Anita Hill in spotlight again as new film opens 
|   | 
| FILE
 - This Oct. 11, 1991 file photo shows University of Oklahoma law 
professor Anita Hill testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on
 Capitol Hill in Washington. Hill made national headlines in 1991 when 
she testified that then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had 
sexually harassed her. Now, more than 20 years later, director Freida 
Mock explores Hill's landmark testimony and the resulting social and 
political changes in the documentary "Anita." | 
     NEW YORK     (AP)
 -- It's been more than 22 years since Anita Hill sat before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee in that famous bright blue suit - one she could 
never bring herself to wear again - to make the sexual harassment 
allegations against Clarence Thomas that transfixed a nation.
And much has changed since then.
But not everything.
"I
 hope you rot in hell," went an email that Hill, now 57 and a professor 
at Brandeis University, received just a few weeks ago from a member of 
the public.
After all this time?
"Yes," Hill says, with a resigned air. "As they go, this one was fairly mild. But it happens. And it'll happen again."
Especially
 now. The soft-spoken Hill, who still speaks in the same calm, precise 
tone many remember from 1991, has for two decades been living a quiet 
academic life, occasionally venturing out to speak about sexual 
harassment but often declining interviews.
But
 she's about to enter the maelstrom again with the release Friday of a 
new documentary, "Anita," by the Oscar-winning filmmaker Freida Mock. 
After years of declining requests to collaborate on a film about her 
experiences, she said yes.
Why now?
Hill
 says she was inspired by the reactions she was getting from people as 
the 20th anniversary of those Supreme Court confirmation hearings 
approached - particularly in 2010, when news broke that she'd received a
 voice mail from Thomas' wife, Virginia, asking Hill to "consider an 
apology." (That voice mail opens the film.)
"People
 responded with outrage to that," Hill says. "But even more, I realized 
that here we are 20 years later and the issues are still resonating - in
 the workplace, in universities, in the military. So if 1991 could help 
us start a conversation, how then can we move this to another level? 
Because clearly we haven't eliminated the problem."
Experts
 agree the problem surely hasn't been eliminated. But many cite Hill's 
testimony as a landmark event, in both social and legal terms.
"Back
 then, this was an invisible issue, until Anita testified," says Marcia 
D. Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law 
Center. Not only did Hill's testimony raise public consciousness about 
sexual harassment in the workplace, she says, and spur other women to 
make claims, but only months later, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which 
addressed issues of employment discrimination, was passed with strong 
support.
"That happened in direct response to 
the growing realization of what the American public had seen in the 
hearings," Greenberger contends.
It's clear 
that Hill became, and remains, a heroine to many women. It's also clear 
that while she doesn't reject it, she remains somewhat uncomfortable 
with the status. In an interview at a Manhattan hotel, she seems almost 
more excited to discuss her work preparing a strategic plan for Brandeis
 than her public persona.
"In some ways I'm 
not very well suited, I think, for that position of heroine," she says. 
"People do want that person who is sort of out there and vocal and 
adamant about who they are and what they want. But I wouldn't be 
credible if I didn't come to this with my own personality."
Hill
 says that in her day-to-day life, "1991 just doesn't figure in." Case 
in point: At Brandeis, many of her students don't even know about her 
past. Hill points out that her grad students were only children in 1991,
 and the undergrads weren't even born.
"It 
doesn't bother me," she says. "It's important to help them focus on what
 their learning objectives are, and not on me as a person."
Reluctant
 heroine or not, Hill often evokes a passionate response, says filmmaker
 Mock, who has accompanied Hill at film-related events.
"I
 had no idea she was a rock star," says Mock. "But it's a routine: 
People stand up when she walks in. They shout: `I love you!' and `I 
believe you, Anita!'"
"She was a reluctant 
witness, and she remains a reluctant public figure," Mock adds. "But she
 is proud to be a part of this journey that she never intended to be 
on."
In fact, Hill says, before all this, 
she'd planned to build a career in international commercial law, perhaps
 in Europe. "It would have been a very different life!" she laughs.
A
 life, likely, without hate mail. Hill says the worst part wasn't the 
actual hours spent testifying about painfully explicit matters, or when 
Thomas was ultimately confirmed to the Supreme Court, but what happened 
when she returned to her teaching job at the University of Oklahoma.
"I
 was getting threats," she said. "People were trying to get me fired. 
Friends of mine were fired." At the same time, she was getting bundles 
of letters of support from across the country. But the threat of losing 
her job felt more immediate.
Hill left the 
university in 1996, and landed at Brandeis soon after. In 2007, she was 
back in the news when Thomas wrote a book, "My Grandfather's Son," in 
which he described her as rude, a mediocre worker, a liar, and his "most
 traitorous adversary." She wrote a New York Times op-ed piece saying 
she would not allow Thomas to "reinvent" her.
Hill
 has had no contact with Thomas, who had no comment for this article; 
she also never answered his wife's phone call. And she's had no contact 
over the years with the former senator who ran the hearings, Vice 
President Joe Biden, of whom she has been critical (though she says 
she's a supporter of his boss.)
The sight of that all-white, all-male panel, in clear contrast to Hill, is one of the more striking visuals in "Anita."
"Can you believe it was JUST 22 years ago?" she says. "It's like `Mad Men'!"
"It
 was such a harsh contrast between who they were, and me and how I 
looked, in that blue suit," she says. "It was a reflection of their 
power and privilege. And I think the public saw that and related to me -
 though at the time, I just felt isolated."
What
 if the hearings were to happen now? Much would be different, Hill 
believes, including the language used by the senators. "I do not believe
 we would have an (Sen.) Alan Simpson saying `that sexual harassment 
crap,' for example," she says. "The conversation has changed. We as a 
society have accepted that these are important issues."
Speaking of the suit, we have to ask: What happened to it?
"You're not going to ask me if it still fits, are you?" she asks with mock alarm.
That
 suit, she explains, was way too loaded with meaning to ever wear again.
 The Smithsonian recently asked to display it, but she wasn't ready yet.
"One day, the time will be right," she says.