♪ BONNIE: HELLO.

I'’’M BONNIE ERBE.

WELCOME TO "TO THE CONTRARY," A DISCUSSION OF NEWS AND SOCIAL TRENDS FROM DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.

30 YEARS AGO, ANITA HILL TESTIFIED TO A SENATE HEARING ABOUT SUPREME COURT NOMINEE CLARENCE THOMAS.

IT WAS A BOLD MOVE.

HILL TOLD THE ALL-WHITE MALE PANEL THAT THOMAS SEXUALLY HARASSED HER WHEN SHE WORKED FOR HIM AT THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

THOMAS WAS STILL SELECTED TO SERVE ON THE HIGH COURT, BUT HILL'’’S BOLD TESTIMONY SERVED AS THE CATALYST FOR OTHER WOMEN TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT IN THE WORKPLACE.

IT ALSO SET ANITA HILL ON A 30-YEAR JOURNEY TO END GENDER VIOLENCE.

TODAY, HILL IS A PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL POLICY AND WOMEN'’’S GENDER AND SEXUALITY STUDIES AT RAND ICE UNIVERSITY.

SHE JOINS ME TODAY TO TALK ABOUT HER NEW BOOK "BELIEVING."

WELCOME, ANITA HILL.

WE ARE SO THRILLED TO HAVE YOU.

MS. HILL: IT IS A PLEASURE TO BE ON YOUR PROGRAM.

BONNIE: FIRST, TELL THE AUDIENCE, WHY THE TITLE "BELIEVING?"

MS. HILL: IT REALLY CAME FROM LISTENING TO VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS, HEARING ON THEM -- HEARING FROM THEM, AND REALLY BELIEVING THAT WE NEEDED TO DO BETTER FROM ALL STANDPOINTS OF THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING, IF IT IS BULLYING OR SEXUAL ASSAULT OR HARASSMENT OR RAPE OR INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE.

BONNIE: HAVE WE GOTTEN THERE YET?

MS. HILL: IN THE 30 YEARS, WE CERTAINLY HAVE NOT GOTTEN WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

I THINK WE HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS.

WE HAVE LEARNED TO IDENTIFY BEHAVIORS.

WE HAVE TAPPED INTO AND MAYBE ADJUSTED SOME OF OUR CULTURAL RESPONSES TO THE PROBLEM.

I THINK THERE'’’S LESS VICTIM BLAMING GOING ON, BUT THAT'’’S NOT ENTIRELY OVER.

WE STILL DISMISS THE HARM THIS PROBLEM CAUSES INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES IN OUR SOCIETY AT LARGE.

WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN THERE WITH OUR STRUCTURES.

WE STILL HAVE POLICIES AND PROCESSES IN PLACE THAT REALLY HAVE FAILED US AND WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL US UNTIL WE CHANGE THEM.

BONNIE: I REMEMBER COVERING THAT HEARING.

I WAS WORKING FOR A RADIO NETWORK AS A SUPREME COURT CORRESPONDENT AT THE TIME.

I REMEMBER THINKING OF YOU AS A REALLY BRAVE, REALLY SCARED INDIVIDUAL, AND OF COURSE, APPROPRIATELY SO.

THAT HEARING SHATTERED THE UNIVERSE.

THERE YOU WERE, CONFRONTING A MAN WHO EVERYBODY PRETTY MUCH KNEW WAS GOING TO GET THROUGH REGARDLESS.

HOW DID YOU FEEL?

MS. HILL: FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE BEEN CALLED BRAVE OR COURAGEOUS, AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT BEING COURAGEOUS DOES NOT MEAN BEING FEARLESS.

WHEN YOU ARE COURAGEOUS, YOU TAKE ON YOUR FEARS, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I TRIED TO DO, TO TAKE ON MY FEARS.

I THOUGHT, AND I THINK EVEN TODAY, THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TESTIFYING WERE BIGGER THAN ANY FEARS I HAD ABOUT TESTIFYING.

