser-known names to megastars like Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow, have emerged to recount disturbing experiences with Weinstein, who has issued a blanket denial of nonconsensual sexual conduct. (In just the latest accusation, actress Eva Green said Saturday she once had to physically \u201cpush off\u201d the powerful producer in a meeting.) Simultaneously, a growing chorus of public figures has been denouncing him.<\/p>\n

One of the latest high-profile figures to weigh in: Gloria Steinem. In an email message to the Associated Press, Steinem said: \u201cI hope and believe all the attention to Harvey Weinstein will encourage many more women \u2014 and men \u2014 to tell the firsthand truth about sexual assault, harassment and bullying. I remind the media and prosecutors that people who come forward in these cases are likely to be telling the truth because there is so little reward \u2014 and often punishment \u2014 for doing so. Please believe the accusers and investigate!\u201d<\/p>\n

But Steinem added that not everyone should be expected to have known of Weinstein’s alleged misdeeds. \u201cMy one worry is that this case is being made to seem too obvious, with blame for people who didn’t know,\u201d she said. \u201cIn fact, Weinstein also made great movies with and about powerful women he did not sexually harass, because like so many sexual abusers, he exploited powerlessness.\u201d (Weinstein was among 425 donors to a chair in feminist studies at Rutgers University named after Steinem; Rutgers says it will keep that donation.)<\/p>\n

While Hill, now 61 and a professor of social policy and gender studies, has been buoyed by the attention being paid to sexual harassment in light of the Weinstein story, she cautioned that progress is always incremental: \u201cThis case may be bigger than some in the past, but I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think that everything is going to change overnight from one episode, even as big as this one.\u201d<\/p>\n

A key problem, she said, is that so many women still fear retaliation or that they won’t be believed if they come forward. \u201cWhen a person is a big Hollywood star, it’s easier for that person to be embraced and not feel the repercussions of speaking out,\u201d she said. \u201cBut when they’re young … they have their lives to think about.\u201d<\/p>\n

And so, many sexual harassment cases are never reported, Hill and others note, which makes it difficult to gauge the scope of the problem. Even when they are, many cite the huge role that both confidential settlements and mandatory arbitration play in keeping cases hidden from view.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt’s secrecy on secrecy,\u201d says Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News Channel anchor whose allegations brought down late Fox chief Roger Ailes. Carlson says she’s now lobbying on Capitol Hill against mandatory arbitration clauses \u2014 in which employees, as a condition of employment, agree to resolve claims via arbitration, not the judicial system. \u201cThese clauses are one reason we don’t ever know about this, why it stays in the shadows,\u201d she says. \u201cAnd guess what else happens: the woman gets fired from her job and the perpetrator gets to stay in the workplace, and nobody knows about it. It’s outrageous!\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt’s a terrible system,\u201d concurs Washington lawyer Debra Katz, who specializes in sexual harassment law. \u201cIt conceals what happens … and you’re denied the opportunity to have your day in court with a jury of your peers.\u201d She adds that arbitration strongly favours employers, \u201cbecause the arbitrators want to be rehired.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, most cases that do reach the legal system end in settlements, which almost always involve confidentiality clauses. Some, like Carlson, say this further contributes to the veil of secrecy around sexual harassment. Others, like Katz, say it’s more complicated: Some women just want to move on, and fear their careers will be threatened if it’s known they filed a claim.<\/p>\n

Even Hill is conflicted about the issue of confidentiality. On one hand, she says, it often benefits the perpetrator; Weinstein likely benefited from agreements \u201cthat allowed him to continue to behave badly, with no accountability.\u201d On the other, when women do make complaints, the fact that they’ve made them can follow them. \u201cAnd the reality is, most institutions and people in power aren’t looking positively on a person who has filed a complaint,\u201d Hill says. \u201cSo there’s still a negative public reaction, even though we say it’s wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite all this, Carlson feels change afoot. \u201cI feel more buoyed than I have in the last 15 months about cultural change,\u201d she says, pointing not just to Weinstein, but to harassment cases at Uber, at tech firms, at venture capitalist firms, and at Amazon Studios. \u201cI feel like this is a tipping point, where women are saying we’re not putting up with this crap anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for Hill, who has said many of her young students don’t even know about her 1991 ordeal in which she testified Thomas had sexually harassed her \u2014 allegations he vehemently denied before being narrowly confirmed by the Senate \u2014 she notes wryly: \u201cI certainly didn’t think this is what I would be talking about 26 years later.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI have to say that I didn’t appreciate how complicated it was, how entrenched it was,\u201d she adds. \u201cAnd we’re going to have to just keep pushing it and engaging a new generation of people to bring their own sense of what’s right and wrong. I’m confident that inch by inch, we will make some change.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It’s been 26 years since Anita Hill, soft-spoken and deliberate in her bright blue suit, sat before a Senate panel …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":123916,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,106],"tags":[27841],"class_list":["post-123915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-entertainment","category-hollywood","tag-anita-hill","mauthors-jocelyn-noveck","mauthors-the-associated-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123915","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123915"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123915\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/123916"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}