WEBVTT - A New Supreme Court 0:00:15.356 --> 0:00:27.836 Pushkin Getting Even is produced by Pushkin Industries. Join Pushkin 0:00:27.916 --> 0:00:31.036 Plus and you'll hear all of our shows ads free 0:00:31.676 --> 0:00:36.756 and get access to exclusive bonus content. Subscribe now in 0:00:36.876 --> 0:00:49.996 Apple Podcasts or at Pushkin dot Fm. I'm Anita Hill. 0:00:50.596 --> 0:00:56.116 This is Getting Even, my podcast about equality and what 0:00:56.156 --> 0:01:00.596 it takes to get there. On this show, I'll be 0:01:00.636 --> 0:01:04.996 speaking with trailblazers, people who are improving are imperfect world 0:01:05.476 --> 0:01:09.516 people who took risks and broke the rules. But I 0:01:09.596 --> 0:01:12.956 have to start off this series by addressing the historic 0:01:13.116 --> 0:01:20.836 moment we're in right now. As a lawyer and a 0:01:20.916 --> 0:01:24.916 former witness at a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, I've been 0:01:25.036 --> 0:01:30.636 laser focused on President Biden's recent nomination. On February twenty fifth, 0:01:30.676 --> 0:01:33.556 I watched anxiously as he stood at the podium with 0:01:33.756 --> 0:01:37.356 Vice President Kamala Harris on one side and on the 0:01:37.436 --> 0:01:43.836 other Judge Katanji Brown Jackson. The announcement that was weeks, 0:01:44.556 --> 0:01:51.956 actually centuries in the making finally became real. It's a 0:01:52.036 --> 0:01:54.356 first for our country and speaks to so much of 0:01:54.436 --> 0:01:57.996 my work and what I'm talking about on this podcast. 0:01:59.356 --> 0:02:02.956 The whole country will be watching as Judge Katanji Brown 0:02:03.076 --> 0:02:09.116 Jackson goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm very familiar 0:02:09.436 --> 0:02:13.116 with that committee. They're the same body that I stood 0:02:13.116 --> 0:02:16.556 in front of in nineteen ninety one when I testified 0:02:16.596 --> 0:02:20.796 about sexual harassment I experienced working at the Equal Employment 0:02:20.796 --> 0:02:26.356 Opportunity Commission under Clarence Thomas. My name is Anita F. Hill, 0:02:27.156 --> 0:02:29.556 and I am a professor of law at the University 0:02:29.556 --> 0:02:34.676 of Oklahoma. Back then, the committee was made up entirely 0:02:34.716 --> 0:02:39.436 of white men, and the chair in nineteen ninety one 0:02:39.476 --> 0:02:44.796 with Senator Joe Biden, the same Joe Biden who's making 0:02:44.916 --> 0:02:49.116 history today as President. My nominee for the United States 0:02:49.156 --> 0:02:54.556 Supreme Court is Judge Katangi Jackson, who brings extraordinary qualifications, 0:02:54.796 --> 0:02:58.476 deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous tradicial record to 0:02:58.516 --> 0:03:02.076 the Court. I wanted to have a conversation with someone 0:03:02.116 --> 0:03:06.076 who I know appreciates the significance of this moment, so 0:03:06.116 --> 0:03:10.396 I called up Mark Lamont Hill. He's a journal social 0:03:10.396 --> 0:03:15.916 critic and professor, and no, we're not related. We spoke 0:03:15.956 --> 0:03:19.476 a few days before Judge Jackson was announced as a nominee, 0:03:19.476 --> 0:03:21.796 which is why you won't hear us refer to her 0:03:21.876 --> 0:03:28.916 in our conversation, but the larger conversation remains unchanged. Mark 0:03:29.036 --> 0:03:32.236 Lamont Hill and I set out to discuss what this 0:03:32.316 --> 0:03:36.156 moment means for justice, what it means for a representation, 0:03:37.116 --> 0:03:43.556 and the benefits to everyone of this historic nomination. Professor 0:03:43.596 --> 0:03:45.516 Anita Hill, it is so good to see you. It 0:03:45.556 --> 0:03:47.476 is so good to talk to you. This is a 0:03:47.516 --> 0:03:50.556 big deal. Then you're certainly no stranger to big deals 0:03:50.556 --> 0:03:53.396 around Supreme Court