WASHINGTON (AP) ― The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas called Anita Hill to ask her to apologize for accusing the justice of sexually harassing her, 19 years after Thomas' confirmation hearing spawned a national debate about harassment in the workplace.Um... Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Isn't it time you apologized for lying" isn't what I would call an "olive branch". Now, I watched the hearings as they happened live (including one of the funniest exchanges ever seen on C-Span between Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy over Teddy accusing Thomas of being immoral). Hill's testimony was certainly as credible as that of Juanita Broadrick or Paula Jones; obvious who was "believable" in the eyes of the media is a subject of some debate.
Virginia Thomas said in a statement Tuesday that she was "extending an olive branch" to Hill, now a Brandeis University professor, in a voicemail message left over the weekend.
Whether Thomas actually sexually harassed Hill or merely acted like a boor is a subject of intense debate; the fact that Hill followed Thomas from the DOE to the EEOC casts some doubt as to the harassment claim. Hill was the only person to testify at the confirmation hearings; several others provided statements of Thomas' actions, some claiming he acted weirdly, others saying it might be harassment, others not. Given the malleable nature of sexual harassment itself, it's entirely possible that he did harass Hill; there's certainly enough corroboration that something happened that the subject can't simply be closed.
It's puzzling why, after nearly two decades, there would be a call for an apology. If Hill was indeed harassed, she's not about to apologize for speaking out; conversely, if she not harassed but simply put up to the accusations for political purposes, she's not about to admit to that some 19 years down the road. It's hard to see what possible gain there would be for Thomas to dredge the scandal back up - even if Hill did admit that she made the whole thing up, Thomas was confirmed and has been seated since 1991. It's hard to see what possible motivation Virginia Thomas has for pushing this issue at this time.
Then again, who knows why anyone in Washington does anything they do?
That is all.
5 comments:
Hill followed Thomas from the DOE to the EEOC casts some doubt as to the harassment claim.
Not necessarily true. Several years ago I was sexually harrassed by my boss - and I followed him from one job to another.
In these kinds of cases, at the heart is a person with tremendous charisma who breaks you down and re-builds you back up - making u think they are the only person who believes in you. Even though you know in the back of your mind that there is something wrong with how you are being treated, the pull of approval is too hard to ignore.
Just because Anita Hill left one job to follow Thomas to another doesn't automatically make her a liar. It just means that it's possible she was under the thrall of a powerful man with tremendous charisma and influence.
So he was either a harasser OR a boor? No third choice?
Kris,
Hence the "casts some doubt" rather than "renders it moot".
T-bolt,
Well, I suppose she could be making it up entirely, but the general consensus on Thomas - from friend and foe alike - was that this story fit his M.O. at that time period.
Is it possible? Absolutely. Hill's accusations came out of nowhere in a last-ditch effort to derail the appointment. They offered no corroborating voices at the confirmation hearings, and as a result the "he-said/she-said" nature of the accusations did not prevent Thomas from being confirmed.
In any case, it's pretty bizarre that, absent some form of new evidence pointing to Hill lying, that Thomas would bring this up now, some 19 years later...
I'm wondering why the FBI was called for her leaving this message on the answering machine. Was there some sort of threat involved? Was there a restraining order broken? Doesn't make sense.
I have read books on both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Anita Hill was a blatant opportunist and a liar...
Post a Comment