SO I WAS ABLE TO OVERCOME THOSE BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT AN APPOINTMENT TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN OUR LAND FOR A LIFETIME TENURE WAS BIGGER THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL'’’S FEARS AND THAT IF WE DID NOT CONFRONT -- IF I DID NOT TESTIFY TO WHAT I KNEW ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR, THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD NOT HAVE COMPLETE INFORMATION TO EVALUATE THE CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF CLARENCE THOMAS FOR THE POSITION ON THE COURT.

BONNIE: AND YET, HE WAS CONFIRMED REGARDLESS BY A COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY THEN SENATOR JOE BIDEN.

WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU -- YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE AN INSIDE TRACK AT LEAST 30 YEARS AGO OF THE THOUGHTS OF NOW PRESIDENT BIDEN.

DO YOU FEEL YOU WERE TREATED FAIRLY?

MS. HILL: I THINK THE WHOLE PROCESS WAS REALLY FLAWED.

THERE WERE SOME SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS WERE ALLOWED TO ASK WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO ASK OF ME, BUT THEY WERE LIMITED IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY COULD ASK OF CLARENCE THOMAS.

THERE WERE FLAWS I BELIEVE WITH THE INVESTIGATION.

THE INVESTIGATION WAS CONTROLLED BY A BODY, THE FBI, THAT WAS REALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PRESIDENT.

WE LEARNED THAT AGAIN IN 2018 WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP LIMITED THE INVESTIGATION INTO JUDGE KAVANAUGH DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING.

BUT THE THING THAT I THINK BOTHERS ME THE MOST ABOUT THE WAY THE PROCESS WAS HANDLED WAS THAT THERE WERE THREE CORROBORATING WITNESSES AND EVEN A FOURTH WHO HAD THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES OF HARASSING BEHAVIOR AND INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR THAT THOMAS HAD DONE WITH THEM, AND THEY WERE NOT CALLED.

THEY WERE NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY.

INSTEAD, THEIR TESTIMONY WAS PUT IN THE RECORD IN WRITTEN FORM, AND WE HAVE NOT ACTUALLY IN A PUBLIC WAY HEARD FROM THEM SINCE THEN.

I'’’M NOT SURE THEY WANT TO BOTHER TO TESTIFY, BUT I THINK THERE WAS JUST A TRAVESTY NOT TO CALL THOSE WITNESSES BECAUSE THESE WERE WOMEN I DID NOT KNOW.

THEY WERE NOT SAYING WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO ME.

THEY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES OF HAVING BEEN HARASSED BY CLARENCE THOMAS.

BONNIE: NUMBERS CERTAINLY HELPS A LOT IN TERMS OF BELIEVABILITY, CORRECT?

MS. HILL: UNFORTUNATELY, WE STILL -- SO OFTEN, WOMEN ARE COMING UP AGAINST VERY POWERFUL MEN, AND IT STILL TAKES MULTIPLE WITNESSES, MULTIPLE VICTIMS TO COME FORWARD IN ORDER TO CONVINCE A BODY OR EVEN THE PUBLIC THAT SOMEONE HAS ENGAGED IN VIOLENCE OR OTHER MISCONDUCT, SO IT DOES MATTER.

IT ESPECIALLY DID MATTER IN 1991 WHEN THE TOPIC IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC CONVERSATION WAS VERY, VERY NEW, AND PEOPLE NEEDED TO HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING INFORMATION FROM EXPERT WITNESSES ON THE TOPIC OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHO WERE NOT CALLED.

BONNIE: WHEN YOU DEAL -- WHEN YOU DID DECIDE TO COME FORWARD 30 YEARS AGO, DID YOU EVER IN YOUR MIND THINK YOU WOULD BECOME THE FEMINIST ICON YOU HAVE BECOME?

MS. HILL: NO, I DIDN'’’T.

