Anita Hill responds

Anita Hill has an editorial in the NYT today responding to Clarence Thomas' recent accusations stating she "will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me." She concludes with this....

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.

After reading a few days ago of Thomas' vitriol, I went back and read the transcripts of the 1991 hearings. (ugh) And here is one portion of Sen Specter questioning of Ms Hill which demonstrates what I recall vividly from the time .....that these men just did not understand sexual harrassment. I'd like to think we have made progress as Ms Hill writes but I suspect given similar circumstances Specter and others would be the same ignorant jackasses in 2007 as they were in 1991.

SEN. SPECTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

     Professor Hill, now that you have read the FBI report you can see that it contains no reference to any mention of Judge Thomas's private parts or sexual prowess or size, et cetera. And my question to you would be on something that is as important as it is in your written testimony and in your responses to Senator Biden, why didn't you tell the FBI about that?

MS. HILL:
Senator, in paragraph 2 on page 2 of the report it says that he liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex. And I'm not sure what all that summarizes, but his sexual prowess, his sexual preferences could have --

SEN. SPECTER:
Which line are you referring to, Professor?

      

MS. HILL:
The very last line in paragraph 2 of page 2.

SEN. SPECTER:
Well, that says, quote -- this is not too bad, I can read it -- "Thomas liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex," closed quote. Now are you saying in response to my question as to why you didn't tell the FBI about the size of his private parts and his sexual prowess and Long John Silver that that information was comprehended within the statement, quote, "Thomas liked to discuss specific sex acts and frequency of sex"?

MS. HILL:
I am not saying that that information was included in that. I don't know that it was. I don't believe that I even mentioned the latter information to the FBI agent. And I could only respond again that at the time of the investigation I tried to cooperate as fully as I could to recall information that -- to answer the questions that they asked.

      
SEN. SPECTER:
Professor Hill, you said that you took it to mean that Judge Thomas wanted to have sex with you, but in fact he never did ask you to have sex, correct?

MS. HILL:
No, he did not ask me to have sex. He did continually pressure me to go out with him, continually, and he would not accept my explanation as one as -- being valid.

SEN. SPECTER:
So that when you said you took it to mean we ought to have sex that that was an inference that you drew?

MS. HILL:
Yes, yes.

Specter then went on to one of his many other avenues of attack.

Comments

[paperpusher]

I think you're right on the we've-come-a-long-way (no thanks to Arlen). Just this last week, the Chron has been following the disciplining of Judge Kent in the Texas Southern District. This would never have happened in the 80's. Kent is as about as untouchable a judge as they have in this District.

[Kevin Hayden]

Based on my observations of the past decade of Republican scandals around sex, sexual identity, etc. I'm not sure they've yet gotten a grasp on what sex is, never mind harassment.

Whatever sex is, they're only certain that it's nasty, that it will bring hellfire and brimstone on the heads of those who practice it, unless you're married. And then, that legalizes rape.

And no, I don't mean this as snark. I really think that's how bizarre they truly are. And under those circumstances, the only harassment they can recognize is rape outside of marriage, so long as the woman is not provocatively dressed.

They remain a strange bunch.

[jp]

Thomas actually made quite an admission in that 60 minutes interview when he was smearing Anita Hill. When he was sleazily remarking about how Ms. Hill was not as "prim and proper" as she appeared to be in public (a disgusting remark, implying that since not "prim" she deserved to be harrassed) he added "let's just say she could defend herself."

DEFEND.

So, in other words, there was something going on against which she was defending.

And of course it's more insight into his sickeningly sexist world view. Like the woman who gets called a bitch for successfully fighting off a rapist.

[virgotex]

"ugh" is right. I think I need a shower with industrial grade brain bleach.

Based on my observations of the past decade of Republican scandals around sex, sexual identity, etc. I'm not sure they've yet gotten a grasp on what sex is, never mind harassment.

or domestic violence against women. There's a sickeningly large number of those folks who believe that DV survivor/victims should stay with their batterers so that the all-holy nuclear family remains intact.

[pansypoo]

i so hope he dies young.

[daveinboca]

Best comment I've seen yet on the Anita Hill controversy comes from G. Will:

"Anita Hill and her allies blazed the path subsequently trod by Crystal Gail Mangum and her fans in the university/media establishment in the Duke non-rape case last year."

But Thomas has an even better last word:

"Once I got on the Court, I vowed I would never do my job as poorly as journalists do theirs."

Bravo! You've risen far far above the abysmal bottom-feeding standards of ink-stained hacks & political media-whores like Hill. But this slacker and loo-zer has a perfesser job she'd never have gotten had she not sold her soul to left-wing racists---collectivists who hate blacks who think for themselves.

[paperpusher]

then why, daveinboca, does even Scalia doubt Thomas' constitutional bonafides, leaving aside the fact he is apparently very incurious, asking not one question during last year's oral arguments.

[Paul in LA]

Hill is wrong about Thomas' right to be on the bench. He, and Scalia and Kennedy, violated his reponsibility to recuse himself in Bush v. Gore.

The three of them need to be impeached for installing the coup, and none of the three deserves more respect than it takes to spit on them.

[donna]

Agreed, Paul - agreed.