TOP
Angela Wright
Chapters
The FRONTLINE Interviews
Angela Wright
Clarence Thomas Accuser
Angela Wright is a writer and editor. She was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify regarding her own allegations of workplace sexual harassment as Thomas’ employee at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She was never called to testify.
The following interview was conducted by FRONTLINE’s Jim Gilmore on July 8, 2020. It has been edited for clarity and length.
This interview appears in:
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
Watching the Thomas-Hill Hearings
Let’s start—cut right to the chase here, and talk about the Thomas hearings and the Anita Hill testimony.You’re watching the Anita Hill testimony.And what are your thoughts?How is it being conducted?What’s your view of the way that the committee is handling it as you’re watching it?
Well, I’m watching it from my attorney’s office because I’m in Washington under subpoena.And I see—first of all, it was interesting to me that Clarence Thomas got the first word, and he was able to frame the entire hearing in a way that benefited him by calling it a high-tech lynching for uppity Negroes.
And so Anita Hill had to come behind him and make her case before a panel of white men who, I think, really, for the most part, were clueless.There were those Republicans who were staunch supporters of Clarence Thomas, who were doing everything that they could to discredit her, and she had no one on her side—not Biden, not Kennedy.There didn’t appear to be anyone actually trying to take care of Professor Hill.They were allowing Clarence Thomas and the Republicans to just excoriate her.
The Uncalled Witness
Your situation—explain what it was.You were an uncalled witness.How that came about—let’s start there.How did that come about?
Well, I worked for Clarence Thomas as his director of public affairs in 1983 when I was working in politics in Washington.When the allegations by Professor Hill came along and Clarence Thomas had been nominated to the Supreme Court, I was working at <i>The Charlotte Observer</i>.I’d only been there for about a year and a half, I believe, close to two years.And I was actually working as an assistant state editor, but I was interested in developing a voice and becoming a columnist.So I’d been talking with an editor about writing columns.I'd written several different columns, and he kept saying to me: “It’s not topical enough.The one thing you’ve got to do is be timely.”
So I go home that night, one night, and I’m working from 3:00 to midnight.And I’m sitting in my den.I turn on the television, and there’s Professor Hill, who I didn’t know at all, standing in front of the group of reporters and talking about Clarence Thomas and the comments he had made and how he made sexually harassing statements.And what actually bothered me about that was what was being said by the senators and how they had talked about her, you know, following him to another department and why, if she was so bothered by what he said, would she go and continue to work for him.
And one of the senators I think actually said, “Well”—when he was questioned by a lot of the women in Congress about why they hadn’t pursued her allegations, he actually said—“Well, absent any touching, I didn’t think it was that big a deal.”
So what motivated me was seeing her just standing there by herself and knowing that I knew this man said exactly what she said he said because I’d seen him behave that way to me.And my intention at the time was simply to write that into a column.
And so I went back to the office the next day.I wrote it out and said to my editor, “Is this kind of what you have in mind?”He hadn’t even looked at the column yet before someone in the newsroom decided to share it with Joe Biden and his staff.It was a colleague; I know who did it because the colleague and I had dinner often, and at this particular time, the colleague said: “So what do you think about what’s going on with this Professor Hill and Clarence Thomas?Are you going to say anything about it?”And I said, “I’m not going to say anything about it, but I did write a draft column, you know, my thoughts about it.”
Later that day I get a phone call from Sen. Biden’s staff.I’m assuming at that particular point that they were just doing due diligence, that they’d finally decided, “Let us just check with other people and see who has what to say about Mr. Thomas.”But what I found out when I answered the phone was that they had a copy of my draft column.I didn’t send it to them.They had a copy of it, said they were reading it and wanted to know if I’d be willing to talk to them about what I had written.
Being a journalist just starting at a major daily, I really was skeptical about getting involved and getting the newspaper involved.So I spoke to my editor.I actually spoke to the publisher and the managing editor.At the time, Rolfe Neill was the publisher, Rich Oppel the managing editor, and I talked to them.They understood everything that was going on, and they said: “You know, that’s your story.Feel free to tell it.”