THERE WERE MIXED FEELINGS AT THE TIME ABOUT MY TESTIMONY, IF I SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT COME FORWARD, IF I HAD ACTUALLY HELPED OR HURT THE CAUSE OF GENDER EQUITY.

SO I DID NOT EXPECT THAT, BUT MY EVOLUTION TO THIS POINT HAS COME AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF HEARING FROM VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS WHO WANT A VOICE, WHO WANT SOLUTIONS, WHO WANT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THEM -- AGAIN, WHATEVER THE BEHAVIOR -- THEY WANT IT TO STOP, AND THEY DON'’’T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO OTHER PEOPLE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD ENOUGH FROM.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PART OF THE SOLUTION IN WAYS THAT WILL HELP AND -- HELP AND -- HELP END THE PROBLEM.

I'’’M HERE NOT TO SPEAK FOR THEM BUT TO GIVE THEM SPACE TO SPEAK AND TO CHALLENGE OUR LEADERSHIP TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO STEP UP AND MAKE CHANGE.

BONNIE: YOU ARE A PROFESSOR, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, WOMEN'’’S RIGHTS, STUDIES OF GENDER VIOLENCE.

HOW DO YOU PUT WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU, WHAT CLARENCE THOMAS DID TO YOU, WHICH INCLUDED TALKING ABOUT PUBIC HAIR ON A COKE BOTTLE, REFERENCING HIS PRIVATE MAIL PARTS, AND PORNOGRAPHY, WHICH THAT PART MANY PEOPLE HAVE COME OUT AND CONFIRMED -- WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT LUMPING THAT BEHAVIOR IN WITH RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, WHAT, FOR EXAMPLE, CHRISTINE BLASE FORD SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF THEN JUDGE KAVANAUGH?

HOW DOES JUST SAYING THINGS TO YOU, CONFRONTING YOU, FRONTING YOU, POSSIBLY GIVING THE WOMAN AT THE OTHER END OF THESE CONVERSATIONS A PTSD KIND OF EXPERIENCE BUT NOT TOUCHING YOU?

HOW DO YOU LUMP THAT IN WITH ACTUAL HANDS-ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE?

MS. HILL: WELL, SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DEFINED BY THE LAW.

IT DOES NOT NEED TO INCLUDE TOUCHING.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT HAS BEEN CLEAR FOR YEARS THAT CREATING A PSYCHOLOGICALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IS ENOUGH TO CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

THAT IS ONE THING.

THAT WAS ONE OF I THINK THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS PEOPLE HAD IN 1991, THAT THERE HAD TO BE SOME KIND OF PHYSICAL TOUCHING IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ANY KIND.

SECONDLY, OF THE WORLD, DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, AND EVEN THE UNITED NATIONS HAS BEEN LOOKING AT WHAT COUNTS AS GENDER VIOLENCE, AND I HAVE INCLUDED NOT ONLY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, BUT ECONOMIC VIOLENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE.

WHEN THAT HAPPENS IN THE WORKPLACE, WHEN SOMEONE IS CONSTANTLY DISCUSSING PORNOGRAPHY OR THEIR OWN SEXUAL INTERESTS AND COUPLING THAT WITH PRESSING FOR DATES OR A SEXUAL OR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP IS ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

BONNIE: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING AS YOU FOLLOWED THE CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD TESTIMONY IN THE SENATE, ABOUT HAVING BEEN ESSENTIALLY BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, RAPED BY A YOUNGER, DRUNK COLLEGE STUDENT BRETT KAVANAUGH?

MS. HILL: I ABSOLUTELY THOUGHT THAT THE DECK WAS STACKED AGAINST HER FROM THE BEGINNING.

SHE HAD NO PLACE THAT SHE KNEW OF HOW TO REPORT THE BEHAVIOR DURING THE TIME LEADING UP TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING.

SHE WAS BLAMED IN FACT FOR GOING TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN ABOUT THAT.

