Anita Hill 20 Years Later | C-SPAN

Anita Hill testifying 20 years ago - Clarence Thomas Senate hearing 

Anita Hill put her personal and professional life on the line when she testified about Clarence Thomas's sexual harassment. It was a turning point for women. No longer do we consider sexual harassment of anyone business as usual.

This weekend hundreds of people gathered at Hunter College to reflect on what has happened, what we've learned, and the work that remains. The conversation was fast moving and the questions from the audience provoked differences in opinion as well as insight into the intersections of race, gender, power, and politics.

You can watch the video of the panels at Sex, Power and Speaking Truth: Anita Hill 20 Years Later conference here: Anita Hill Speaks 20 Years Later | C-SPAN

Speakers included Anita Hill, people involved in the hearing, like Catharine MacKinnon and Judith Resnik, scholars like Kimberlé Crenshaw, and current day activists like AAUW fellow Ai-Jen Poo, Jamia Wilson, and Emily May from Hollaback to name just a few.  This was a terrific conference, well worth carving out some time to watch.

Some of our members were fortunate to be there. Whether you were there in person, watched the live stream, of watch the video, please add your impressions of the day or thoughts on sexual harassment in the comments.

Workplace Stalking Case Update

AAUW has been following harrassment and stalking suits in the workplace. This month, Dawn Martin has requested a re-hearing before the Supreme Court in her case Martin v. Howard.

Here's an update and a link to a fascinating interview (streaming video) with Dawn, Derek Bell, and others supporting her case on Insider Exclusive TV.

The case, short version:
Ms. Martin was stalked at Howard Law School where she was on faculty by a deranged homeless man who believed she was the physical embodiment of a fictional woman in a novel by Derek Bell. Howard did not take reasonable steps, or follow its own security procedures, to protect her and refused to renew her teaching contract because, Martin alleges, she asked for on-campus protection.

In 2006, after a trial, the jury agreed with Prof. Martin that harassment did create a “hostile work environment” for her and that Howard did not take reasonable steps to end it; yet, the jury verdict was for Howard. With insufficient legal instruction from the Court, the confused jurors found that the harassment was not based on sex; Prof. Martin’s complaints were not therefore not “protected activity” under Title VII.

The Supreme Court initially declined to review Martin, but nine days later, it decided Crawford v. Crawford which clarified that “protected activity” under Title VII is a question of law for the Court, not a factual question for a jury.

On February 9, 2009, therefore, Ms. Martin filed a motion to supplement her Petition for Rehearing, to include the law set by Crawford. Under Crawford, the jury should never have been required to decide this legal question.

The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of workplace stalking. The application of “gender profiling” to sexual harassment cases will also set precedent for racial, ethnic, religious groups in profiling harassment cases under Title VII and other EEO statutes.

For more details and links to other cites discussing the case, see www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.