So I went back and got on the phone and agreed to talk with them.They asked me if I’d be willing to come to Washington and testify.I wasn’t really willing to do that; I said, you know, “I think you have my statement; that’s good enough.”And I certainly, because Clarence Thomas had fired me, was not interested in what that would look like.But they issued a subpoena. …
They asked if I would talk to a Senate committee—that’s what happened—with both people on both sides listening in.So I agreed the next day to get on the phone and be grilled by representatives from both sides of the aisle, which I did, and again, I thought that was sufficient.The next thing I know, I have marshals, federal marshals at my front door with a subpoena.
Went to Washington.The newspaper assisted me by recommending an attorney who went with me … and I ended up spending like three days just sitting in the attorney’s office over the weekend waiting for them to call me to testify.
What were you expecting?What did you think you were going to say to the committee?
Well, I thought—first of all, I was naive enough to think all I had to do was get on a plane and go to Washington to just tell them what I thought.So it took a few people smarter than me to say, “No, you need an attorney to go with you.”I thought I was just going to tell them what I knew, what my experience with Clarence Thomas had been.I wasn’t stepping forth as some victim out of the shadows.I considered myself stepping forth as a witness who could corroborate what Professor Hill was saying.And that’s what I was prepared to do, to say, “Yes, I have seen the same behavior from Clarence Thomas.”
And what happened?
Ah, nothing.Essentially, we get to Washington; we go to my attorney’s office.My attorney is calling back and forth, talking with Sen. Biden’s staff and constantly were like, “Well, she’s going to be called; she’s going to be called.”And then, you know, the time would get pushed back.And so every day it was, “We’re going to call her next.” …
And our position all along—my position was, I’ve already—I told you everything I felt about it.I’m willing to say it again if you want me to say it in front of the committee.But they kept asking me—Biden’s staff kept saying, “Well, we’ll release you from the subpoena if you ask us to.”There was clearly manipulation behind the scene to portray me as someone who was just eager to get there and try and get revenge on Clarence Thomas, which is what seemed to be the idea that, because I’d been fired 10 years earlier, I’d been harboring this desire to have revenge against him.
So part of the movement seemed to be, let’s see if we can get her to just beg to get out of this subpoena.And my attorney was like: “She’s not going to beg you to get out of the subpoena.You issued the subpoena.You decide whether you want her to testify or not.”
So late that night, Biden’s staff sends a letter that says, you know..."Because of the lateness of the hour, you know, we’re going to just put your statement into the record.We’d love for you to testify, but, you know, we’ll put your statement into the record and let that be that.”
I wasn’t happy with that simply because for several days I’d been vilified.Members of the Senate committee had suggested that I was coming up with these lies and, you know, I was just this vengeful person coming, you know, seeking after Mr. Thomas.And that wasn’t the case.
Wright’s Planned Statement to the Committee
In short form, what were you going to say?What were the statements that you had already made to them?What were they expecting to hear from you?
Oh, my statements to them were beyond just how I felt he had behaved inappropriately in terms of sexual harassment.That was a phrase, by the way, that wasn’t that—well, it wasn’t used that much, and I wasn’t that familiar with it. ….
He made comments about people that the EEOC was sworn to protect all the time.Not only does he make inappropriate comments to women; he was always making comments about protected classes, too.
Why would it have been important to make your statement before the committee?
Well, at the time I didn’t feel like it was important for me to make a statement before the committee as much as for me to just have my words.So they had the words.And I didn’t feel that I absolutely had to get to the committee, except that I was held in abeyance while they painted this picture of me as this, you know, loose nutcase just coming to the foreground because of some anger issues that I may have had.
I wanted to dispel that, but I also wanted to be able to provide some context for what Professor Hill was saying.And I also felt that sometimes it helps if someone else steps to the forefront to embolden other people, because I knew there were more people than me who could attest to what she was saying.
Why was that important?Why was it important to support and back up what she was stating?
It was about truth.It was really just about watching this woman being vilified by members of Congress because of what she said and feeling that it’s important to—to support her and to let folks know that she’s not crazy, she’s not lying, that I also had that experience.And because this was someone who was being nominated for a position that he would hold for the rest of his life; he was going to the Supreme Court.And if he held certain negative opinions of women, of other protected classes, then, you know, those who were voting—were going to vote on his nomination needed to know that.