THAT WAS USED AGAINST HER, EVEN THOUGH THE SENATE HAD NO PROCESS, AND I KEEP COMING BACK TO THE PROCESS, AND IT IS IMPORTANT, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF HOW IT FAILED ME OR NOT JUST BECAUSE OF HOW IT FAILED CHRISTINE BLASEY FORWARD, BUT BECAUSE IT IS A REFLECTION ON OUR GOVERNMENT'’’S ABILITY TO ADDRESS THIS POLICY IN A FAIR WAY.

WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLAINTS COME FORWARD, THERE IS STILL NO PROCESS AS FAR AS I KNOW IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD.

EVEN MORE SO, IT IS ALSO A REFLECTION OF SOME OF THE MANY FLAWED PROCESSES THAT INDIVIDUALS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

BONNIE: SO LET'’’S TALK ABOUT THAT PROCESS.

WHAT SHOULD IT BE, AND WHAT SHOULD IT BE FOR A WOMAN WHO IS NOT GOING BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY $2.14 AN HOUR WOMAN WHO WAITS TABLES IN A BAR IN LOUISIANA -- WHAT SHOULD BE THE PROCESS FOR EVERYONE FROM THAT WOMAN UP TO YOUR SITUATION?

MS. HILL: IN THE BEGINNING, THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS.

YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT COVERED BY ANY PROCESSES AT ALL.

MAYBE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ARE LESS THAN WHAT THE ACT COVERS.

THEY COULD BE GIG WORKERS.

THEY COULD BE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYEES AT ALL.

THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE NO PROCESSES AT ALL, BUT IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A PROCESS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THAT THE PROCESS HAS TO BE CLEAR.

IT HAS TO BE MADE EVIDENT TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE WORKING IN A WORKFORCE, AND THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESSIBILITY.

ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT I GET , AND I'’’VE DONE RESEARCH ON THIS AT THE HOLLYWOOD COMMISSION, IS THAT THE PROCESSES ARE SO REMOTE , AND ONE NEVER KNOWS WHEN YOU ENTER THE PROCESS EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT.

YOU DON'’’T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO INVESTIGATE YOUR CLAIM, IF THERE WILL BE AN INVESTIGATION.

THEY DON'’’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THE PROCESS IS GOING TO PROCEED, AND YOU ARE LEFT WITH DOUBT BECAUSE -- AND THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING I FOUND -- MOSTLY PEOPLE BELIEVE IF YOU ARE COMPLAINING AGAINST A POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL, THERE WILL BE NO ACCOUNTABILITY, THAT THAT $2.14 AN HOUR RESTAURANT WORKER WILL BE SEEN AS EXPENDABLE, WHEREAS IF YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE TOP CHEF, THAT PERSON IS NOT EXPENDABLE.

IT IS A COMBINATION OF CLARITY AND FAIRNESS AND ACCESSIBILITY, BUT IT IS ALSO A QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN YOU FIND THERE HAS BEEN WRONGDOING.

BONNIE: TELL ME HOW YOU THINK THAT PROCESS SHOULD WORK.

SHOULD THERE BE A CENTRAL LOCATION?

WHAT SHOULD THE PATH OF ACCOUNTABILITY BE?

MS. HILL: THE PATH OF ACCOUNTABILITY SHOULD NOT EVEN START WITH THE EEOC.

THAT IS WHY I SAY IT HAS TO BE CLEAR.

IT HAS TO BE AVAILABLE.

THERE HAVE TO BE PEOPLE EDUCATED ABOUT THE PROCESS BY THE EMPLOYER, SO THAT IS THE FIRST THING, AND THERE HAS TO BE SOME ASSURANCE BASED ON BEHAVIOR THAT THERE WILL BE ACCOUNTABILITY IF YOU ACCESS THAT PROCESS.

