l÷xlhx when judge thomas was made chai of the eeoc, i needed to face the question of whether to go with him. i was asked to do so, and i did. the work itself was interesting, and at the time it appeared that the sexual overtures which had so troubled me had ended. i also faced the realistic fact that i had no alternative job. while i might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm or at another, i was dedicated to civil rights work, and my first choice was to be in that field. moreover, at that time, the department of education itself was a dubious venture. president reagan was seeking to abolish the entire department. for my first months at the eeoc where i continued to be an assistant to judge thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. however, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. the comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why i didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. i remember his saying that some day i would have to tell him the real reason that i wouldn't go out with him. he began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanor and his continued pressure for an explanation. he commented on what i was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. the incidents occurred in his inner office at the eeoc.po0oúm one of the oddest episodes i m0m remember was an occasion in which thomas was drinking a coke in his office. he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the coke, looked at the can and asked, "who has put pubic hair on my coke?" on other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex. at this point, late 1982, i began to feel severe stress on the job. i began to be concerned that clarence thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. i also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me. in january of 1983, i began looking for another job. i was i was handicapped because i feared that if he found out, he might make it difficult for me to find other employment, and i might be dismissed from the job i had. another factor that made my search more difficult was that this was during a period-of a hiring freeze in the government. in february 1983 i was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for acute stomach pain, which i attributed to stress on the job. once out of the hospital i became more committed to find other employment and sought further to minimize my contact with thomas. this became easier when allison duncan became office director, because most of my work was then funneled through her, and i had contact with clarence thomas mostly in staff meetings. in the spring of 1983, and opportunity to teach at oral roberts university opened up. i i participated in a seminar, taught an afternoon session in a seminar at oral roberts university. the dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether i would be interested in further pursuing a career in teaching beginning at oral roberts university. i agreed to take the job, in large part because of my desire to escape the pressures i felt at the eeoc due to judge thomas. when i informed him that i was leaving in july, i recall that his response was that now i would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him. i i told him that i still preferred not to do so. at some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of the term. when i declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. i reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation but only if it was at the very end of a working day. on, as i recall, the last day of my employment at the eeoc in the summer of 1983, i did have dinner with clarence thomas. we went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. we we talked about the work i had done, both at education and at the eeoc. he told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that i had done for him while we were at the office for civil rights. finally he made a comment that i will vividly remember. he said that if i ever told anyone of his behavior that it would ruin his career. this was not an apology, nor was it an explanation. that was his that was his last remark about the possibility of our going out or reference to his behavior. in july of 1983 i left the washington, d.c. area, and i've had minimal contacts with judge clarence thomas since. i am of course aware from the press that some questions have been raised about conversations i had with judge clarence thomas after i left the eeoc. from 1983 until today, i have seen judge thomas only twice. on one occasion i needed to get a reference from him, and on another, he made a public appearance in tulsa. on one occasion he called me at home, and we had an inconsequential conversation. on one occasion he called me without reaching me, and i returned the call without reaching him, and nothing came of it. i have, on at least three occasions, been asked to act as a conduit to him for others. i knew his secretary, diane holt. we had worked together at both eeoc and education. there were there were occasions on which i spoke to her, and on some of the these occasions, undoubtedly, i passed on some casual comment to then-chairman thomas. there were a series of calls in the first three months of 1985 occasioned by a group in tulsa, which wished to have a civil rights conference. they wanted judge thomas to be the speaker and enlisted my assistance for this purpose. i did call in january and february, to no effect, and finally suggested to the person directly involved, susan cahall, that she put the matter into her own hands and call directly. she did so in march of 1985. in connection with