Anita Hill Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,245
Location
Edge's beanie closet
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.
 
I have never been impressed by Justice Thomas :down:

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

whichisit.JPG
clinton&lewinsky.jpg

clintonlies.gif


dbs
 
diamond said:


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.
 
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 said:
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 said:




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.:wink: 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.
 
diamond said:
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/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.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."
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Irvine511 said:



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
 
Last edited:
diamond said:


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

dbs

Again, what are the reams of "evidence" other than, "He touched me, here's my story."? Saying something does not equal it being truth. Also, when one claims to be conservative, and pro-family values and morality; people are a lot less likely to be understanding when they're found to be doing the same type of activity they rail against. Sexual immorality is sexual immorality, but I never heard Bill Clinton claiming to be Mr. Morality like so many conseravative politicians imply and sometimes outright state.
 
anitram said:
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.

Well, you single out Diamond for his alleged 'serious deficiency in critical thinking skills' but Mrs Springsteen's rush to judgement seemingly doesn't trouble you (refresh our memory there Mrs S, what court of law was Clarence Thomas convicted in?)

I just think it's interesting, and it shows the institutional bias on FYM yet again.
 
anitram said:
he's not a very good Justice either.

And the fact they can't distinguish this case from that one signals a serious deficiency in critical thinking skills.

Most Americans would disagree with you paticularily African Americans.

I can distinguish between the 2 cases and have, pointed out the differences, and how they can also relate.

He and Condo Rice are 2 of the most respected Afrcan Americans by African Americans in our country not withstanding your snarky remarks.

dbs
 
diamond said:


Wasn't needed, his wreckless behavior eventually caught up to him-and his was impeached because of it.

dbs

His reckless behavior that was exposed and found to be true was a consensual sexual affair!:banghead: This woman (from the Clinton article) claims harassment, ergo any sexual encounter would have been non-consensual on her part. In a court of law it would've been a completely separate case. Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for having an affair with another person who entered into the relationship willingly. That's not illegal, it's immoral. You can't prosecute immorality in a court of law. What is so difficult to understand about that?
 
Last edited:
U2isthebest said:


His reckless behavior that was exposed and found to be true was a consensual sexual affair!:banghead: This woman claims harassment, ergo any sexual encounter would have been non-consensual on her part. In a court of law it would've been a completely separate case. Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for having an affair with another person who entered into the relationship willingly. That's not illegal, it's immoral. You can't prosecute immorality in a court of law. What is so difficult to understand about that?

I'm pointing out that his continual womanizing, harrassing of women and perjurious testimony were all reckless, and led to his overall eventual dimise, unlike Judge Thomas.

dbs
 
diamond said:


I'm pointing out that his continual womanizing, harrassing of women and perjurious testimony were all reckless, and led to his overall eventual dimise, unlike Judge Thomas.

dbs

Let's see, Clinton was not impeached by the Senate, thereby not losing his presidency. He left office with a 65% approval rating, higher than any president since World War II ended. He's continued to do good work throughout the world through CGI and is still loved and esteemed by many Americans as one of our best presidents. How does that equal "demise" to you, other than your own personal dislike of him?

I also just wanted to say, that although I don't agree with this statement, I now understand where you were coming from with the "reckless" point, so thank you for clearing that up.:up:
 
Last edited:
U2isthebest said:


Let's see, Clinton was not impeached by the Senate, thereby not losing his presidency. He left office with a 65% approval rating, higher than any president since World War II ended. He's continued to do good work throughout the world through CGI and is still loved and esteemed by many Americans as one of our best presidents. How does that equal "demise" to you, other than your own personal dislike of him?

He was impeached by Congress also lost his law license in Ark, because of his recklessness.

That a person has the approval of the world, doesnt make him above reproach, some choose to look at a person's character, esp a world leader.

If you want to defend him because he has a high popularity rating, I find that rather sad, but you go ahead and knock yourself out.

dbs
 
diamond said:


He was impeached by Congress also lost his law license in Ark, because of his recklessness.

That a person has the approval of the world, doesnt make him above reproach, some choose to look at a person's character, esp a world leader.

If you want to defend him because he has a high popularity rating, I find that rather sad, but you go ahead and knock yourself out.

dbs

Piety doesn't look good on anyone. Personally, I try never to judge someone by their approval from others. That, in itself, isn't worth shit to me. I personally believe that Clinton realized his mistake, fixed it, admitted it, and has moved on. He says he is right with God, and with his wife and daughter. That is enough for me. However, you used the word "demise". Maybe it was just our wires getting crossed, but that doesn't equate to the matters of a person's heart to me. Demise has always signalled a destruction of a person's career, family, and/or "outer" life, which includes approval from people. Maybe you have a different view, which is fine. Seeing, as I view the word differently, I felt that was you said was incorrect, based on the statistics I posted. Clinton's flaws and weaknesses, which I agree with you on, at least in terms of sexual behavior, may have damaged his heart and spirit, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a tremendous president (for those who agree with his policies) and that he is a brilliant, compassionate man who has done a lot of good in the world, even moreso since leaving office.
 
financeguy said:


Well, you single out Diamond for his alleged 'serious deficiency in critical thinking skills' but Mrs Springsteen's rush to judgement seemingly doesn't trouble you (refresh our memory there Mrs S, what court of law was Clarence Thomas convicted in?)

I just think it's interesting, and it shows the institutional bias on FYM yet again.

Why would her comment bother me? She is free to cast judgment on Thomas and on Clinton. This thread was about Thomas; she expressed her opinion. Is she supposed to include a preamble in which she declares similar opinions about Clinton, David Vitter and whoever else has a suspect sexual history??
 
U2isthebest said:
[B Demise has always signalled a destruction of a person's career, family, and/or "outer" life, which includes approval from people. Maybe you have a different view, which is fine.

. Clinton's flaws and weaknesses, which I agree with you on, at least in terms of sexual behavior, may have damaged his heart and spirit, . [/B]

I think damaging your family is the very worse thing a person can do, paticularly, the leader of the free world.

That Bill Clinton has stated since leaving office that he sees his impeachment as a "badge of honor" doesn't bode well for a "repentant" person as you claim he is.

I do appreciate some of the humanitarian work Clinton has done since leaving office.

I do feel that he his quite cognizant of how he hopes his public perception appears which is sad, and since I've read some of your posts and recognize "Christian" leanings in them, this verse reminds me of Bill Clinton:

Matt 16:26:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Am I condeming Bill Clinton? No.
Am I concerned about him a bit? Yes, but only a little, I have my own house to keep in order.

Cheers-

dbs
 
Back
Top Bottom