nomination, so I know you understand how 0:03:53.756 --> 0:03:57.916 important it is, Oh absolutely, and I'm looking forward to 0:03:58.756 --> 0:04:01.196 the really positive things that can come out of this. 0:04:01.716 --> 0:04:06.596 Nineteen was a moment where the Senate Judiciary Committee had 0:04:06.596 --> 0:04:10.036 an opportunity to listen to the voice of a credible 0:04:10.396 --> 0:04:13.596 black woman, and not only did they not do it, 0:04:13.836 --> 0:04:17.636 but their attitude seemed to reflect an inability to recognize 0:04:17.996 --> 0:04:22.516 a black woman as intellectual and capable and balanced and fair, etc. 0:04:23.356 --> 0:04:25.156 And so I'm wondering if they can't even do that 0:04:25.196 --> 0:04:28.836 at the level of a witness, if they're able to 0:04:29.116 --> 0:04:32.876 think about a black woman jurist, and now it's been 0:04:32.956 --> 0:04:37.236 thirty years, how do you think about the ability of 0:04:37.276 --> 0:04:41.436 the Senate Judiciary Committee to even assess the qualification of 0:04:41.596 --> 0:04:45.876 a black woman for this job. Well, fortunately, the Senate 0:04:45.916 --> 0:04:50.956 Judiciary Committee has changed so it is much more diverse 0:04:51.076 --> 0:04:54.716 than it was thirty years ago. I think that there 0:04:54.836 --> 0:04:57.516 is so much to be gained from this nomination and 0:04:57.996 --> 0:05:01.716 the public discussion about our sense of justice in this 0:05:01.836 --> 0:05:06.196 country and the importance of the Supreme Court in representing 0:05:06.236 --> 0:05:08.836 our sense of jobs death. The first place where the 0:05:09.116 --> 0:05:13.516 conversation about justice emerged was when President Biden said that 0:05:13.596 --> 0:05:17.076 he was going to honor his campaign trail commitment to 0:05:17.356 --> 0:05:21.596 choosing a black woman. And this is something that I 0:05:21.596 --> 0:05:24.436 think was left out of the public conversation to some extent, 0:05:24.636 --> 0:05:27.676 is that the decision to consciously select a black woman 0:05:27.836 --> 0:05:30.156 is not the first moment where there was a conscious 0:05:30.196 --> 0:05:32.476 intent to choose people. The hundreds of years where the 0:05:32.476 --> 0:05:35.036 courts were all white male didn't happen by happenstance. It 0:05:35.076 --> 0:05:38.996 wasn't a meritocracy that somehow being interrupted. They were very 0:05:39.036 --> 0:05:41.756 intentionally not choosing Jewish people at one point, very intentionally 0:05:41.796 --> 0:05:45.996 not choosing black people, and then somehow the subtext keeps emerging, 0:05:46.556 --> 0:05:51.676 and that's one around qualification. Yeah, I think again that's 0:05:51.676 --> 0:05:54.156 a part of our history that we want to pretend 0:05:54.156 --> 0:05:57.756 to us on excess. Those judges are there, they have 0:05:58.036 --> 0:06:02.276 been their constant. Spaker Mobley, who was on the Second Circuit, 0:06:02.436 --> 0:06:05.636 wanted a kid stout who was one of the first 0:06:05.636 --> 0:06:10.276 black woman appointed to a state supreme or back in 0:06:10.356 --> 0:06:15.916 the eighties, Paully Murray, who wrote Richard Nixon and laid 0:06:15.956 --> 0:06:20.556 out her resume and all her credentials for being on 0:06:20.596 --> 0:06:23.596 the Supreme Court, and told him that he should nominate her. 0:06:23.876 --> 0:06:27.036 And she was right, of course, I mean she's I mean, 0:06:27.116 --> 0:06:30.956 she was a brilliant legal theorist. But we have so 0:06:31.116 --> 0:06:36.516 erased that history it is though we're invisible. In other words, 0:06:36.596 --> 0:06:41.236 Joe Biden isn't the first person to identify qualify black women. 0:06:41.276 --> 0:06:44.716 And this isn't the first generation of qualified Black women 0:06:44.716 --> 0:06:48.836 by any stretched. Every women for decades, and certainly it's 0:06:48.876 --> 0:06:53.956 not centuries who have been equally qualified and deserved a 0:06:53.996 --> 0:06:56.916 place on the court, they simply didn't have the opportunity. 