that march invitation, miss cahall wanted conference materials for the seminar, and some research was needed. i was asked to try to get the information and did attempt to do so. there was another call about the possible conference in july of 1985. in august of 1987 i was in washington d.c., and i did call diane holt. in the course of this conversation, she asked me how long i was going to be in town, and i told her. it is recorded in the message as august 15. it was in fact august 20. she told me about judge thomas' marriage, and i did say congratulate him. it is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that i am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone except my closest friends, as i've said before. these last few days have been very trying and very hard for me, and it hasn't just been the last few days this week. it has actually been over a month now that i have been under the strain of this issue. telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life, but it is very close to having to live through the experience that occasioned this meeting. i i may have used poor judgment early on in my relationship with this issue. i was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely affect my future career, and i did not want early on to burn all the bridges to the eeoc. as i said, i may have used poor judgment. perhaps i should have taken angry or even militant steps,g1 both when i was in the agency or after i left it. but i must confess to the world that the course that i took seems the better, as well as the easier, approach. i declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when senate staff asked me about these matters, i felt i had a duty to report. i have no personal vendetta against clarence thomas. i seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.hahala it would have been more comfortable to remain silent. it it took no initiative to inform anyone. i took no initiative to inform anyone. but when i asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, i felt that i had to tell the truth. i i could not keep silent. >> judge. thank you very much. , there are aókooçk be[ number of people sitting behind you. are any of them your family members? >> my family members haven't arrived yet. yes they have, they are outside the door. >> we will make room for your family to be able to sit. >> it is a very large family. [laughter] attempt tobegin but accommodate as quietly as we can what may be an unusual arrangement. anyone sitting behind june necessary to sit find you? maybe they could let your family set. i would assume the reason why, to make it clear the reason your family is not here is you did if thoseipate coming who are not necessary could stand and let family members come in. we will try to get a few more chairs, if possible, we should get this underway. did you get some chairs? i would ask we may at some point , professor hill, attempt to accommodate your counsel or family members with chairs. need not all be up front. we cannot completely reconfigure the situation. we can put them in the back as well. there are two chairs on the end, folks. get this hearing moving. two chairs on the end. we will find a seat but we must begin. , at the risk ofi#aci# everyone behind you standing up, would you introduce your primary family members to us? >> i would like to introduce first of all my father, over hill.- albert >> mr. hill, welcome. my mother. my mother is going to be celebrating her 80th birthday. my eldest sister is here. joanne. gilchrest.arling >> i welcome you all. >i am sorry? >> my brother. i think that is everyone. professor. sorry. i would also like to introduce my counsel at this time. >> that would be appropriate. >> mr. gardner. mr. charles ogletree. >> thank you. no professor, -- now professor, thank you for your statement and your introductions. i think it is important the committee understand a little more about your background and experience before we get into the specific allegations you have made in your statement. i understand, as you have demonstrated, you have come from a large family. i have been told you have indicated you are the youngest in the family. i assume, like all families, they have been of great assistance to you. tell me again your educational background. to primary, elementary, and secondary school . morris junior high school reverse order. oklahoma state university, starting in 1973 and graduated in 1977. a degree in psychology. attending yale law school. jdraduated, received my @ in 1980.s r r r r s r a d r r a job afters your first law school? dc law is a washington firm. >> the first interview took place at yale law school. i don't remember the names of the interviewers. i was called to washington for an interview i was called to washington for an interview i was interviewed by a number of people and i accepted an appointment with them. that that say interview process was preceded y work that i had done with them as a summer associate. and so the interview process, second time around was really -- actually i say the took place ocess before the center associateship. t the end of the summer associateship, i was asked to work there full-time. hairman biden: who was your immediate supervisor at that law firm? prof. hill: a number of with a als, i worked number of different attorneys on that project. on the would depend project you were working on. prof. hill: yes. you what type of work did do while you were at the law firm? do it specialized or did you whatever was asked of you by the partners? prof. hill: i worked there for one year of the i was a fairly new associate. was basically what was available and when