The publication of Clarence Thomas' memoir will focus new attention on the controversy over who was telling the truth about Anita Hill's charge that he sexually harrassed her. To my mind, the most interesting aspect of this debate is the way in which nearly all conservatives seem to believe Thomas, while nearly all liberals believe Hill. The few exceptions are striking precisely because they are so unusual.
Since only Thomas and Hill themselves really know what happened with any certainty, this degree of polarization is striking. Nothing in conservative ideology precludes the possibility that individual conservatives might engage in boorish and morally reprehensible private behavior of the sort Thomas is accused of; similarly, liberal ideology does not deny the possibility that a person in Hill's position might lie for political gain. Given the murkiness of the underlying facts, unbiased observers would not split so sharply along ideological lines on this issue. You would expect to see at least some significant number of liberals who believe Thomas, some conservatives who believe Hill, and many in both camps who aren't sure who to believe.
Some of the polarization was probably just a matter of political posturing. Conservatives did not want to lose a valuable Supreme Court seat (as they might have, if Thomas' nomination had been defeated and President George H.W. Bush were forced to nominate a centrist or liberal replacement comparable to Souter or Anthony Kennedy). Liberals, of course, sought Thomas' defeat for similar reasons.
However, most of the polarization over Thomas-Hill probably wasn't feigned. It was instead a consequence of the all-too-common assumption that our ideological adversaries are not only wrong but also evil - or at least far more likely to be so than those who agree with us. If you believe that liberals are, on average, likely to be morally corrupt, then it would be rational for you to assume that a liberal is more likely to be lying than a conservative and thus to automatically believe Thomas over Hill even in the absence of clear proof. And vice versa if you hold the reverse view.
I have previously criticized the unthinking equation of political ideology with moral virtue here, in the context of explaining why many people are excessively hostile to the idea of dating someone with a different political ideology. The two situations are very different, but the same phenomenon may be at work in each case. Both blanket condemnation of cross-ideological dating and the Thomas-Hill polarization are in large part the result of our unhealthy tendency to equate ideological disagreement with moral depravity.
UPDATE: Various commenters point out that the Thomas-Hill polarization can be explained by the possibility that conservatives are, for ideological reasons, generally less inclined to believe accusations of sexual harrassment than liberals are. There is some truth to this. But it fails to account for the fact that, just a few years later, most conservatives tended to believe and most liberals denied Paula Jones' sexual harrassment accusations against Bill Clinton. In such politically charged cases, the ideology of the accuser and accused seems to determine ideologues' reactions far more than their general perceptions of sexual harrassment.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Controversy and Irrational Hatred of Ideological Adversaries:
- The Left's Strategic Mistake (?) Regarding Clarence Thomas:
Same thing with Anita Hill. First skepticism... then on hearing the case + the evidence, how can you help but think "all that on the basis of this".
Good try at being even handed and fair, but the issue isn't as irrational as you make it out to be.
On the other hand, I do recall several people asserting that her claims had to be true because women don't lie about such things. For these people, Hill should have received the benefit of any doubt.
Conservatives felt the burden of proof should be on the accuser. Liberals placed the burden of proof on the accused.
In traditional societies, including our own, rape and sexual abuse have been matters of shame for the victim. A large part of the feminist movement against rape and sexual abuse has been to convince women who have been raped that they should not be shamed: not only that they should not feel at fault for the abuse done to them, but that they should be willing to report it and seek support for the trauma of being raped.
However, this idea has not caught on in conservative circles. In part out of resistance to anything labeled "feminist" and in part out of a suspicion that women who are raped must have "asked for it" by their dress or conduct, conservatives have often been overtly hostile towards claims of rape or sexual abuse.
As a result, liberals are more likely to know if one of their acquaintances has been raped or sexually mistreated. Rape victims who travel in conservative circles are simply less likely to speak up about it.
And, as a consequence, conservatives (especially men) are likely to feel more distance and unawareness of what it means to a woman to be sexually mistreated. Liberals, and those exposed to feminist-inspired discussions of sexual abuse, harassment, and the like, are more likely to have a greater understanding of what these acts involve; of what sexual mistreatment feels like.
People are generally less sympathetic about problems they don't understand or are less aware of. They are more likely to misconstrue a report of harm as an exaggeration or even a lie if they simply do not know how that harm could possibly be a real harm.
Liberals have had the harm of sexual mistreatment rubbed in their faces (so to speak) by women who have learned from the feminist movement to speak openly about such things. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to react with shock and disbelief, simply because they haven't heard of sexual mistreatment from friends who have been victimized.
Consider the initial reactions to the accusations of sexual harassment against Bill Clinton. Certainly for liberals, it placed them in something of a bind because it seemed problematic to suggest that the accusers were lying.