0:06:57.516 --> 0:07:02.556 I think that's an important piece to add, particularly against 0:07:02.556 --> 0:07:05.356 the backroom of this public outcry that that Joe Biden 0:07:05.436 --> 0:07:09.316 is suddenly going rogue and being selective or intentional about 0:07:09.316 --> 0:07:12.716 who he's selecting for Supreme Court, as if again for 0:07:12.836 --> 0:07:15.236 centuries that hadn't been qualified black women who were intentionally 0:07:15.276 --> 0:07:19.596 left to offabilities. My worst fear in this conversation is 0:07:19.756 --> 0:07:27.036 that we will resort to racist tropes, sexist tropes, and 0:07:27.556 --> 0:07:30.956 we are going to miss this opportunity to ask some 0:07:31.196 --> 0:07:35.996 really important questions today. What are those questions? Well, I 0:07:36.076 --> 0:07:38.996 think we should be asking who's missing from positions of 0:07:39.156 --> 0:07:43.276 power and influence in our political systems, and that includes 0:07:43.276 --> 0:07:47.116 our judiciary. What do we do to step out of that? 0:07:47.876 --> 0:07:50.876 How do we imagine equality in the future. You know, 0:07:51.356 --> 0:07:55.276 we have been operating for a while from what I 0:07:55.356 --> 0:08:02.716 think is a nineteen sixty four version of equality, and 0:08:02.796 --> 0:08:06.516 it has worked very well, but it has not finished 0:08:06.596 --> 0:08:10.876 the job of creating equality. For one, what is the 0:08:10.956 --> 0:08:13.356 nineteen sixty for context right? Because there were people who 0:08:13.516 --> 0:08:15.316 are saying, well, that sounds like a good idea. We 0:08:15.316 --> 0:08:17.476 didn't have access to public accommodations, we didn't have access 0:08:17.516 --> 0:08:20.036 to civil rights. We needed to be in places that 0:08:20.036 --> 0:08:22.876 wouldn't let us in. What's wrong with the nineteen sixty 0:08:22.916 --> 0:08:26.276 four vision or what's limiting about it? There's nothing wrong 0:08:26.316 --> 0:08:29.916 with it. In fact, I've benefited from it, so I 0:08:29.956 --> 0:08:33.316 would not say that there is anything wrong with it. 0:08:33.436 --> 0:08:37.836 But what we know is that we still have huge 0:08:37.956 --> 0:08:42.436 disparities on many, many fronts. So we need to be 0:08:42.516 --> 0:08:46.276 thinking about if our goal is equality, what more can 0:08:46.356 --> 0:08:50.116 we do. We have been having challenges over the last 0:08:50.916 --> 0:08:54.116 few years, things like the Me Too movement and like 0:08:54.316 --> 0:08:57.316 Black Lives Matter, and I think at the core of 0:08:57.356 --> 0:09:01.916 those movements is a cry for new ways of thinking 0:09:02.116 --> 0:09:09.076 about justice and equality. And so far we have people 0:09:09.276 --> 0:09:14.556 who are buying into the messages of those movements, but 0:09:14.676 --> 0:09:20.716 we haven't had the leadership that follows, and we haven't 0:09:20.876 --> 0:09:27.396 had any changes in the structures that are limiting our 0:09:27.476 --> 0:09:32.996 advances toward this new way of thinking about equality inclusively 0:09:33.156 --> 0:09:39.236 and broadly as fundamental to our democracy. When we come back, 0:09:40.116 --> 0:09:42.516 Mark Lamont Hill and I get into the question of 0:09:42.596 --> 0:09:53.356 objectivity in judging and whether or not it's possible. You're 0:09:53.436 --> 0:09:58.036 listening to getting even my podcast about equality and what 0:09:58.076 --> 0:10:02.916 it takes to get there. I'm Anita Hill. A few 0:10:02.956 --> 0:10:06.876 days before Biden announced Katangi Brown Jackson as his pick 0:10:07.116 --> 0:10:10.676 for our next Supreme Court justice, I called up Mark 0:10:10.796 --> 0:10:15.236 Lamont Hill. We spoke about what it means to the 0:10:15.276 --> 0:10:18.796 country to have a black woman nominated to the highest court. 