The Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings unfolded in the fall of 1991 and ended with the Senate approving him for the Supreme Court by a vote of 52–48, one of the narrowest margins in the Court’s history. What made the hearings extraordinary was not the initial questioning about his judicial philosophy but the second round, when law professor Anita Hill testified under oath that Thomas had sexually harassed her when she worked for him at two federal agencies. Thomas denied every allegation and called the proceedings “a high-tech lynching.” Tens of millions of Americans watched.
Why Bush Nominated Thomas
Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first Black justice and the lawyer who had argued Brown v. Board of Education, announced his retirement in June 1991. President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas on July 1. Thomas was 43, had led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Reagan, and had served barely 18 months on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. His conservative views on affirmative action, natural law, and the role of government made him a philosophical opposite of the justice he would replace. Civil rights organizations, women’s groups, and many Senate Democrats opposed him from the start.
The First Round of Hearings
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Delaware Democrat Joe Biden, opened confirmation hearings on September 10, 1991. Over ten days, senators pressed Thomas on his writings and speeches. Thomas largely sidestepped direct answers on abortion, natural law, and constitutional interpretation, frustrating both sides.
On September 27, the committee deadlocked 7–7 on whether to recommend him favorably. Rather than kill the nomination, members then voted 13–1 to send it to the Senate floor with no recommendation.1C-SPAN. Thomas Confirmation Vote At that point, Thomas appeared headed for confirmation.
How the Anita Hill Allegations Surfaced
Weeks before the committee vote, Democratic staffers investigating Thomas’s background had contacted Anita Hill, a law professor who had worked for Thomas at both the Department of Education and the EEOC in the early 1980s. Hill told them Thomas had subjected her to repeated sexual harassment. She provided a sworn affidavit to the FBI, which shared its findings with the committee. The committee took no public action. Biden did not share Hill’s statement with other Democrats on the committee until hours before the 7–7 vote.
In early October, NPR reporter Nina Totenberg obtained the affidavit and reported its contents. Public reaction was immediate. On October 8, the Senate voted to delay the confirmation vote and reopen hearings for the following weekend.
What Hill Testified To
Hill testified under oath on October 11, 1991. She described a pattern of unwelcome sexual comments and pressure from Thomas during the years he was her supervisor. According to Hill, Thomas repeatedly asked her out despite her refusals, discussed pornographic films and sexual acts in graphic detail, and made comments about her appearance and his own sexual abilities. One account that lodged in public memory was her recollection of Thomas referencing a pornographic actor named “Long Dong Silver” in workplace conversations.
Hill said she had followed Thomas from the Department of Education to the EEOC because she feared losing her career in government, not because the harassment had stopped. She said she came forward out of a sense of obligation: the Senate was about to grant a lifetime appointment to a man whose character she believed was being misrepresented. Hill also took and passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent, who reported “no indication of deception to any relevant question.”
Thomas’s Denial and the “High-Tech Lynching” Defense
Thomas was recalled to testify the same evening. He categorically denied every allegation. He had never made sexual comments to Hill, he said, never discussed pornography with her, never pressured her for dates. He called the hearings “a circus” and “a national disgrace.”
His most memorable statement reframed the proceedings in racial terms. “This is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas,” Thomas told the committee. “It is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.” The statement electrified his supporters and shifted attention away from the substance of the allegations. The all-male, all-white committee was left in a difficult political position: aggressive questioning risked reinforcing his framing.
Thomas described Hill as someone he had mentored and considered a friend, casting her testimony as an inexplicable betrayal. His team produced former colleagues who vouched for his professionalism.
The Witnesses Who Never Testified
Two women with corroborating accounts were never heard in public. Angela Wright, who had served as Thomas’s director of public affairs at the EEOC in 1983, had her own allegations of inappropriate sexual comments. Wright was subpoenaed by federal marshals and spent three days in a Washington attorney’s office waiting to be called.
Rose Jourdain, a former speechwriter for Thomas at the EEOC, corroborated Wright’s account. Jourdain told committee staff that Wright had described comments Thomas made “concerning her figure, her body, her breasts, her legs, how she looked in certain suits and dresses.”
Neither woman testified. Biden, citing time constraints, never called Wright. The two sides signed a letter withdrawing the subpoena; Biden stated that if Wright wanted to appear he would honor the request. Republicans agreed to accept Wright’s deposition into the written record without rebuttal. Transcripts of both Wright’s and Jourdain’s interviews were entered into the record where few members of the public read them. Biden’s handling of these witnesses became one of the most heavily criticized aspects of the hearings.
The 52–48 Vote
The committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without resolving the conflicting testimony. On October 15, 1991, the Senate voted 52–48 to confirm. Eleven Democrats crossed party lines to join 41 Republicans in support; 46 Democrats and two Republicans, James Jeffords of Vermont and Bob Packwood of Oregon, voted no.2U.S. Senate. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 102nd Congress – 1st Session Thomas was sworn in as the 106th justice on October 23, 1991.
What the Hearings Changed
The image of an all-male, all-white Judiciary Committee questioning a Black woman about sexual harassment mobilized voters, particularly women. Patty Murray, then a Washington State senator, later said she watched the hearings and asked herself, “Who’s saying what I would say if I was there?” She ran for the U.S. Senate and won. Murray was one of four women elected to the Senate in 1992, a record at the time, in what became known as the “Year of the Woman.”3U.S. Senate. Year of the Woman
Congress also acted on the law itself. The Civil Rights Act of 1991, signed just weeks after Thomas’s confirmation, expanded remedies for workplace discrimination, including sexual harassment. Employees who proved intentional discrimination under Title VII could, for the first time, recover compensatory and punitive damages rather than just back pay. Damages were capped by employer size, from $50,000 for employers with 15 to 100 workers up to $300,000 for employers with more than 500. The law also guaranteed a right to a jury trial when compensatory or punitive damages were sought, replacing the bench trials that had been standard.4U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Civil Rights Act of 1991