When the accusations against clinton first came out republicans could have had three possible responses:
1) "they women are lying. bill clinton would never do such a thing because he is a good and honorable man"
2) "we should take the accusations seriously but reserve judgment until more evidence is available"
3) drop to their knees and say "o thank you lord for this gift you have given us" and use the accusations to vilify democrats and clinton for the next decade
The 1st response appears to be most consistent with the conservative response to hill's accusations. The third response would be the exact opposite. The second is my personal opinion of what the least partisan and proper response is.
Gee, I wonder which one conservatives chose?
Like the first commenter, I appreciate Somin's attempt to be evenhanded, but logic doesn't take you to evenhandedness in this case.
I'd cite, for instance, the accusations of rape leveled against Bill Clinton by Juanita Broderick which didn't get much traction--and appropriately so. Given what we know (or suspect) of Clinton's character, it isn't an unthinkable accusation, but it's too politically convenient and unverifiable to get worked up about.
So, the question to my mind is why was an even wilder accusation (given the nature of Thomas) made at an even more politically opportune time (10 years after the fact and during the confirmation process) given more weight than fair people give similar accusations?
I'm with Thomas on this one. Leaking the accusations, holding the televised hearings, etc amounted to a modern day lynching of a black man who dared to be "uppity" and have his own, non-approved thoughts. What's even more galling is that his enemies had the temerity to use the standard "over-sexed black man looks at the wrong woman" attack, straight from the darkest days of American history.
So she's testifying for Hill.
But then it has to be an imagined situation : sympathy _cannot fail_ unless the situation is dreamed up ; for only can sympathy fail to reach it.
What would be called for then would be sympathy for Hill's delusionary tendencies. That might have helped.
I dare say and will bet money that true liberals or conservatives would really want to know the truth and the facts of the matter before making the judgement.
The bitter divide created in our nation is the regrettable result of partisan actions started with hounding of Clintons and still continues..
That response was ruled out for anyone who didn't have ideological reasons to chose it, because we already had independent confirmation that Clinton was not a "good and honorable" man. We already knew he was a cad, the only question being in how many ways.
Liberals were, as it happens, also in such a position with regards to Thomas, because they regard not being a liberal as conclusive evidence of moral turpitude. The only difference being that in Clinton's case, the evidence of moral turpitude was less polically loaded.
it seems mere speculation. do you have any data to support it?
fwiw, i have plenty of anecdotal data that says its utter rubbish.
im conservative (in a libertarian sense), i know several people who have been sexually assaulted, and it is hardly an uncommon thing among my "ilk".
furthermore, i have investigated dozens of sex assaults. the reason conservatives are cynical to some extent is because they don't buy into the false ideological myth that 'women don't lie about rape'
people lie about EVERYTHING.
as dershowitz (and I) have pointed out, rape is simultaneously the most under and overreported crime (due to false reports)
ask anybody who has investigated sex assaults with any PD.
as for hill, she may have been telling the truth, but the facts in general were not very compelling to put it mildly
I am a guy with no law degree ( degree in other field) but if I try to guess how Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia or Alito will vote on any particular issue I will be batting about 90 per cent accuracy.
So what is the big mystique on being a supreme court justice. For all of their knowledge and intrigue, most of us can guess how they will vote on any issue. It is simple politics.
Just think, how would the idiot in WH vote on this particular issue, and you will be right on.
Sashal, given that Scalia and Thomas and Alito don't agree with each other 90% of the time in non-unanimous cases, I fail to see how your "WWGWBD" test would be as accurate as you claim.
I've heard liberals say that women don't lie about rape. I just don't know where that comes from - it seems dumb. Maybe it's a generational thing.
I was too young for Hill v. Thomas so I can't comment on that. (I was just old enough for the whole coke thing to be hysterical.)
I'm no conservative, a hard core libertarian actually. And it appeared to me, based on watching the hearings at the time, that her story didn't make sense. And certainly when the Clinton episode came up I was not particularly bothered by his actions but I found the hypocrisy fascinating. It was said that what he and women did in private was their own business by some of the same people who were out to get Thomas. By the way I've not been greatly impressed by Thomas and didn't see myself as a major supporter of his.
If you look at the femblogs ref the Duke case, you'll see many discussions morphing off to the question of false accusations, of false accusations of rape necessarily treated differently than other false accusations, that anybody who wants to penalize false accusations must be wanting to make rape legal.
For libs and feminists, the entire subject is tortured into incomprehensibility. The eventual upshot is that, as Brodhead said of the laxers, "Whatever they did was bad enough.", and as Nifong said, "Something happened." And that talking about false rape accusations is savaging rape victims.
And, in order to punch up the numbers, anything anybody can think of to object to is made to seem, quite literally, as "rape". When caught at such nonsense, the proponents retreat to some metaphysical equivalence.