i had time available to do it. however, i did some federal trade work. i did some environmental law work there. i participated in the drafting of a manual on banking law while i was there. boep now, did you decide you wanted to leave that law firm or it suggested to you? approach you and say there is another job you might like or you did indicate that might want to leave with the law firm to seek another job? rof. hill: i was interested in seeking other employment. it was never suggested to me at the firm i should leave the law way.in any old were youn: how at this time? prof. hill: i was 24 years old. chairman biden: were you dissatisfied at the law firm? you want to leave? prof. hill: i left the law firm want to do pursue a practice other than the commercial practice, the civil done at that was being the law firm. i was not dissatisfied with the quality of the work or the challenges of the work. i thought i would be more personally fulfilled if i pursued other fields of law. chairman biden: now, again, were to the oached as opportunity at the department of education or were you made, were aware that there was a potential opening and you sought it out? prof. hill: i spoke only with clarence thomas about the of working at the -- chairman biden: excuse me, how get to clarence thomas, that was the question? introduced by as a mutual friend. chairman biden: was the mutual firm a member of the law where you worked? prof. hill: yes. chairman biden: you had to mr. hardy you would like to move into government or move out of practice? you you specific in what wanted to do? prof. hill: i told him only that was interested in pursuing something other than private practice. oep now some of the activities atthe office of civil rights the time were pretty controversial. we heard testimony about the fact it was under court order to change its practice for carrying out its duties. some have suggested mr. thomas had done an exemplary job in changing things. some have suggested otherwise. did the controversy surrounding the office detract from your interest in taking this job, or did you consider it? prof. hill: oh, i certainly considered it. thereidered the fact that was talk about abolishing the office. i considered all of those things, but i saw this as an opportunity to do some work that i may not get at another time. chairman biden: did you think job? was a good prof. hill: pardon me? chairman biden: did you view this as a good job or did you as an intermediate yacht step? prof. hill: i viewed it as a good job, yes. you describen: can for the committee your duties, when you arrived at the office, at the department doing the, in d the civil rights area? what were your duties? duties were y really special projects and special research. a lot of the special projects involved commenting on office for civil rights policies, it involved doing research on education issues as they related to socioeconomic factors, and so forth. judge thomasn: was your direct supervisor? did you report to anyone else thomas at the time? prof. hill: i reported only to judge thomas. hairman biden: so at the department of education, your whole and immediate supervisor thomas?e prof. hill: yes. chairman biden: and what was your title? attorney advisor. chairman biden: attorney advisor. to interact reason with judge thomas in that the ity very often during day? prof. hill: we interacted regularly. chairman biden: did you attend thomas? with judge prof. hill: i would attend some of the meetings, but not all of attended.gs that he chairman biden: perhaps you would be willing to describe to routine ttee what a working with be judge thomas. prof. hill: well, it could -- i m not sure there was any such thing as a routine work day. some days i would go in, i might be asked to respond to letters that judge thomas had received, i might be asked to look at memos that had come from the various offices in the office for civil rights. if there was as meeting which judge thomas needed to attend, that he wanted someone there to take information or to help him with information, i might be asked to do that. hairman biden: where was your office physically located relative to judge thomas' office? prof. hill: his office was set the hall from mine. inside his set of offices, there was a desk for his secretary and then his office was behind a closed door. my office was down the hall, it was separated from his office. chairman biden: can you describe that you came s eeoc with judgee thomas? prof. hill: well, my did not ding of -- i have much notice that judge homas 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. it was as very tough decision, because this behavior occurred. however, at the time that i went to the eeoc, there was a -- or prior to the time we went to the eeoc, there was as period where the incidents had ceased, and so after some consideration of the job opportunities in the area, as well as the fact that i was assured that my job at education was going to be protected, i made a decision to to the eeoc. chairman biden: were you not you weref that because a political appointee, or were you not assured of it because -- me why you felt you weren't assured of that. two. hill: well, there were 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. 