THAT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A FULL INVESTIGATION THAT IS NOT LIMITING, THAT THE INVESTIGATION INCLUDES CONTEXT OF THE BEHAVIOR, THAT IT IS WELL STATED, MADE PUBLIC, NOT BEHIND SOME SCREEN THAT PEOPLE CANNOT ACCESS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT SITTING IN FRONT OF A COMPUTER ALL THE TIME IN YOUR JOB BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING AT A DESK.

THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF WAYS.

TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT A PROCESS SHOULD BE WILL DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WORK THAT PEOPLE ARE IN.

BONNIE: WHAT IS THE APPEAL IF YOU GO TO YOUR EMPLOYER AND YOU ARE BLOWN OFF -- YOU KNOW, IT GOES THROUGH SOME SHAM PROCESS, AND IT GOES NOWHERE?

DO YOU GO TO THE POLICE, TO THE FBI?

WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP?

MS. HILL: THE NEXT STEP -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WORKPLACE HARASSMENT, IT CAN VARY.

IF THERE IS A SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW, YOU CAN GO TO POLICE.

YOU CAN GO TO THE POLICE FROM THE BEGINNING.

IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT, YOU CAN GO TO YOUR STATE AGENCY, YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCY, AND THEY USUALLY ARE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE EEOC OR YOU CAN GO DIRECTLY TO THE EEOC IF THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

ONCE AGAIN, WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE IN THAT PROCESS IS, REALLY, AN AGENCY THAT RIGOROUSLY ENFORCES AND PRIORITIZES WHAT IS CLAIMED AS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION.

BONNIE: SO THESE LOCALITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IF IT IS AN ISSUE OF COUNTY LAW OR STATE LAW -- THAT IS STILL AN AWFUL LOT OF LAWS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PASSED TO GET THIS PROCESS AVAILABLE IN EVERY LOCATION IN THE U.S., CORRECT?

>> WELL, THE WAY THE EEOC WORKS IN THE WAY IT WORKS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT ARRANGEMENTS, IF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IS HIGH ENOUGH, THE EEOC WOULD FUNCTION AS THE AGENCY TO GO TO.

THERE MAY BE SUPPLEMENTAL LAWS WITH STATES, BUT THE EEOC IS THE GO TO ORGANIZATION FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE WORKERS WHO ARE EMPLOYEES IN THIS COUNTRY, SO IF THERE ARE OTHER WORKERS, OTHER TYPE OF WORKERS, CONTRACTORS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE GIG WORKERS, THAN THERE ARE LAWS THAT MIGHT COVER THEM.

THERE MIGHT BE STATE LAWS.

THERE MIGHT BE CITIES, LOCAL LAWS THAT MIGHT COVER THEIR SITUATION.

WHAT I'’’M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THE PROBLEM IS BIG ENOUGH THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED ASKING IF THERE WILL BE TOO MANY LAWS TO COVER THAT.

THE PROBLEM IS BIG ENOUGH THAT WE SHOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST, WHATEVER IT TAKES, AND THAT SHOULD PROBABLY ULTIMATELY INVOLVE COORDINATION BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT WE ARE NOT THERE YET.

WE HAVE NOT PUT THE SYSTEM TOGETHER.

WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL POLICIES.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SYSTEMS THAT NEED TO BE IN PLACE TO ADDRESS JUST THE PROBLEM OF HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE, AND YOU HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTEN INTO THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND THE LOW RATE OF CONVICTIONS, NOT ONLY LOW RATE OF CONVICTIONS, BUT EVEN IN SEXUAL ASSAULT IS -- EVEN WHEN SEXUAL ASSAULT OR RAPE IS REPORTED TO POLICE, THERE IS A LOW RATE OF INVESTIGATIONS.

THERE IS A LOW RATE OF REFERRAL, OF COMPLAINTS TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

THEN THERE IS AN EVEN LOWER RATE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCEPTING THE CASE AND PUTTING THE CASE BEFORE A JURY.