Even if Thomas had been guilty of talking dirty at the office, it strains the imagination to think that a strong, independent woman could be brought low by such sophomoric nonsense. But that, too, is contestable. Women are supposed to be strong and independent, until being weak and frail is more useful--see Larry Summers.
From what I heard of others discussing the situation, the whole thing was seen as a proxy for feminists playing the harassment game, yet again, for gain. Even if Hill had been telling the truth, there was so much baggage trailing along as to make her unsympathetic.
Within a year, however, broader opinion polls that included people who had not watched the hearings showed a shift toward believing Hill. What Happened? No new evidence surfaced. But there were numerous media reports about campus and other public appearances by Hill, with sympathetic quotes from NOW and similar organizations. There was no blogosphere, talk radio had not taken off, and there was no recent Duke Lacrosse-type case highlighting the susceptibility of the news media to largely uncritical acceptance of false accusations. A sitting Supreme Court Justice simply had no means by which to recount his side.
Prof. Somin is correct that opinions today about the Thomas/Hill conflict tend to follow ideological lines. But these opinions have almost all been formed on the basis of secondary reports, not on the actual testimony. The opinions being expressed are judgments about the credibility of these secondary sources. It is unsurprising that such opinions about the credibility of the media would break along partisan lines. Note, too, that the degree of confidence most people express about media credibility is quite low. We believe that trial by jury is superior to trial by public opinion polls.
Most people are not driven by passionate political beliefs. I suspect rather strongly that if a random sample of people were to watch the actual Hill/Thomas testimony again, a significant majority would still come away believing Thomas.
At least the Republicans are better at house cleaning than the demoncrats
I remember thinking the same thing I thought about the Clinton fiasco. All this time and effort and that's all you got?
I suppose you could say Hill was discounted, but the grounds were not specious. The burden of proof is upon the accuser and the accuser was doing exactly what many had done before--without being based in truth--and the supporters were clearly partisan.
Given no direct information save the testimony (Hill's unsupported except by some friends whose testimony was ephemeral), we are forced to look elsewhere for information regarding credibility.
It could be said liberals believed her based on specious grounds. Ten years. Media leak. Faked political leanings. No contemporaneous evidence. Followed him to another job. Passing over those red flags in order to reach a politically and ideologically desired result can look specious, as well.
Hill's story started to make less sense when she started filling in the details, just as the left decided to push it the hardest-- and I got the feeling that most of the supporters were in it to stop Thomas.
Support, the belief of Clinton's story about "is", and the fact that Time's White House Reporter admitted she didn't care if he was lying and in fact would have oral sex with him herself to thank him for his abortion efforts.
Allegations surfaced: November 1992
Bob Packwood resigned: Late 1995
Cause of resignation: pressure from Senate ethics committee and liberal interest groups (specifically NOW).
Senate was controlled at the time by? Democrats.
Not knowing history? Priceless?
Using the word demoncrats in a diatribe where you get the facts wrong? Mastercard.
If it "started with hounding of Clintons", then why are we talking about a sexual harrassment claim and bitter partisan division that happened before Clinton was elected president? I think this is antoher example of the bias that Ilya is talking about in ignoring all evidence that makes liberals look bad.
I am a conservative who was at first skeptical of Paula Jones and Hill. But the accusations againat Clinton just kept coming and included physical evidence, while with Hill you had the lone accuser with no other evidence. The Lewinsky scandal confirmed with DNA that Clinton was willing to have sex with subordinates and that he was willing to lie about it, even under oath. With Hill there is only her one accusation with nothing to back it up and no proof that Thomas ever lied. On the other hand, I do not think anyone is skeptical anymore that Clinton is a womanizer even if they do not believe particular individual's claims.
First, IRT the Anita Hill controversy- I vaguely remember, at the time, believing her to be more credible. I also believed that the testimony, while damaging, by itself (and with no corroboration) was insufficient to block his nomination. Unless someone has committed *very bad acts* (which serial sexual harrassment would be), and those acts can be proven, I am more interested in judicial philosophy than the personal lives or pornography-watching habits of the justices.
That said, up until this point, I have believed that J. Thomas is a very good Justice who I think is completely wrong on many issues of constitutional interpretation (this is a normative belief). I do think he injects some academic rigor in other areas (statutory interpretation) and I appreciate the fact that he is willing to re-examine areas of the law that have gone awry (PorI v. Subst. Due Process- though I believe he wishes to do so for reasons other than I would).
The simmering resentment he, IMHO, appears to display in the excerpts reported in his book and in his interview do a disservice to his jurisprudence. Now I no longer feel that he is acting out of principle, but out of antagonism. If the results are the same, does it matter if the reason is principle or a big FU?
I think it does. At least as far as my opinion goes. YMMV.
I was not aware of that fact. My recollection is that nearly every Senator who voted against confirmation of Thomas said that they were giving him the benefit of the doubt on the sexual harassment issue, but that they thought he was otherwise not the best person to sit on the Supreme Court.