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. chairman biden: now, when you eeoc, can you withdrawal for us, to the best your ability, how that offer about? did you inquire of judge thomas whether or not you could go to eeoc? did he suggest it? do you recall? prof. hill: i recall that when eeoc pointment at the ecame firm, that i was called into his office and i believe too.e holt was there, and -- chairman biden: diane holt is his personal secretary? prof. hill: diane holt was his secretary at education. we were there and he made the the ncement about appointment and assured us that we could go to the eeoc with him. you man biden: now, when went to eeoc, what were your eeoc? there at prof. hill: well, my duties were really varied because it was a much larger organization, there so many more functions of the organization. my proirp duties were to be the office of the congressional affairs and the office of review and appeals. reviewed a number of the cases that came up on appeal o make certain that our office press sometimes for the chairman's office, through congressional affairs and public relations. i had some additional responsibilities as special projects came along. chairman biden: did you have as much occasion to interact at onally with judge thomas eeoc as you had with him at the education? of prof. hill: no, no. we were much busier. we were all much busier and the work that we did was work that did not necessarily require as much interaction. a lot of times, at the education ô some -- there were policy decisions that were to be made and we were trying to do an evaluation of the program, so there was more interaction at that time. at eeoc, there were just projects that had to get out, and so there was less of an opportunity for interaction. chairman biden: who was your immediate supervisor at eeoc? at the eeoc, initially clarence thomas was my immediate supervisor. after a period, allyson duncan was appointed to be the director of the staff. initially, the staff consisted of two special assistants, myself and carleton stewart. the staff eventually grew to a larger number of assistants, and allyson duncan was brought up from the legal counsel's office to take control of that situation. chairman biden: now, how long eeoc with judge thomas before allyson duncan staff?the chief of prof. hill: i don't recall. chairman biden: once she became chief of staff, is she the person who gave you assignments to whom you d reported most often? prof. hill: that's right. occasionally, at the staff meeting assignments would be given out, but that was held only one day a week, so during the rest of the week when things came up, allyson was in charge of giving out assignments. did the biden: now, judge's chief of staff report he ctly to him, or did have -- did she have an intermediate yacht supervisor. she reported , directly to him as i understand. chairman biden: who prepared your performance evaluation? prof. hill: i understood that judge thomas prepared the performance evaluations. chairman biden: did the chief of to the best of your knowledge, have the power to fire you? not to my knowledge. chairman biden: who had that power? judge thomas. chairman biden: was there anyone lse at eec that you believe possessed that power? prof. hill: no, not for that office. was judge thomas still then your ultimate boss and the boss of the entie office? prof. hill: yes. chairman biden: now, was there any routine work day at eeoc describe for the committee? prof. hill: actually, most of the work that we did, unlying at most of the work was responding to internal memos instead of responding to things had come from outside. there were many more of those, because there were many more offices, and so each of us were responsible for a certain area, would respond to a memo or write up a memo to be sent to the chairman for his response. we also had hearings and there was always a special assistant who was assigned to sit in the commission hearings, and so some days, if we were having hearings, well, one of the special assistants -- very often it was me -- would sit in the hearing to provide the chairman with information. during the days of the week that we were not having hearings, we had to prepare the chairman for the hearings themselves, so that we had to go through the files on the hearings and the records and brief the chairman on those or write memos that briefed the chairman on them. chairman biden: professor, you have testified that you had contact with judge thomas at the department of and you just described contact with your udge thomas at eeoc, and you have described your professional interaction with him. now, i must ask you to describe once again, and more fully, the behavior that you have alleged he engaged in while your boss, which you say went beyond professional conventions, and which was unwelcome to you. now, i know these are difficult to discuss, but you must understand that we have to ask you about them. professor, did some of the attempts at conversation you have described in your opening statement occur in your office or in his office? some kurd in his office. some comments were made in mine. they were in his office. chairman biden: did all of the describedhat you have to us in your written statement oral committee and your statement now and what you have all of the f.b.i., did that behavior take place at work? yes, it did. chairman biden: now, i would go back -- prof. hill: let me clarify that. if you are including a luncheon during the workday to be at work, yes. chairman biden: i'm just trying determine, it was in what you can describe and what you believe to be part of the work day? yes. hill: chairman biden: now, i have to of these ere did each event occur? if you can, to the best of your ability, i would like you to recount for us where each of the llegations that you have mentioned in your opening statement, each of the kurd, physically where they kurd. two. hill: well, i remember occasions these incidents kurd at lunch in the cafeteria. chairman biden: do you remember which of those