老澳门开奖结果

This conversation originally appeared at .

On Saturday, HBO will premiere the film "Confirmation" starring Kerry Washington as Anita Hill and Wendell Pierce as then-judge, now鈥揝upreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The movie recreates the three days of Supreme Court confirmation hearings that riveted the country in October 1991, launching a national conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace and helping to lead to . Twenty-five years later, these hearings still resonate as one of the greatest political, sexual, and racial dramas in modern history. Slate senior legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick recently spoke with Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果 Women鈥檚 Rights Project and author of , about Confirmation. (The two writers were also college roommates, graduating in 1990.)

An edited transcript of their exchange is below.

Gillian: When Anita Hill appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, we were just a year and a half out of college. I had heard the term sexual harassment and knew vaguely that it was against the law, but I hadn鈥檛 had much experience in the workplace, and I hadn鈥檛 started law school yet. I think the closest I had come to seeing harassment in action was Dabney Coleman in 9 to 5. Which, as we all know, has a happy ending鈥攊n that it does not have a happy ending for Dabney Coleman鈥攕o it hadn鈥檛 taught me much about how harassment plays out in real life.

But even by then, I鈥檇 experienced enough sexism that I instinctively believed Hill. And I recall my reaction when I read Sen. Arlen Specter鈥檚 explanation for why he hadn鈥檛 been troubled by the allegations: because Hill didn鈥檛 claim that . I was enraged by Specter鈥檚 setting the bar that high. It was one of so many examples of the committee鈥檚 cavalier attitude toward harassment.

That attitude was especially galling when you consider that the Hill hearings happened five years after the Supreme Court had found sexual harassment to be illegal, in 1986鈥檚 . Contrary to Specter鈥檚 suggestion, the court didn鈥檛 limit unlawful harassment to physical advances or to threats to fire the victim if she didn鈥檛 comply. The conduct only had to be 鈥� The really ironic bit was that the court was endorsing the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Thomas was chair of the EEOC when Vinson was decided. But Vinson just didn鈥檛 prompt the kind of national dialogue鈥攐r national group therapy鈥攖hat the Hill鈥揟homas hearings did.

Dahlia: I have to confess that watching Confirmation was as brutalizing as watching the documentary, , was for me two years ago. and came away amazed that she is still toiling away on sexual harassment law and still certain that she did the right thing in 1991, despite the fallout for her career and personal life. Like yours, my memories of October 1991 are of being riveted to the TV screen, shaken by the almost preternatural confidence Hill showed under pressure, and my mounting frustration that the men on the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed incapable of understanding what she was talking about, much less supporting her or knowing how to even question her.

In Confirmation, Kerry Washington captures that controlled, reluctant, dignified Hill perfectly. There is a whole heck of a lot of Olivia Pope happening here, but what Washington grasps so firmly is that Hill has no emotional margin in which to maneuver鈥攖o evince anger, as Thomas does, will destroy her. As Hill told me when I interviewed her about it, 鈥淗e had a race, and I had a gender.鈥�

Reading the account in your book of the Vinson case raised several chilling parallels that presaged the Hill testimony. Can you talk a bit more about the case and all the ways Vinson was a harbinger of things to come?

To continue reading this conversation, click .