Yeah, just like they have jumped all over David Vitter for consorting with prositutes. He has admitted to one incident and has denied (i.e., is lying about) another.
Thank you for my morning chuckle. Between this and the "demoncrats" guy it's been a funny morning.
As for Hill and Thomas, nothing I can say here is going to convince anybody of anything.
There is still a huge gap between being a womanizer, even one who takes advantage of his position, and a serial rapist. There is no doubt that Clinton has serious problems with keeping it in his pants (and which I find reprehensible), but the more wild accusations of forcible rape which the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world revel in and so many on the right accept as gospel (not to mention the dozens of contract murders including close advisors and cabinet members) depict Clinton as some kind of depraved monster for which there is very little evidence.
The most interesting outcome of the whole flap, in my opinion, has nothing to do with Thomas. The news coverage got everyone talking about the sexual harassment issue. I recall hearing elderly women in supermarket lines talking about things that had happened to them in the 1940s.
The issue got oversold for a while because there was a huge backlog of undiscussed grievances among women (and not discussing this stuff was the norm at the time), but I think the debate has swung back to a more reasonable point. Now we know that a lot of things happen, but we also know that not every accusation is true. I doubt that it would be possible to stir up this same hornet's nest again. It would probably have to be same-sex harassment to get the same degree of attention.
I think one can say the same about any "controversial issue."
Maybe it's just my personality, in that I like to argue and it's a rare position I won't give some ground on, but there's little that scares me more than people who approach every issue by deciding what their position is and then only seeking to confirm it, and discounting any evidence that disconfirms it.
Now maybe on that last point, that the involvement of organizations like NOW and other very liberal or radical feminist groups could cause me to doubt Hill's credibility, put me in the "conservative" camp that allows its judgment to be colored by the political views of one side or the other. That does not mean that I consider all liberals (or radical feminists, or other groups with whom I disagree, including the religious right) to be evil. However, I do not think its inappropriate to judge the credibility of a group like NOW (or PETA, or MoveOn.org, or Family First, or the Intelligent Design movement, etc.) based upon what I judge to be a very poor record for candor and honesty.
I think you got the conservative case against Clinton wrong. For most conservatives, it was the hypocrisy (and criminality) of how he addressed the accusation, rather than a deep conviction that the accusation had to be true.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! I wonder if I'm the only one who sees how hilariously ironic this statement is, as it's posted on the Conspiracy.
When I first discovered this site a long time ago, I said "wow, what a great site. A smart, well-educated, attorney-dominated crowd. Where there will be honest debate about issues that affect us all as Americans." How naive I was. While this site does have some of that good stuff I expected, and I remain a regular reader, my main goal in reading commment threads now is to see how quickly some insecure commenter blames the "libs" for the world problem du jour. It's a riot, and I'm rarely disappointed.
And to those who continue to conflate Clinton and liberals: CLINTON IS NOT A LIBERAL!!!! I know it's hard to accept. You're in kind of a pickle: you know you hate libs, and you know Clinton's evil, so it's natural to just put them in the same camp. I don't mean to shatter your worldview. But for this lib, the infatuation with a reasonably good president is truly fascinating. I know a couple of middle aged men who're Clinton haters, and for them I think I know why: jealousy. Raw, simple jealousy. He's brilliant, articulate, charming, very well liked, considered cool by many younger than he, and gets more women than these guys could dream of. What not to hate? It really is adorable.
But Anita Hill? All these same people were sure that she lied, and came up with reasons why she lied, or motivations for her lies. And basically, didn't care whether she suffered scorn or hatred in subsequent years.
I really don't know what happened between Thomas and Hill. Most likely, both are telling a little truth and a little lie with a handful of misunderstanding thrown in. No one can say what their motivations were or that they had some sort of sinister agenda that they wanted to push. That both suffered outrageous and undeserved attacks on their character by partisans is also true.
You would think that normal rational people would agree with the above, but I find almost none who do. Perhaps in this thread, there are new people who might.
I think the Broderick rape claim against Clinton is the more important analogy. That claim appears to have at least as much factual validity as the Anita Hill claim. However, Thomas's alleged actions, even if true, were more a case of bad taste than anything else. Clinton's alleged actions were criminal, but almost no one made a huge stink about it.
The only potential up-side to a Hillary presidency will be the procession of trampy women that Bill will continue to chase.
Somin's inference is invalid because liberals have an interest in saying they believe the accusation independent of whether they do or not actually so believe. Thus, liberals' political goals are achieved to the extent that they can distract people from considering Thomas' jurisprudence by their discussion of Hill's accusations.
The premise of Somin's post, that liberals believed Hill, is unsupported by the evidence.
I doubt Clinton is a "serial rapist", although before the Clinton scandal many feminists claimed that any male in a position of power who did what Clinton did with Lewinsky was a rapist. But I never agreed with that definition of "rapist".