Biden Declines to Call Wright
Why didn’t Biden call you?
I can only speculate.I think that Biden had no idea what to do with this particular situation.He was the chairman of the committee, but here was a situation involving a very accomplished African American attorney and professor of law and an equally accomplished African American male Republican who’s nominated for the highest court in the land.And I think he felt that he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t, quite honestly.He didn’t know whose side to come down on.
And I think part of what we heard later—I don’t know if it was true—was that Professor Hill’s team didn’t want me to be called.I spoke with Professor Hill shortly after that, some days after everything, and she said that was not the case.But I think he was just, number one, afraid because he didn’t know who I was and what I would say, and, two, I think he just wanted it over.It was a very uncomfortable position for him to be in.He was sitting there to judge a man, a Black man, who literally just accused almost every white man on that panel of racism, because at the point when Clarence Thomas decided to link the hearing and questions about this sexual prowess to a high-tech lynching, it evoked so many stereotypes that I think Mr. Biden and a lot of the other men on the committee, who may have been inclined to try and support Professor Hill, immediately went into defensive mode.That’s just my opinion. …
I mean, he—his comments didn’t help at all.He allowed members of that committee to grill Professor Hill in a way that was, I thought, inappropriate and humiliating, although she handled herself beautifully.She was very graceful under the kinds of questions they asked her.I mean, some of the things they repeatedly asked her to repeat, like some of the sexual comments he made about some of the porn stars that he watched, some of it just seemed absolutely voyeuristic, and I think at any given moment, Sen. Biden could have said, “We don’t need to go down that line,” or he could have asked them to redirect the question.He could have done something to provide her with some support, some comfort.But that didn’t happen.
Assessing Biden’s Role in the Hearings
… Give me your overview of how he came away.This is not his shining moment as far as his career, and he knew it; he knew that.Explain to me how you think he came away from this whole affair, Mr. Biden, Sen. Biden.
Well, because Sen. Biden was the chairman of the committee, I think most people, rightfully, expected him to manage the questioning and manage the appearance of witnesses far better than he did.I think that because now it is known that there were actually three other women other than myself who were willing to testify, who had actually said they called Sen. Biden’s office and offered their own testimony, I think his biggest failure has been in that he did nothing; he was afraid to do anything.He was afraid to call them all witnesses.He was afraid to manage the—the questioning from the panel.And I think he rightfully was called to task for that at that particular time.
So did Biden ever talk to you about this?Did he ever come to you and explain himself or apologize for the fact that you weren’t called or anything like that at all?
No.No word from Biden, no word from his staff ever.
And your thoughts? Surprised?
No.You know, it’s not that I was surprised.And actually, I don’t—I didn’t even feel at the time that Biden was the problem.I think he could have managed the hearing better.But the problem, I felt, were Orrin Hatch and Alan Simpson and some of the other members of the panel who really treated Professor Hill as if she was just some opportunist looking for publicity or something, instead of a legal mind, a scholar who knew what she spoke of.I didn’t think much more about it other than that.The only thing that I felt Biden’s staff could have done in the context of people saying, “Well, Angela called Biden’s staff and asked them to include her,” was to be clear on that, that they did not have any contact from me.I didn’t reach out to them; they reached out to me.But I never blamed Sen. Biden for anything that happened during that particular hearing other than to simply say, you know, he could have been stronger.But the vitriol didn’t come from him.He, I thought, was respectful of her and—and Clarence Thomas in his questioning.
He seemed to try to make friends with both sides.He said lots of nice things about the judge; he said very nice things about Anita Hill and afterwards and such.What do you think he really believed?
I think he believed Anita Hill.But I think he also did not want—I think he believed Anita Hill.I think he realized that Republicans had been grooming Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall for years, and that that was going to happen, no matter what, that they were going to put him into Thurgood Marshall’s seat.And I think he felt that there was not a whole lot that he could do about that; that it was their seat to fill.
And then he finds himself in a position of having to discuss sexual innuendo and sexual behavior of an African American man that is about to be nominated to—that has been nominated to the Supreme Court, and I think all of those factors weighed on him, and he didn’t know which way to move.
What do you think that says about him?Here we are, we’re sort of, to some extent, evaluating one of the worst points in his career.But what do you think that says about him that the public should understand about him?