0:10:19.716 --> 0:10:21.876 One of the things that will definitely come out of 0:10:21.876 --> 0:10:25.836 the conversation is whether the person can be impartial, and 0:10:26.556 --> 0:10:29.396 rather than simply proving that black women have the same 0:10:29.476 --> 0:10:33.356 capacity to be impartial as white men, or to make 0:10:33.356 --> 0:10:36.716 the case that everybody's impartial on some level, is this 0:10:36.836 --> 0:10:39.636 an opportunity or should we take this as an opportunity 0:10:39.956 --> 0:10:44.316 to reshape the language around impartiality and objectivity rather than 0:10:44.716 --> 0:10:48.036 to try and wedge ourselves into the framework that always 0:10:48.116 --> 0:10:51.196 has the world looking at us like we're short. This 0:10:51.316 --> 0:10:55.356 is just like the questions about competence. They only come 0:10:55.716 --> 0:11:01.876 when you have a person of color, and they come 0:11:01.956 --> 0:11:05.796 up for the purpose not of finding the right person 0:11:06.396 --> 0:11:12.476 for the bench, but they come up to discredit thinking 0:11:13.156 --> 0:11:19.596 yep and ideas in resistance to the status quo. And 0:11:19.676 --> 0:11:23.116 so I think we're at a moment where we know 0:11:24.076 --> 0:11:28.196 that if we are going to move us as a 0:11:28.276 --> 0:11:32.156 country to expand our thinking about the role that the 0:11:32.276 --> 0:11:37.916 law can play in creating a more just and equal society, 0:11:38.196 --> 0:11:43.356 then we have got to resist those old ways of 0:11:43.596 --> 0:11:49.236 eliminating people by simply saying they're not qualified or they 0:11:49.276 --> 0:11:54.276 can't be objective, assuming that there is one standard or 0:11:54.356 --> 0:12:00.076 qualification or one standard of objectivity. You know, there's an 0:12:00.076 --> 0:12:04.556 interesting story about Constance Baker Motley, who I mean, she 0:12:04.636 --> 0:12:07.356 may have been considered, but she was certainly never nominated 0:12:07.876 --> 0:12:10.636 to be on the Supreme Court work. But she was 0:12:11.236 --> 0:12:15.516 a judge in a case. It was an employment discrimination case, 0:12:16.356 --> 0:12:23.396 and what the council defending against the lawsuit asked was 0:12:23.516 --> 0:12:28.076 that Constance Baker Motley recuse herself, and this was in 0:12:28.116 --> 0:12:32.236 the papers that were submitted to the court, because her 0:12:32.356 --> 0:12:38.236 race and her gender would make her suspect and unable 0:12:38.356 --> 0:12:42.716 to be objective in this case. I love her response 0:12:42.756 --> 0:12:46.596 because she said, if that is the standard we began 0:12:46.676 --> 0:12:51.716 to hold, then we must recognize that everybody on the 0:12:51.756 --> 0:12:56.916 bench is incapable of being objective, because everybody on the 0:12:56.996 --> 0:13:00.316 bench has both the quality of a race and agenda. 0:13:00.996 --> 0:13:05.916 But we only see that when we see people of color. 0:13:06.076 --> 0:13:09.916 Of course, she did not recuse herself, but I think 0:13:09.956 --> 0:13:12.956 she made the best argument. That is our best response. 0:13:13.076 --> 0:13:18.036 When we start talking about the objectivity of black women, 0:13:18.116 --> 0:13:21.636 then we have to start talking about the objectivity of 0:13:21.676 --> 0:13:26.116 all of the white male judges and the black male judge. 0:13:26.436 --> 0:13:30.316 I mean, is anybody ever objective? You're pointing to something 0:13:30.476 --> 0:13:33.876 very interesting, right. That's beyond partisan politics, and that is 0:13:33.876 --> 0:13:38.236 a question of political imagination, of judicial imagination, the ability 0:13:38.716 --> 0:13:42.236 to take different approaches to the law, different traditions, different beliefs, 0:13:42.276 --> 0:13:48.396 different worldviews, and to incorporate them into one's practice. These 0:13:48.396 --> 0:13:51.756 are things that aren't limited to the Democrats or the Republicans. 