two incidents lunch, judge, i mean professor? as an antecedent question. alone when the lleged conversations would begin or the alleged statements would begin?as prof. hill: well, when the cafeteria,kurd in the we were not alone. there were other people in the cafeteria, but because the way the tables were, there were few individuals who were within the immediate area of the conversation. hairman biden: of those incidences that kurd other than in the cafeteria, those incidences kurd in his office. can you tell me what incidences kurd of the ones you described office?kurd in his prof. hill: well, i recall specifically that the incident kurd in his e can office at the eeoc. and what was : that incident again? prof. hill: the incident with coke can, that statement? chairman biden: would you for me, that once again please. prof. hill: the incident involved his going to his desk, a work table, going to his desk, looking at saying, "who put my coke?" on chairman biden: was anyone else in his office at the time? no.f. hill: chairman biden: was the door closed? recall.ill: i don't chairman biden: are there any incidences that kurd in his office with just -- in his period? prof. hill: there is -- i recall his ast one instance in ffice at the eeoc where he discussed some porn graphic material. he brought up the substance or content of pornographic material. again, it is : difficult, but for the record, up substance did he bring in his instance at the eeoc in his office? of what he content said? prof. hill: this was reference had a very dual who large penis and he used the name he had been referred to in material.raphic chairman biden: do you recall what it was? yes, i do.: the name that was referred to long dong silver. were you working on any matter in that context or called into the office? do you remember the circumstances of your being in the office on that occasion? rof. hill: very often i went into report on memos that i had written. i'm sure that's why i was in the office. what happened generally was that i would write a note to clarence thomas and he would call me in to talk about what i had written to him, and i believe that's what happened on that occasion. chairman biden: let's go back to alleged time that you judge thomas indicated he had ore than a professional interest in you. do you recall what the first time was and, with as much precision as you can, what he said to you? rof. hill: as i recall, it either happened at lunch or it he ened in his office when said to me, very casually, "you go out with me sometime." chairman biden: you ought to or to?are prof. hill: you ought to. was that the : extent of that incident? prof. hill: that was the extent of that incident. that incident, i declined and incident, i think he may have said something about, you didn't understand why i wouldn't want to go out with him may have nversation ended. chairman biden: can you describe for the committee how you felt you at time when he asked out? were you -- what was your reaction? prof. hill: well, my reaction at little surprised to use i had not indicated him in any way that i knew that in dating him.d we had developed a good working cordial and, it was very comfortable so i was he was interested in something else. with regard to incidences and my time is running down, and i will come them, but with regard to the other incidences that you mentioned in your opening statement, can you tell us how time?elt at the were you uncomfortable? were you embarrassed? did it not concern you? about it?u feel prof. hill: the pressure to go embarrassed, i felt about because i didn't -- i had given him an explanation and i for me it was not good as an employee working directly him to go out. i thought he did not take seriously my decision to say no, and that he did not respect my having said no to him. i -- the conversations about sex, i was much more embarrassed and humiliated by. the two combined really made me feel sort of helpless in a job situation because i really wanted to do the work that i was doing. i enjoyed that work. but i felt that that was being put in jeopardy by the other things that were going on in the office. and so, i was really, really very troubled by it and distressed over it. >> can you tell the committee what was the most embarrassing of all the incidents that you have alleged? prof. hill: i think the one that embarrassing was his discussion of pornography involving these women with large breasts and engaged in a variety of sex with different people or animals. that was the thing that embarrassed me the most and made me feel the most humiliated. in rman biden: if you can, his ords, not yours, in ords, can you tell us what on that occasion he said to you? he sense of ribed the conversation in order for us to determine -- well, can you words, what he said? really cannot quote him verbatim. i can remember something like, you really ought to see these films that i have seen or this material that i have seen. this woman has this kind of breasts or breasts that measure this size, and they got her in there with all kinds of things. she is doing all kinds of different sex acts. and, you know, that kind of, those were the kinds of words. where he expressed his enjoyment of it, and seemed to try to encourage me to enjoy that kind of material, as well. chairman biden: did he indicate should see ht you this material? prof. hill: no. hairman biden: why do you think -- what was your reaction, saying ou think he was these things to you? prof. hill: well, coupled with the pressure about going out him, i felt that implicit in this discussion about sex was the offer to have sex with him, go out with him. there was