I think you help to prove my point that pretty much everyone now believes that Clinton has abused his position of power to try to take sexual advantage of the women he had power over. People may be skeptical of individual accusations, but no one would be surprised if he was caught having or tying to have another affair with an employee.
1) Number one priority once in office was putting gays into the military. Check.
2) Gun banner. Check.
3) Pro abortion. Check.
4) Cut the military. Check.
5) Anti-hate speech. Check.
Looks fairly liberal to me.
"I'd be happy to give him a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." —Nina Burleigh, former White House correspondent for Time magazine, in an interview with the Washington Post. She was elaborating on an article she wrote in Mirabella magazine, in which she admitted that she enjoyed having Bill Clinton check out her naked legs during a game of hearts aboard Air Force One. "If he had asked me to continue the game of hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn," she wrote, "I would have been happy to go there and see what happened."
Personally, I view it as a "he said she said" controversy as to which I have reached no conclusion. But there is no question that Justice Thomas had a strong incentive to lie about the relationship with Ms. Hill, and Ms. Hill had much less incentive to lie about the relationship. Whatever minor "political gain" Ms. Hill received was going to be offset to some extent by a foreseeable backlash from the appointee's supporters.
I understand that the incentives are necessarily aligned that way because of their positions: Thomas had much more at stake than Hill. Even so, their motivations are worth considering.
Yep, that sure was Clinton's number one priority of his entire presidency.
5) Anti-hate speech. Check
So you're saying you want a pro-hate speech president?
[jt]Yep, that sure was Clinton's number one priority of his entire presidency.
5) Anti-hate speech. Check
[jt]So you're saying you want a pro-hate speech president?
Gays and military. Yes, that was him number one goal. Right into office, while the "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" was stll being hummed in the street and he could push for anything, he went for that. He spent a large chunk of his credit on that one topic.
Hate speech law. There are few things worse than a law banning hate speech. With those laws the state can stiffle ideas and discussion.
Didn't Anita Hill say at the hearings (under oath, as I recall) that she had no financial interest in trashing Thomas? And didn't she soon afterwards get a book contract for something like $500,000? And hasn't she given numerous well-paid lectures since then? She's certainly moved up from the University of Oklahoma law school to a professorship at Brandeis. Perhaps she would have made it that far purely on her scholarship -- I'm in no position to judge. Still, even if she had nothing to gain politically from lying about Thomas -- assuming for the moment that she was lying -- it seems to have done her a world of good professionally and financially.
People are willing to do all sorts of things for the cause, whichever it is, and Hill didn't seem to suffer in her career or financially unless you presume she was on a pretty good career path which was just about to take off. So she did not need to anticipate a future of poverty or even lower-middle class life. She only had to make some accusations--presuming for the sake of discussion she was lying--get slammed for being a liar by some, defended by others, and her feminist or liberal buddies were there to catch her. Not a bad deal, if you think you could stop Thomas' nomination.
There were some character witnesses for Thomas on whom a California senator--name escapes me, now retired--set some private eyes to find out if there was any dirt on them. Presumably it would have allowed him to pressure them to keep quiet. Nice folks, those preening liberals.
2. Second Dramatic Overstatement of a Position Check
3. Absolute and total Strawman Check
4. Leaving out important context Check
5. Blanket Statement that borders on Irrelevancy Check
I won't say Clinton wasn't a liberal. But this exactly emphasizes the point of this debate about Thomas.
Someone makes a suggestion that might or might not be valid, and the reaction is a mouth-frothing rebuttal typifying what the poster things "liberal" positions are, and removing all nuance from the debate.
Reality, like ALL other things is somewhere in the middle.
I admit I'm too young to have more than a vague memory of the Thomas confirmation hearings. But from reading up on it, I have no innate reason to suspect Hill lied, but neither does her story stand up to strong scrutiny. If I had to take a WAG, I'd split the middle and say there's probably at least some bit of factual reality, but there was also significant political motive in strengthening her case.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
William Kennedy Smith was accused of Rape.
Clarence Thomas was accused of Sexual Harrasment.
Mike Tyson was accused of rape.
Now the William Kennedy Smith case looekd like he would be declared guilty until the Kennedys all came in strong and suported him. Did this effect peoples views on Clarence Thomas? Quite possibly.
Liberals might say well we let the man get away with it here, we really need to stick it to this next guy.
Conservatives might say the liberals just let a kennedy get away with rape, we need to make sure our man gets the benefit of the doubt. Especially after how they treated Bork.
Tyson, after having two prominient male people get off, was convicted before he even went to court.
As a Conservative I think William Kennedy Smith was guilty, and Clarence Thomas was innocent. Tyson was guitly of being a jerk and an idiot but I don't think he had actually raped Desiree Washington.