0:13:51.756 --> 0:13:54.556 This is about a worldview that comes across them both. 0:13:54.636 --> 0:13:58.756 And so diversifying the Supreme courtnel on some level allows 0:13:58.836 --> 0:14:01.196 us to push back against that trend. And it doesn't 0:14:01.196 --> 0:14:03.196 seem like we even realize many of us don't even 0:14:03.236 --> 0:14:05.836 realize that that's a trend to push back against. One 0:14:05.876 --> 0:14:08.756 of the things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg did was it 0:14:09.476 --> 0:14:13.156 very often called out her colleagues for not understanding the 0:14:13.196 --> 0:14:18.476 experiences of women. We talk about the judicial imagination. Her 0:14:18.556 --> 0:14:24.316 imagination for what justice is is quite different from her colleagues, 0:14:24.356 --> 0:14:27.436 and she was not afraid to say so. Yes. And 0:14:27.556 --> 0:14:30.956 this nomination and the way that it was announced was 0:14:31.036 --> 0:14:36.636 intentional challenge to the status quo, an opportunity for us 0:14:36.676 --> 0:14:43.276 to say, we need a judiciary that reflects the population 0:14:43.396 --> 0:14:47.876 that is going to come before it, that reflects ideas, 0:14:48.036 --> 0:14:53.476 new ideas based on different lived experiences in terms of 0:14:53.636 --> 0:14:58.796 deliberations and decision making, and even their new ideas or 0:14:58.876 --> 0:15:03.876 new experiences about the path to becoming a judge and 0:15:03.956 --> 0:15:08.716 what judging is and how it happens, and the value 0:15:09.436 --> 0:15:13.596 that can be brought in where new ideas about how 0:15:13.636 --> 0:15:19.476 to define justice are allowed to be considered. It's an 0:15:19.476 --> 0:15:23.396 intersection again of gender and race, right because when Trump 0:15:23.396 --> 0:15:26.996 said I'm electing a woman, no one thought that he 0:15:27.036 --> 0:15:30.676 meant anything other than a white woman. When Reagan made 0:15:30.716 --> 0:15:33.796 the same determination, no one thought that he was considering 0:15:33.836 --> 0:15:37.516 anything other than a white woman. And when Joe Biden says, well, 0:15:37.556 --> 0:15:39.716 I'm going to choose a black woman, I think it's 0:15:39.756 --> 0:15:44.516 that intersection that was just untenable for so many people. 0:15:44.876 --> 0:15:48.196 And the wonderful thing about the moment is that we 0:15:48.996 --> 0:15:53.876 not only have a chance to look at intersectional bias 0:15:53.996 --> 0:15:57.116 against women of color, but in this case black women, 0:15:57.476 --> 0:16:02.436 we have a chance now to look at the intersectional value, 0:16:02.796 --> 0:16:10.076 the value that having lived experiences as both a female 0:16:10.356 --> 0:16:16.676 and a black person is really something that can contribute 0:16:17.076 --> 0:16:21.756 to the thinking that goes into judging and that goes 0:16:21.956 --> 0:16:28.676 into our definitions of justice today. And if we if 0:16:28.716 --> 0:16:31.516 we don't, if we don't see that as this opportunity. 