never any explicit thing about going out to dinner or going to a particular concert or movie, it was, "we ought to go out" and given his other conversations i took that to mean, we ought to have sex or we ought to look at these pornographic movies together. chairman biden: professor, at our press conference, one of your press conferences, you said that the issues that you raised thomas, you referred ugly issue. is that how you viewed these conversations? they were very ugly. they were very dirty. they were disgusting. chairman biden: were any one of these conversations, this is my is up.estion, my time were any one of these conversations other than being to go out, were any of more than once? conversation, reference to -- prof. hill: the reference to his was hysical attributes repeated more than once, yes. chairman biden: now again, for record, did he just say i have great physical capability attributes or was he more graphic? prof. hill: he was much more graphic. chairman biden: can you tell us what he said. well, i can tell you that he compared his penis size. penis in terms of length, those kinds of comments. chairman biden: thank you. my time is up under our agreement. by the way, i might state once again that we have agreed we will go back and forth in half-hour conversation on each side. at which time, when the principals have finished asking questions, those members who have not been designated to ask questions, since all have been keenly involved and interested in this on both sides, will have an opportunity to ask questions for five minutes. but let me now yield to my friend from pennsylvania, senator specter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professor hill, i have been asked to question you by senator thurmond, the ranking republican, but i do not regard this as an adversary proceeding. prof. hill: thank you. sen. specter: my duties run to people of pennsylvania who have elected me and in the roader sense as a u.s. senator to constitutional government and the accusation. and my purpose, as is the purpose of the hearing, generally, is to find out what happened. prof. hill: certainly. sen. specter: we obviously have of enormous importance from a lot of points of view. he integrity of the court the supreme court, any member who is tainted and have a cloud, in our can accept unfavorable decisions from the court. hairman biden: some of our colleagues on this end can't hear you. can you pull that closer. i know it makes -- sen. specter: i have done that chairman, to . avoid that. chairman biden: well, you succeeded, senator. sen. specter: you can hear me all right, can't you, professor hill? prof. hill: yes, i can. saying cter: i was just about the importance of the ourt where there should be a feeling of confidence and the airness of decisions, the parties can take unfavorable decisions if they think they're eing treated fairly, i think this hearing is very important o the senate and to this committee, by 20-20 hindsight, we should have done this before of critical it's importance to judge thomas and reputations and careers are on the line. it's not easy to go back to happened almost a to find out what happened, very, very difficult to do. i would start, professor hill, your more recent statements, at least according of carlton the name stewart who says that he met you into ou at the american bar association convention in tlanta where professor hill stated to me in the presence of great grayson, "how clarence's nomination was and how much he deserved it." went on to discuss judge eeoc forn our tenure at an additional 30 minutes or so. here was no mention of sexual harassment or anything negative stated duringomas that conversation and there is a tatement from stanley grayson corroborating what carlton stuart has said. is, did mr. stewart accurately state what happened that meeting? prof. hill: as a recall at that see carlson d stuart and we did discuss the nomination. carlton stewart was very excited about the nomination and said, i believe that those are his that how great it was clarence thomas had been nominated. it was a great opportunity for clarence thomas. a goodot say that it was thing that this nomination was a good thing. add that i have spoken and newspaper reporters have gone on record in saying somei have some doubts and questions about the nomination. however, in that conversation here i was faced with an individual who was elated about friend abilities of his being on the supreme court, i him or want to insult argue with him at the time about the issue. i was very passive in the conversation. sen. specter: excuse me? passive lvery in the conversation. prof. hill: so that mr. stewart and mr. grayson are simply wrong they say, and this is a mr. stewart that you said specifically how great his nomination was and how much he deserved it, they're just wrong. prof. hill: the latter part is certainly wrong. i did say it was a great thomas.ity for clarence i did not say that he deserved it. sen. specter: we have a former dean of oral roberts law school, roger quotes you as saying that that, laudatory comments about udge thomas, a fine man and an excellent legal scholar and in the course of three years when tuttle knew you at the law always that you had praised him and never made any comments, is dean tuttle correct? prof. hill: during the time that oral roberts university, i realized that dean s cozy, the founding of that school, had very high clarence thomas. talking in sk disparaging ways about clarence thomas at that time. do recall, i don't recall any conversations about clarence thomas in which i said his lega
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