Well, I hope you actually do agree that saving the lives and limbs of tens of thousands of our fighting men and women [see Iraq war], saving the U.S. taxpayers untold billions of dollars [ditto], and stopping the destruction of our civil liberties are other upsides of a Hillary presidency. [If Dems had any balls, I'd add protecting the environment to that list.] But I do agree yith your snarky point that further sexual escapades of Bill will be an inevitable result of another Clinton presidency.
Well, let's see, she had a law degree from Yale University. Maybe we can take a look at whether Yale's law graduates make anything of themselves without a boost from political interest groups.
with that in mind.
bill clinton was not/is not a liberal
he's a left moderate, and a statist (vs.a libertarian ) one at that.
bush, to contrast, is a right moderate (a statist as well)
the idea that clinton is a liberal is pretty absurd. hillary? heck, yea. a hawkish liberal, but a liberal
not bill, though
Davod. I believe that one judge was threatened by Sen. Hatch with perjury, because of timing issues in her testimony. First comes first and before second. Also, calendars don't, you know, loop around and put, say, July before May. But only sometimes.
FWIW, I knew very few people who weren't at least doubtful with the Mike Tyson accusation.
I seem to recall that when then-governor Clinton was campaigning in 1992 he appeared on either Arsenio Hall or MTV and was asked by a member of the audience whom he believed, Clarence Thomas or Anita Hill and he answered “Anita Hill.”
I also seem to recall that 1992 was dubbed the “Year of the Woman” by the MSM because of the large number of women who supposedly ran for and were elected to office because of the “outrage” of the treatment of Anita Hill.
Hypocrisy indeed.
Um no actually, Republicans won control of the Senate in 1994 and were in charge when Packwood was forced to resign in September of 1995.
Indeed.
All newspaper reporters on the cop beat know about it, too.
Yes, but Packwood was a liberal Republican, not a conservative one. Moreover, the evidence against him was so overwhelming (dozens of women of different political persuasions testifying that he abused them) that it was virtually impossible for any reasonable person to deny that at least some of the accusations were probably true.
Well, I was old enough, and my recollection is that there was a lot of skepticism about both.
I think it was Camille Paglia who said, in the Kennedy-Smith case, that the feminist's view was that rape was such a horrible crime that even innocence was no defense.
I also remember the Bork hearings, and the Anita Hill episode looked like an obvious attempt to "Bork" Clarence Thomas. Given that, plus the 10 year delay and the other inconsistencies, skepticism about Ms. Hill's story seems reasonable, no matter what your political leanings.
What was amusing, as many have noted, was the same people who insisted the allegations be vetted in public and then subsequently condemned Thomas turned around and defended Clinton. And they got some serious whiplash.
Neither one of them seemed that savory. There wasn't any proof of anything, but there was quite enough suspicion about both of them that they both should have been barred from any sort of public office for a good long time. "A pox on both their houses" as it were.
Still strikes me as fair and balanced; but with the way accusers have been coming out of the woodworks lately for anybody appointed to anything, not very optimal. We'd end up with the entire court (for lack of acceptable replacements) dying of age and ennui. Then they'd be skinned and stuffed with audio-animatronics by the Disney crew, and run by the Wizard of Oz from behind a curtain. A few glitches in the movements could be explained as Parkinson's.
All things considered, I'm glad the whole thing was argued through and decided. It helps keep the challenges down to a dull roar.
Is there a more succinct illustration of Ilya's point in this
thread?
The rest is history.
RE: Another 'Miss'???!?!
"But it fails to account for the fact that, just a few years later, most conservatives tended to believe and most liberals denied Paula Jones' sexual harrassment accusations against Bill Clinton." -- Ilya Somin
Maybe the conservatives believed Paula Jones over Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton is an unindicted perjurer.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. You're missing BIG TIME on two-for-two, with me, compadre.
Let us all take a moment to remember Mary Mahoney; the presidential intern who wouldn't play 'ball' with Mr. Bill.
So. Instead of a cushie job at the Pentagon, she ends up managing a Starbucks in Georgetown.
Furthermore, a few days after Mr. 'I' from Newsweak drops a hint about a sex scandal involving Mr. Bill and says his source is know, to him, as M, Mary and her entire closing crew at the store are murdered, shortly after closing. No money taken. No evidence of forced entry.
The [Keystone] DC cops have never solved the crime.....last I heard.
Correction: Gays are already in the military and are allowed to serve. They just cannot serve openly. Nonetheless, many do and their commanding officers really don't give a hoot.
RE: Serving Gays
"They [homosexuals in the military] just cannot serve openly." -- Randy R.
Actually, they do serve openly.
They just can't be serviced in such a fashion.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Gay is a one-word oxymoron.]