0:16:31.596 --> 0:16:36.716 If the Senate Judiciary Committee isn't asking questions about those 0:16:36.756 --> 0:16:40.276 two things, then there's a missed opportunity for the entire 0:16:40.396 --> 0:16:43.236 American public. And the problem is they don't know what 0:16:43.316 --> 0:16:46.436 to ask, They don't even have the self awareness to 0:16:46.476 --> 0:16:50.436 ask those questions, and they didn't understand the thing that 0:16:50.476 --> 0:16:53.756 you're that you're speaking to now, which is it's not 0:16:53.916 --> 0:16:58.156 just a nice act of liberal generosity to diversify the court, 0:16:58.596 --> 0:17:01.316 but that there's some inherent value to diversity, that there's 0:17:01.396 --> 0:17:04.436 something that it's an added value to say this court 0:17:04.476 --> 0:17:10.196 should look different. It offers differences in terms of what 0:17:10.236 --> 0:17:13.716 the judges talk about in their deliberations, what is the 0:17:13.796 --> 0:17:19.036 conversation like in their deliberations, And those conversations are driven 0:17:19.076 --> 0:17:24.516 by experiences. Even as I say that our thinking is 0:17:24.596 --> 0:17:29.316 not unilateral, I know very few black women who cannot 0:17:29.436 --> 0:17:35.636 tell you how race and gender, separately and combined have 0:17:35.876 --> 0:17:41.436 impacted their life experiences. But we know that diversity in 0:17:41.516 --> 0:17:47.156 those kinds of conversations can lead for a richer understanding 0:17:47.476 --> 0:17:50.716 of what the law is and how it impacts people. 0:17:51.516 --> 0:17:55.236 And I'll go back to Santra Day O'Connor, who talked 0:17:55.276 --> 0:18:00.436 about how Justice Marshall influenced her thinking about the law 0:18:00.476 --> 0:18:04.036 and maybe that's how we got affirmative action, because she 0:18:04.236 --> 0:18:08.596 wrote the opinion and maybe she was influenced by listening 0:18:08.596 --> 0:18:12.556 to just this Marshaw. But if you don't have someone 0:18:12.796 --> 0:18:17.596 bringing that to the conversation, not only do you not 0:18:17.876 --> 0:18:21.436 have a chance to change the outcome, you don't have 0:18:21.476 --> 0:18:25.436 a chance to change the reasoning. And judging is more 0:18:26.236 --> 0:18:29.556 than about outcomes. It's about the reasoning. It's about the 0:18:29.636 --> 0:18:33.876 explanations for the law and telling the people why decisions 0:18:33.916 --> 0:18:36.916 are made in the way that they are. And I 0:18:36.956 --> 0:18:41.636 think those need to be filled with experiences from multiple perspectives. 0:18:41.956 --> 0:18:45.196 I have to ask you, what's the smoke clears and 0:18:46.636 --> 0:18:50.756 a black woman has been confirmed to the US Supreme Court, 0:18:51.516 --> 0:18:55.476 how will you given everything you've been through, everything you've witnessed, 0:18:56.516 --> 0:18:59.596 your entire set of experiences, how will you feel? I 0:18:59.676 --> 0:19:04.516 will be absolutely elated, absolutely elated. Now I typically think 0:19:04.516 --> 0:19:08.036 of myself as a glass half full, but one of 0:19:08.076 --> 0:19:11.476 the things that I want to be cautious about is 0:19:11.956 --> 0:19:15.956 that we don't start seeing this as well. We have one. 0:19:16.436 --> 0:19:19.036 That's it. That's all wherever you know the black women, 0:19:19.156 --> 0:19:22.436 please check the box. This is not about checking the box. 0:19:23.236 --> 0:19:28.716 This is about a judiciary that represents our country and 0:19:28.876 --> 0:19:33.436 the best in our country and the values of equal 0:19:33.516 --> 0:19:38.596 protection under the law and justice being blind. And so 0:19:38.756 --> 0:19:44.316 I will relish in that moment, and then I will 0:19:44.356 --> 0:19:48.876 hopefully suggest some other ways that we can get some 0:19:48.916 --> 0:19:51.676 of the work done that needs to be done. I 0:19:51.796 --> 0:19:54.036 like that attitude, and that's that's what it means to 0:19:54.036 --> 0:19:55.916 be black in this country. In so many ways, we 0:19:55.956 --> 0:19:59.236 celebrate the victories that we struggle for what we understand 0:19:59.236 --> 0:20:01.396 that the work is undone. It's understand that you get 0:20:01.436 --> 0:20:05.756 to keep fighting. That's right, absolutely, because it was a pleasure, pleasure, 0:20:05.756 --> 0:20:07.876 pleasure talking to you. Thanks so much for let me 0:20:07.916 --> 0:20:10.996 hang out with you. Oh listen, this was great. I 0:20:11.036 --> 0:20:14.356 couldn't have asked for a better partner to have this conversation. 