Hill Lies About Her Job at Education


Hill’s Preposterous Claims About Why She Followed Thomas To The EEOC

Hill Claimed She Would Lose Her Job

Hill’s First Claim: She Tries To Imply She Is A Political Appointee And Therefore Would Lose Her Job When Thomas Left

Because it seems inconceivable that a Yale-educated attorney would follow her alleged sexual harasser to another job, Hill was desperate to explain why she followed Thomas to the EEOC. First, she claimed that she would lose her job at the Department of Education when Thomas left because she was a special assistant to a political appointee, implying that she herself was a political appointee and not a career civil servant. Here is the exchange:

Chairman Biden: Can you describe to us how it was that you came to move over to the EEOC with Judge Thomas?

Hill: Well, my understanding of—I did not have much notice that Judge Thomas was moving over to the EEOC. My understanding from him at that time was that I could go with him to the EEOC, that I did not have—since I was his special assistant, that I did not have a position at the Office for Education…but that I was welcome to go to the EEOC with him. … And so, after some consideration of the job opportunities in the area, as well as the fact that I was not assured that my job at…Education was going to be protected, I made a decision to move to the EEOC.

Chairman Biden: Were you not assured of that, because you were a political appointee, or were you not assured of it because—tell me why you felt you weren’t assured of that.

Hill: Well, there were two reasons, really. One, I was a special assistant of a political appointee, and, therefore, I assumed and I was told that that position may not continue to exist. I didn’t know who was going to be taking over the position. I had not been interviewed to become the special assistant of the new individual, so I assumed they would want to hire their own, as Judge Thomas had done.

To watch the exchange, please see here:

Hill’s Second Claim: She Admits She Was A Career Civil Servant – A Schedule A Attorney Whose Job Was Protected By Law – But Claims She Still Did Not Have Job Protection

Sen. Specter: Ok. I…am informed, Professor Hill, that you were a schedule A attorney and in that capacity could stay at the Department of Education. Is that incorrect?

Hill: I believe I was a schedule A attorney but, as I explained it, I was the assistant to the Chair of—oh, excuse me—assistant to the…Assistant Secretary of Education. That, I had not been interviewed by anyone who was to take over that position for that job…

Sen. Specter: But as a schedule A attorney, you could have stayed in some job?

Hill: I suppose. As far as I know, I could have, but I am not sure because at the time the agency was scheduled to be abolished.

To watch the exchange, please see here:

Hill continued to lie about her status and give contradictory answers. She just told Specter that she could have stayed. Now watch this exchange:

Sen. Specter: While you would not have been Judge Thomas’ assistant or perhaps the assistant of the Assistant Secretary, as a class A attorney you could have in fact kept your job, had you wanted to stay there.

Hill: That really was not my understanding, sir. At the time I understood that my job was going to be lost. That was my understanding.

To watch the exchange, please see here:

And again:

Sen. Specter: Professor Hill, did you know that, as a class A attorney, you could have stayed on at the Department of Education?

Hill: No, I did not know at that time.

Then she tried to blame others for her supposed lack of knowledge about her status:

Sen. Specter: Did you make any effort to find out that, as a class A attorney, you could have stayed on at the Department of Education?

Hill: No, I relied on what I was told.

Sen. Specter: Sorry, I didn’t hear you.

Hill: I relied on what I was told by Clarence Thomas. … I did not make further inquiry.

Sen. Specter: And what are you saying that Judge Thomas told you?

Hill: His indication from him was that he could not assure me of a position at Education.

Sen. Specter: Was that when you were hired or when he was leaving?

Hill: When he was leaving. …

Sen. Specter: Did you make any effort at all with anybody in the Department of Education to find out whether you could stay on in a job there?

Hill: As I said before, I did not make any further inquiries.

Sen. Specter: Well, how concerned were you on your decision to move with Judge Thomas to EEOC, notwithstanding your represented comments about retaining some job somewhere?

Hill: I’m sorry, could you rephrase your question?

Sen. Specter: Well, I would be glad to repeat it. If you made no inquiry to see if you could stay at the Department of Education, perhaps even as the assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Education, how much of a factor was your need for a job to go along with Judge Thomas, even though he had made these reprehensible statements?

HILL: It was part of what I considered.

To watch the exchange, please see here:

Hill’s Third Claim: She Claims She Did Not Know Who Thomas’ Successor Would Be:

Sen. Specter: Did you make any inquiry of his successor, Mr. Singleton, as to what your status would be?