THERE ARE SOMETIMES JUDGES THAT INTERVENE EVEN AFTER A JURY DECISION HAS BEEN RAISED, AS RECENTLY HAPPENED IN THE BILL COSBY CASE.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A COMPLEX SYSTEM, AND IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY.

THE PROBLEM IS COMPLEX, BUT WE HAVE TO START.

WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE URGENCY IS TO STOP THIS BEHAVIOR BECAUSE IT IS NOT ONLY HARMING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DIRECT VICTIMS.

IT IS HARMING FAMILIES.

IT IS HARMING COMMUNITIES.

IT IS HARMING, REALLY, OUR ENTIRE NATION, BUT SPECIFICALLY OUR INSTITUTIONS WHERE THIS BEHAVIOR IS HAPPENING.

BONNIE: DO YOU THINK BUT FOR ANITA HILL, THE ME TO MOVEMENT WOULD NOT HAVE STARTED?

MS. HILL: I THINK THE HEARINGS IN 1991 AND MY TESTIMONY WAS ONE CATALYST.

I THINK THERE WAS A MOMENTUM THAT BEGAN TO BUILD IN 1991 FROM FEMINISTS, FROM ORGANIZERS WHO PUT TOGETHER ADVOCACY EFFORTS, FROM STUDENTS WHO IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HAD BEEN HOPING FOR SAFER ENVIRONMENTS.

I THINK IT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF RESEARCHERS LIKE A WOMAN NAMED LOUISE FITZGERALD, WHO STUDIED THE TOPIC WELL BEFORE ANYONE WAS TALKING ABOUT IT IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, AND IT BUILT.

IT WAS SOMETHING THAT BUILT OVER THE YEARS.

SOCIAL MEDIA ALLOWED IT TO ERECT IN A WAY THAT I DON'’’T THINK ANYONE OF US EXPECTED, BUT WE'’’VE GOT TO TAKE ALL OF THAT ENERGY AND COME TOGETHER WITH SOLUTIONS .

WHAT THOSE SOLUTIONS ARE IS NOT CLEAR.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS THAT SURVIVORS AND VICTIMS HAVE TO BE PART OF MAKING THEM, AND OUR LEADERSHIP HAS TO FOLLOW.

BONNIE: LASTLY, DO YOU THINK THE #METOO MOVEMENT, AS LARGE AS IT WAS, AS MUCH PUBLICITY AS IT HAS GOTTEN -- DO YOU THINK IT HAS HAD LASTING EFFECT, EVEN JUST IN HOLLYWOOD?

I HAVE BEEN TOLD THE CASTING COUCH MENTALITY HAS NOT GONE AWAY.

MS. HILL: OH, THAT HAS NOT GONE AWAY COMPLETELY.

THAT IS A CULTURAL ASPECT WE ARE WORKING TO ATTEMPT TO REVERSE, AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE COMING INTO THE HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY WHO ARE RESISTING THAT, BUT HISTORY IS HARD TO UNDO, AND THAT PART OF THE CULTURE IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY OVERNIGHT OR IN THE SPAN OF THREE OR FOUR YEARS, BUT THAT IS NOT TO EXCUSE ANY OF US FROM ACTING NOW AND DOING WHATEVER WE CAN IN OUR POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES BECOME HISTORY, A DEAD HISTORY, NOT AN ONGOING LEGACY.

BONNIE: PROFESSOR ANITA HILL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING ON AND TALKING TO US ABOUT YOUR NEW BOOK, "BELIEVING."

BEST OF LUCK TO YOU WITH THAT.

THAT IS IT FOR "TO THE CONTRARY."

PLEASE, LET'’’S CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ON FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, TWITTER, AND OUR WEBSITE, WWW.

PBS.ORG.

AND IF YOU AGREE OR THINK TO THE CONTRARY, PLEASE JOIN US NEXT TIME.

FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR TO SEE AN ONLINE VERSION OF THIS EPISODE OF "TO THE CONTRARY," PLEASE VISIT OUR PBS WEBSITE AT PBS.ORG/TOTHE