Anita Hill Part 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-02-2007, 06:53 PM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Anita Hill Part 2

Now that Justice Thomas has seen fit to attack her in his new book, she has written this-and I believe she did an interview with GMA. And today we had the verdict in the Isaiah Thomas sexual harassment case...


October 2, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor, NY Times
The Smear This Time
By ANITA HILL

Waltham, Mass.

ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I stand by my testimony.

Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.

In the portion of his book that addresses my role in the Senate hearings into his nomination, Justice Thomas offers a litany of unsubstantiated representations and outright smears that Republican senators made about me when I testified before the Judiciary Committee — that I was a “combative left-winger” who was “touchy” and prone to overreacting to “slights.” A number of independent authors have shown those attacks to be baseless. What’s more, their reports draw on the experiences of others who were familiar with Mr. Thomas’s behavior, and who came forward after the hearings. It’s no longer my word against his.

Justice Thomas’s characterization of me is also hobbled by blatant inconsistencies. He claims, for instance, that I was a mediocre employee who had a job in the federal government only because he had “given it” to me. He ignores the reality: I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale Law School (his alma mater, which he calls one of the finest in the country), and passed the District of Columbia Bar exam, one of the toughest in the nation.

In 1981, when Mr. Thomas approached me about working for him, I was an associate in good standing at a Washington law firm. In 1991, the partner in charge of associate development informed Mr. Thomas’s mentor, Senator John Danforth of Missouri, that any assertions to the contrary were untrue. Yet, Mr. Thomas insists that I was “asked to leave” the firm.

It’s worth noting, too, that Mr. Thomas hired me not once, but twice while he was in the Reagan administration — first at the Department of Education and then at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After two years of working directly for him, I left Washington and returned home to Oklahoma to begin my teaching career.

In a particularly nasty blow, Justice Thomas attacked my religious conviction, telling “60 Minutes” this weekend, “She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed.” Perhaps he conveniently forgot that he wrote a letter of recommendation for me to work at the law school at Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa. I remained at that evangelical Christian university for three years, until the law school was sold to Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Va., another Christian college. Along with other faculty members, I was asked to consider a position there, but I decided to remain near my family in Oklahoma.

Regrettably, since 1991, I have repeatedly seen this kind of character attack on women and men who complain of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In efforts to assail their accusers’ credibility, detractors routinely diminish people’s professional contributions. Often the accused is a supervisor, in a position to describe the complaining employee’s work as “mediocre” or the employee as incompetent. Those accused of inappropriate behavior also often portray the individuals who complain as bizarre caricatures of themselves — oversensitive, even fanatical, and often immoral — even though they enjoy good and productive working relationships with their colleagues.

Finally, when attacks on the accusers’ credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers’ versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or “slights” that should be dismissed without discussion.

Fortunately, we have made progress since 1991. Today, when employees complain of abuse in the workplace, investigators and judges are more likely to examine all the evidence and less likely to simply accept as true the word of those in power. But that could change. Our legal system will suffer if a sitting justice’s vitriolic pursuit of personal vindication discourages others from standing up for their rights.

The question of whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the Supreme Court is no longer on the table — it was settled by the Senate back in 1991. But questions remain about how we will resolve the kinds of issues my testimony exposed. My belief is that in the past 16 years we have come closer to making the resolution of these issues an honest search for the truth, which, after all, is at the core of all legal inquiry. My hope is that Justice Thomas’s latest fusillade will not divert us from that path.

Anita Hill, a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University, is a visiting scholar at the Newhouse Center for the Humanities at Wellesley College.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 06:57 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:55 AM
I have never been impressed by Justice Thomas

and with this last round
he manages to lower my opinion of him.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:06 AM   #3
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 10:55 AM
I saw parts of the 60 Minutes interview with him on Sunday. He came across as quite smug, something that failed to improve my already low opinion of him.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:45 AM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Well he's the typical harasser who makes himself the victim by attacking the victim-and after all this time he really shouldn't do that, it just makes him look worse.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 11:57 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:55 PM
I've never liked Justice Thomas, either.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:29 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Well he's the typical harasser who makes himself the victim by attacking the victim-and after all this time he really shouldn't do that, it just makes him look worse.
I think he was exonerated by his confirmation, unlike the fellow below who you give a pass to based on his polictical beliefs.