People who offer opinions about whether Hill's/Jones'/Lewinsky's actions were or were not consistent with how someone would act in those circumstances should explain any claim they have to expertise in that area. Lots of them may not have spent much time thinking about the issue. FWIW, my mother told me that she had been sexually harassed when she was younger and that she found Anita Hill's behavior entirely understandable. This strikes me as more probative than someone who has never walked a mile in those shoes. As Somin points out, YMMV.
My theory, and it's not a strong one by any means, is that the whole Anita Hill controversy can also be looked at as one of misogyny.
Yes, dislike of women. There are a great number of men, both liberal and conservative, who simply don't care for women all that much. They may love their mothers and sisters and wives, but otherwise, really don't like them. It's actually fairly common. Morever, there are quite a few women who are misogynists as well.
So Anita Hill accusses a man of sexual harassment. Men who don't like women think she's a loony liar. And don't forget, there was a small yet rather vocal number of women who thought she was telling the truth, but resented the fact that she thought she brought this out in the open. (Apparently, these women think sexual harassment is part of the job, and you put up with it and shut up, and they don't like women who won't play the game anymore than men do).
So what about Paula Jones? Why would misogynists believe her? Here I'm even on shakier ground, but I'll give it the good ole college try.
Simple answer: No one liked her. Even her supporters didn't like her. She was a hick, not too bright, and certainly not pretty. But she served the conservative cause well.
So in fact, there was plenty about both women that would rile up the type of man (or even woman) who doesn't like women.
I realize this veers dangerously to pop psychology, so don't attack me! But I would just throw this out as food for thought.
Your mother's experience can be taken to mean sexual harassment isn't that bad. "that bad" can be a broad category, depending on her prospects for employment otherwise, for example. I understand that, in the old days, a maid or other domestic servant who couldn't get favorable references from her employer was, quite simply, not ever going to have another job in domestic service. Period. Perhaps your mother's situation had some resemblance to that. She had to put up with nasty stuff because she had no choice.
Or perhaps it wasn't that bad, as a matter of personal decision. Hill, to keep this to the reality, changed jobs to follow the guy. She didn't stay in the first one while he was there and then, relieved, stay in the first one afterwards. She took positive action to improve her prospects--not simply to decide to stay where she was and retain what she had--despite the harassment.
That tells some people, me among them, that it either didn't happen or wasn't a terrible problem. If Thomas' actions consisted of talking dirty at the office--which a feminist activist once remarked to me dismissively--then that isn't a big deal, either. It's become useful for action when ideologically necessary, but it's not automatic. It's not that bad.
You DO realize that numerous studies have shown that men who really dislike gays are very likely to either a) be gay themselves but deep in denial, or b) insecure about their masculinity, or both.
Whether you fall into category a or b I don't know and don't care. But keep the homophobia to yourself in the future, okay?
RE: [OT] Baggage, Indeed!
I look forward to Hillary's candidacy as the Democratic running for the Oval Office.
This will, literally, drag ALL those 'skeletons' out of the proverbial closet. And we can make them dance.
One would think the Dukakis-Horton business would give them all the 'Willies'. But I think her 'charisma' will overwhelm their better judgement.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
If you assume that what she said happened but that "it wasn't a big deal," you can nonetheless understand why Thomas, on the verge of getting the job of his life, would decide that he could not afford to explain this in the crucible of the re-convened Senate hearing. If the ends can justify the means, why not then? Had he been confronted with her accusations earlier, perhaps he could have defused the situation appropriately, but the way she and the Senate Democrats made the accusations, this became impossible.
On the other hand, he said that it did not happen, period, full stop, and you surely also can understand why some people would have a hard time voting to confirm to the Supreme Court a man who would lie under oath.
RE: [OT] Homos R US?
"You DO realize that numerous studies have shown that men who really dislike gays are very likely to either a) be gay themselves but deep in denial, or b) insecure about their masculinity, or both." -- Randy R.
Yeah. Right.
Just like a study I saw that proved the Moon was made of Green Cheese. And it was conducted by NASA.
Hey! Didn't they do a study about 'global warming'???!?!?
RE: [OT] Putting People Into 'Boxes'
"Whether you fall into category a or b I don't know and don't care. But keep the homophobia to yourself in the future, okay?" -- Randy R.
Actually, I'm behind door number 11. Something to do with being an airborne-ranger, I guess.
Furthermore, you're the one who is obviously taking umbrage with this matter.
You don't like it? Tough noogies.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you can't laugh at yourself, you've not business laughing at anyone else.]
P.S. I'm hardly a homophobe. I just point out the facts.
You misrepresented the service they are performing. I corrected you.
Your response?
Just like my tag-line suggested.....
Except that they all started believing her long before Clinton's perjury occurred several years later.
In my experience there are some women who are entirely capable of maliciously attempting to injure others, both women and men, just as there are some men similarly capable. Anyone who denies this is in effect stereotyping women, in fact, "putting them on a pedestal." There are some women (even feminists) who want to be put on pedestals, no matter what they may say.