0:20:15.716 --> 0:20:18.396 Of course, Mark Lamont Hill and I don't know what 0:20:18.516 --> 0:20:22.396 the outcome of this historic confirmation hearing will be, but 0:20:22.516 --> 0:20:25.796 we have hopes about how the process will go and 0:20:25.876 --> 0:20:28.916 hopes that we can learn from the mistakes made throughout 0:20:28.956 --> 0:20:33.476 the history of the Senate and the Court. We can't 0:20:33.516 --> 0:20:36.956 shy away from difficult questions about what equality under the 0:20:37.036 --> 0:20:41.076 law means, what it really looks like, and more importantly, 0:20:41.316 --> 0:20:46.636 how diversity on our courts could change people's lives and 0:20:47.076 --> 0:20:52.596 our country. On the next episode of Getting Even, you're 0:20:52.636 --> 0:20:56.076 going to hear new revelations about a familiar piece of history. 0:20:56.756 --> 0:20:58.836 When you heard Mark and I refer to in our 0:20:58.876 --> 0:21:03.596 conversation the nineteen ninety one Supreme Court nomination hearing for 0:21:03.756 --> 0:21:08.356 Clarence Thomas. It was not unusual for Clarence to act 0:21:08.396 --> 0:21:11.596 that way with people and especially black women at the commission. 0:21:12.116 --> 0:21:14.236 Like I said before, he was like a fox in 0:21:14.316 --> 0:21:19.236 a hanhouse, and I wanted to make the committee aware 0:21:19.396 --> 0:21:22.796 of the fact that you were not lying to them 0:21:22.916 --> 0:21:26.356 or making up statements, that this, in fact is what 0:21:26.516 --> 0:21:31.036 was happening at the EOC. Later in the season, I'll 0:21:31.036 --> 0:21:36.476 be speaking with w Kamal Bell, Kimberly Crenshaw, Nicole Hannah Jones, 0:21:37.156 --> 0:21:42.236 Misty Copeland, and many others about the realities that keep 0:21:42.356 --> 0:21:46.356 us up at night and what it takes to get even. 0:21:47.276 --> 0:21:52.236 What we're looking for is outcomes. We want results, measurable 0:21:52.316 --> 0:22:06.996 outcomes in the way that people live every day. Getting 0:22:06.996 --> 0:22:09.676 Even is a production of pushkin in this Streets and 0:22:09.876 --> 0:22:13.236 is written and hosted by me Anita Hill. It is 0:22:13.276 --> 0:22:18.316 produced by Molaborg and Brittany Brown. Our editor is Sarah Kramer, 0:22:19.076 --> 0:22:22.996 our engineer is Amanda kay Wang, and our showrunner is 0:22:23.036 --> 0:22:27.996 Sasha Matthias. Luis Gara composed original music for the show. 0:22:28.756 --> 0:22:32.236 Special thanks to Vicki Merrick for her help with this episode. 0:22:32.796 --> 0:22:37.956 Our executive producers are Mia Lobel and le tal Malaud. 0:22:38.396 --> 0:22:44.636 Our director of Development is Justine Lane. At Pushkin thanks 0:22:44.676 --> 0:22:51.556 to Heather Fane, Carly Migliori, Jason Gambrel, Julia Barton, John Schnars, 0:22:51.836 --> 0:22:56.156 and Jacob Weisberg. You can find me on Twitter at 0:22:56.196 --> 0:23:01.916 Anita Hill and on Facebook at Anita Hill. You can 0:23:01.916 --> 0:23:06.556 find Pushkin on all social platforms at pushkin Pods, and 0:23:06.676 --> 0:23:11.396 you can sign up for our newsletter at pushkin dot Fm. 0:23:11.436 --> 0:23:14.476 If you love this show and others from Pushkin Industries, 0:23:15.116 --> 0:23:19.796 consider subscribing to Pushkin Plus. Subscribe to Pushkin Plus and 0:23:19.956 --> 0:23:23.756 you can hear Getting Even and other Pushkin shows add 0:23:23.836 --> 0:23:29.076 free and receive exclusive bonus episodes. Sign up on the 0:23:29.156 --> 0:23:33.516 Getting Even show page in Apple Podcasts or at pushkin 0:23:33.876 --> 0:23:38.796 dot fm to find more Pushkin podcasts listen on the 0:23:38.916 --> 0:23:44.756 iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you like to listen.