Hill: No, I did not. I’m not even sure that I knew who his successor would be at the time.

Sen. Specter: Well, was Mr. Singleton on the premises for about four weeks in advance of Judge Thomas’ departure as the

Hill: I don’t

Sen. Specter: May I finish the question? …

Sen. Specter: Was Mr. Singleton on the premises for about 4 weeks prior to Judge Thomas’ departure, for transition?

Hill: I don’t recall.

To watch the exchange, please see here:

Harry Singleton, Thomas’s successor at the Dept. of Education, submitted an affidavit to the Judiciary Committee contradicting Hill’s claim. Singleton was on the premises of the EEOC for weeks before the transition, knew Hill, knew that Hill was a career civil servant with job protection, and was prepared to retain her as one of his advisors. He wrote as follows:

During my confirmation as Assistant Secretary. During that transition period, Judge Thomas and I overlapped at OCR for approximately 4-6 weeks before his departure for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). During the period of time, I met Ms. Anita Hill who was serving as an Attorney Advisor to the Assistant Secretary (Judge Thomas) and had an opportunity to observe her and her interaction with Judge Thomas.

Singleton went on to explain all the ways in which Hill could have stayed at the Dept. of Education.

As I recall, Ms. Hill was a Schedule A attorney. As such, she had career rights. If Ms. Hill was being harassed by Judge Thomas and did not feel comfortable continuing to work with him, she could have remained at OCR. Had she approached me, and she did not, to request that she remain at OCR, she certainly would have been accommodated. In fact, I was prepared to retain her as one of my attorney advisors, but it was always made very clear that she was going on to EEOC with Judge Thomas.

To read Harry Singleton’s full statement, please click here.

Andrew Fishel, Management Director of the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education during the time Thomas was Assistant Secretary, wrote a letter to then Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, affirming that Hill’s job was safe, that Thomas walked Singleton around to introduce him to the OCR staff, and that Hill eagerly followed Thomas to the EEOC:

Any explanation of Ms. Hill’s rationale for leaving OCR to go to EEOC that is founded on her allegation that she would have lost her job at OCR is without basis. Indeed, Ms. Hill told me at the time that she was flattered to be selected by Mr. Thomas to work at EEOC. In our conversation, she also expressed her admiration for Mr. Thomas. . . After Mr. Thomas announced his departure from OCR to go to EEOC, Mr. Thomas made a special point of walking the halls of OCR to introduced Mr. Harry Singleton, his successor, to OCR staff in order to facilitate the continuity of leadership.

To read Andrew Fishel’s full letter, please click here.

Hill Claimed that the Department Of Education Was Scheduled to Be Abolished

Realizing that these claims would not be plausible, Hill also claimed that she left because the entire Department of Education was going to be abolished:

Hill: In addition, the Department of Education at that time was scheduled to be abolished. There had been a lot of talk about it, and at that time it was truly considered to be on its way out, and so, for a second reason, I could not be certain that I would have a position there.

And again:

Hill: I was not even informed that I could stay on as a schedule A attorney, as well as, as I stated before, the agency was subject to being abolished.

Yet, if that was a concern, why did she initially join the Department in 1981? Ronald Reagan had vowed to abolish the Department during his campaign for the Presidency in 1980. Of course, that campaign promise had zero chance of succeeding with the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives. In fact, during the hearings, Senator Deconcini (D-AZ) noted that there was never any real possibility that the Department would be abolished:

It was a rumor only, wasn’t it…because there has never been a vote up here on Capitol Hill, on either the floor of the Senate or the House, to abolish, and there wasn’t during those years. I just want the record to show that.

Watch Holt and Sen. DeConcini discuss the status of the Dept. of Education here:

Sen. DeConcini was right. More than 30 years later the Department of Education is still standing. In fact, in 2015, the Department spent more than six times the amount of taxpayer dollars that it spent in 1982. (Table 4.1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

Not only was the Department of Education not shut down, Andrew Fishel’s letter to the Judiciary Committee during the hearings confirmed that OCR, Hill’s office, had a “separate budget earmark” that would have allowed it to keep staffing levels unchanged in the event of major reductions at the Department:

I differ with Ms. Hill’s statement that she followed Mr. Thomas to EEOC because she would have lost her job at OCR. At no time were any of the employees of OCR at risk of losing their jobs during this period. OCR had a separate budget earmark which was more than sufficient to avoid any staff cutbacks.

To read Andrew Fishel’s full letter, please click here.