Face it, the Clarence Thomas hearings were polictical theater, and you guys lost-miserably.




dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:30 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:55 AM

I don't give a pass to him at all-give it up
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:47 PM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


I think he was exonerated by his confirmation, unlike the fellow below who you give a pass to based on his polictical beliefs.


but this is so weird. the cases aren't comparable.

are both men way sleazy? yes, absolutely.

the difference is that Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment, whereas Monica engaged in a consensual affair with Clinton and they were ratted out by Linda Tripp.

i know it's hard to understand, but it's possible to disapprove of the behavior of both men while at the same time understanding the differences between the two cases.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:52 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:55 AM
One had one accuser.

The other had many, though never actually charged of harrassment, what brought him down was his own wrecklesness.

One was exonerated, the other was impeached.

It's not rocket science, and you guys lost in the long run.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:54 PM   #10
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
One had one accuser.

The other had many, though never actually charged of harrassment, what brought him down was his own wrecklesness.

One was exonerated, the other was impeached.

It's not rocket science, and you guys lost in the long run.

dbs

who's competing, what's the game, and who are the players?

i had no idea that you viewed sexual harassment as some kind of "gotcha" sport.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:57 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but this is so weird. the cases aren't comparable.

are both men way sleazy? yes, absolutely.

the difference is that Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment, whereas Monica engaged in a consensual affair with Clinton and they were ratted out by Linda Tripp.

i know it's hard to understand, but it's possible to disapprove of the behavior of both men while at the same time understanding the differences between the two cases.
Damn. You beat me to it. What Clinton did was wrong. I don't think anyone would dispute that infidelity is immoral. As Irvine said, Monica Lewinsky gladly engaged in an affair with the president. He broke his marriage vows, which we can all agree is wrong, but that doesn't violate anyone's right to exercise control over their own body and sexuality. Subjecting someone to unwelcome and unwanted sexual advances is also wrong. That is a different story in terms of criminal activity because it is a violation of one's control over his or her body and sexuality. This is an elementary point. I don't see how anyone could connect the two.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:57 PM   #12
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,335
Local Time: 10:55 AM
can we all just agree that isiah thomas should be made to go away? please?
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 01:08 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
One had one accuser.

The other had many, though never actually charged of harrassment, what brought him down was his own wrecklesness.

One was exonerated, the other was impeached.

It's not rocket science, and you guys lost in the long run.

dbs
As you said, Clinton was never charged. There was never any evidence of harassment ever taking place on his part, other than women saying, in effect, "He touched me, and I didn't want him to." I could say that about my boss tomorrow if I felt like it. It doesn't make it true, unless I have evidence to back it up.

Evidence like this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...rick022599.htm

would not hold up in court. I'm not sure how much I can believe someone who can't even remember the day or month of the "most horrific event of her life."
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 01:09 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Clarence Thomas is bitter, but on top of that, he's not a very good Justice either.

And the fact that certain people will post pictures of Clinton on every single bloody thread got old about 896 threads ago. And the fact they can't distinguish this case from that one signals a serious deficiency in critical thinking skills.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 01:14 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



who's competing, what's the game, and who are the players?

i had no idea that you viewed sexual harassment as some kind of "gotcha" sport.
you guys, the polictians on the left that tried to crucify Justice Thomas ( due to his conservative values) who failed and those that have since turned the Supreme Court confirmation into a blood sport-( if the appointee has conservative values).

It's strange that when a person on the left has reams of evidence against him of being a sexual predator or harrasser, the Left polictians are silent, they go ostrich and are no where to be found.

Behavior like this screams hypocrisy.

dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com