He wasn't accused of the act of talking dirty at the office. He was accused of several specific statements or actions which could be so classified. He claims he didn't do them. After ten years, he'd be unlikely to remember. And after ten years, so would she.
Problem for Hill is that what she claimed to remember wasn't sufficiently memorable. Who'd believe she remembered that stuff? And for Thomas, who'd believe he could recall whether he did it or not? It's thin gruel.
Ref. Vitter. I'm having trouble keeping these guys straight. Wasn't he the guy with the name on some madam's list? If he's the guy I'm thinking of, he left the help alone.
You are right; Packwood did in fact keep a diary in which he documented his misbehavior. Among other things, he solemnly recorded that it had been his "Christian duty" to attempt to bed one particularly lonely woman. No doubt, this is the same sense in which Senator McCain employed the word when he recently declared that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
[From a pre-hearing deposition of Susan Hoerchner]:
Q. And, in an attempt to try to pin down the date a little bit more specifically as to your first phone conversation about the sexual harassment issue in 1981, the year you mentioned, you said the first time you moved out of Washington was September of 1981; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Were you living in Washington at the time you two had this phone conversation?
A. Yes.
Q. When she told you?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was prior to September of 1981?
A. Oh, I see what you're saying.
At this point, Hoerchner's lawyer asked for a recess so she and Hoerchner could confer.
Q. When you had the initial phone conversation with Anita Hill and she spoke for the first time about sexual harassment, do you recall where you were living -- what city?
A. I don't know for sure.
As Hill did not begin to work for Thomas until after September of 1981, Hoerchner's testimony -- the only corroboration of Hill's complaint -- is at best valueless and at worst perjury.
It was about not allowing a man to take a seat on the court who might threaten Row v. Wade and, particularly, w/o looking bad to black voters.
Sorry if this has been covered. Didn't have time to read the posts.
RE: Weeeeellll.....Excuuuuuse Meeeee!
"Except that they all started believing her long before Clinton's perjury occurred several years later." -- Ilya Somin
I never heard of Jones until AFTER I heard about Monica.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. That's three-for-three for you now.....
RE: Weeeeellll.....Excuuuuuse Meeeee!
"Except that they all started believing her long before Clinton's perjury occurred several years later." — Ilya Somin
I never heard of Jones until AFTER I heard about Monica.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. That's three-for-three for you now.....
RE: Curious
Sorry about the double-entry, but this system suddenly required me to log in again....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[To really foul things up, you need a computer.]
Indeed. But I believe I was replying to a post positing that it did happen but was no big deal.
RE: And....
"...even though browbeating subordinates to meet Reagan's pro-business agenda is a far cry from Ms. Hill's allegations, I still can't rule out the possibility that he was capable of these actions judging from what I heard he did as commissioner." -- DCraig
...what does this have to do with the allegations of Ms Hill?
Which actions are you talking about? Ms Hill's allegations? Or that he put an undue burden on individuals complaints? Or both?
Connect the dots for us here, please.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Innuendo, n., the meanest form of criticism. -- CBPelto, The New Devil's Dictionary]
RE: Target! Cease Fire
"I tried to watch the hearings with an open mind, and what struck me was that every witness who knew them both took his side, while her witnesses only testified as to what she told them. That seemed dispositive to me." -- PapayaSF
Interesting report, that. Don't you think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Can I get a witness!!!??!??!]
What one has to do with the other totally escapes me. In fact, it is totally illogical.
And the only actions I'm talking about are basically stories of an unprofessional demeanor in dealing with those who did not agree with his policies. Not his actual policies themselves.
RE: [OT] Or....
"....translating that into "gay but deep in denial" is stupid, evinces a reductionistic and superficial view of male sexuality." -- Elliot Reed
...worse.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
It seems a far cry for me to equate "I can't rule out the possibility" to "I believe." The statement above would, I think, more than qualify as a reasonable doubt. Besides, even if the worst of what you heard he did as commissioner vis-a-vis changing the focus of the department (something entirely within his rights given the authority placed in the office), I still fail to see the logical connection between "misguided, insensitive, bad decission maker" and "sexual harasser."
Nor do I think the comparisson between opinion re Anita Hill's allegations and Paula Jones' stand based upon fundamental differences in the demonstrated past character of the acused. In the case of Justice Thomas, there was no evidence presented of a prior sexual nature, while Gov. Clinton's was replete. If two men are accused of robbing jewelry stores I would be more inclined against the one who had previously demonstrated a penchant for wearing flashy chains as opposed to the one without. It has nothing to do with politics.
It would be strange if she had legal grounds, but in the early 80s harassment without any harm (denial of promotion, raise) was not considered illegal, and until 1991, Title VII discrimination claims could not get punitive damages.
Looking at the facts is too hard.