It says something good and something bad.On the one hand, it says that he’s deliberative and that he wants to make sure that everybody has a fair hearing, which I think was the thing that he wanted more than anything, was not to inject himself into it, but to try and give equal voice to Professor Hill and Clarence Thomas.But then it also means he’s kind of in the middle of the road.And you know, I’m a Southern woman, and I’ve always heard the only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill and yellow stripes, and that you have to take a position, and you have to decide what you stand for.
So I think that in that particular case, he did not stand for anything.He was just trying to manage a really tricky situation without alienating anybody in the process.So it says that, there will be times when he’s going to make some good decisions and times when he might not make move the needle.And I think that, you know, is actually a symptom that many Democrats have.It’s a problem with the Democratic Party.
Biden’s Evolution on Issues Affecting Women
You said in your op-ed piece that times were different back then, and on sexual harassment and gender violence, the country evolved.And explain that, but also more importantly explain, do you think Biden has evolved from that period of time?
Oh, I definitely think Biden has evolved.And it was a period of time when the general notion of sexual harassment as illegal behavior was not well discussed.Obviously it was on the books, but it wasn’t the kind of thing that you heard about that often, for a number of reasons.I think a lot of women just didn’t speak to it because—and especially in Washington—it was, you know, on Capitol Hill, that really wasn’t that unusual to have men in power say things to the women who worked around them.
… I think that he evolved immediately afterwards.He had a lot of comments from women members of Congress that he himself seemed to take to heart, and he seemed to express some regret for perhaps he could have handled it better.He’s said that since then.
I think the fact that he authored the Violence Against Women Act just a couple years later says a lot about who he was.… But I’ve never thought of him as not being supportive of women and women’s issues.There’s no way he could be married to someone like his wife, Jill Biden, and not be that man.She’s a very strong, very powerful woman.And obviously he can appreciate strong, powerful women.
When he decides to run in 2020, he decides—he’s attacked, of course, on his record, because he has a long record.And the Anita Hill thing is still a bit of a thorn in his side.How do you think now, in 2020, people should judge him over that one moment in his life?
In the context—context is one of my favorite words—in the context of this election, to me, it is insignificant.It was almost 30 years ago.He has apologized for whatever anyone feels he needs to apologize for.I understand that perhaps Professor Hill does not feel like she got a legitimate apology from him, and that’s her right to feel that way.But I think when people look at who he has been throughout his service in Congress and what he has stood for, that that particular moment, although not his finest, certainly should not negate his run for president.That’s not something that should take him out of the running.
Biden’s Response to Crisis
The only other thing that I have is the thing we ask everybody for the film, which is—So Biden is at a moment; he announces that he’s running for president at a moment of enormous crises in America, with COVID, with the economy faltering, with civil rights back on the streets being debated and demonstrations happening all over the country, the murder of George Floyd.What about this man seems suited or ill suited for walking into this situation where America needs a leader that can deal with crises?
Joe Biden has dealt with a lot of personal losses.He is a man who lost his first wife and his young, basically infant daughter and just a few years ago lost one of his two sons.And yet he has still—he’s still—and no one would blame if he decided, “I’m done, you know; I’m going to retire; I’m through.”But he still has found the heart, he still has found the spirit, the desire to serve, and to serve the public.
He sort of wears his heart on his sleeve.This is a man who, you know, though people joke about some of the gaffes that he makes, he makes it clear that he cares about people.He’s inclusive.Even members of the Republican Party are supporting him. …
And I think that in this particular period of our history, we have got to find somebody who is going to mend some really big rifts that have opened up across a number of issues in the past three and a half years.We need somebody who’s going to bring this country together, and I think that Joe Biden can do it because, for number one, he’s been in Congress for so long, he has the respect of a number of people across the aisle.
But he also has the experience.He’s seen us—he’s seen America through a number of major crises already.When he and President Obama took office, we were in—already in a housing crisis.We were in trouble economically.He has proven that he can take care of that.
But I think more than anything, he’s soft-spoken, and he’s willing to listen, and he’s willing to admit that he may not have all the answers.And that’s something we certainly haven’t seen in the past three years from the White House.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
