# SCOTUS Wife Virginia Thomas asks Anita Hill to apologize - WTF? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 20, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798 "2010-10-20T16:56:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/381 "2010-10-21T21:10:30Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > A lot of responses in this thread! There seems wide agreement that Mrs. Thomas is tone-deaf or stupid. Since it’s BBQ Pit, I think I’m allowed to hijack and focus on a key underlying question: which of Thomas or Hill was lying? > > With a math background, I use Bayesian analysis to guess the answers to questions like that. On that basis it seems more than a thousand times as likely that Thomas was lying rather than Hill. (Perhaps such analysis would be prohibited in jury deliberations, but that’s beside the point.) Pardon me if I call BS here, but please show your work and how you applied the math to deduct Thomas was lying. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/382 "2010-10-21T21:13:41Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I apologize. Anyway, it was not my intent to disagree with you, but rather to use an excerpt as a pivot for a sincere question: _Did_ Hill think Thomas had done a “great wrong” to her, or was her testimony instead the result of pressure? Yes I believe she did, and I believe she was telling the truth. Otherwise she had a HUGE brass pair to stand up and risk prison by lying to Congress with nothing concrete to gain. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/383 "2010-10-21T21:34:14Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Pardon me if I call BS here, but please show your work and how you applied the math to deduct Thomas was lying. If you think “Bayesian analysis” necessarily requires exact probability estimation and formula plugging, we’ll agree to disagree on the meaning of the term. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/384 "2010-10-21T21:47:15Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > IIRC, she forwarded the voicemail to Campus Security in case it was an issue and THEY forwarded it to the FBI… Ahhh… Well, that’s perfectly reasonable on her part. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/385 "2010-10-21T21:48:16Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Same way he’s conveniently ignoring all of the valid objections I’ve raised to his dead-wrong nitpicking. No, not at all. I’m still alertly poised, waiting for the first one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/386 "2010-10-21T21:51:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I’ll play along… > > Why do you think she believed it was a violation of federal law? Why did I, until I learned she did not contact the FBI? Because a main mission of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/387 "2010-10-21T22:02:25Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I don’t think that is fair. I don’t think **Bricker** anywhere said he thought or assumed she was lying. But he did ask us to “assume” it, for the sake of “argument”, and has based all related subsequent comments on that basis. As I’ve said enough times already, if he were interested in exploring the well rather than poisoning it, he’d give at least lip service to the contrary assumption. But you’re right; he doesn’t necessarily actually believe it, despite the pouting he’s demonstrated after having his latest “hypothetical” :rolleyes: reduced to absurdity. It could be worse - he could be simply trolling again. At what point do you accept that he’s exhausted all doubt and should no longer be given the benefit of any? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/388 "2010-10-21T22:08:14Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But he did ask us to “assume” it, for the sake of “argument”, and has based all related subsequent comments on that basis. As I’ve said enough times already, if he were interested in exploring the well rather than poisoning it, he’d give at least lip service to the contrary assumption. > > But you’re right; he doesn’t necessarily actually believe it, despite the pouting he’s demonstrated after having his latest “hypothetical” :rolleyes: reduced to absurdity. It could be worse - he could be simply trolling again. > > At what point do you accept that he’s exhausted all doubt and should no longer be given the benefit of any? Of course he asks you to “assume it.” Because if the question is concerning the actions of Mrs. Thomas, and we are looking at her motivations, it is pretty reasonable to assume that she believes Ms. Hill was lying 20 years ago. So I believe **Bricker** ’s point was that given Mrs. Thomas’s probably belief Ms. Hill was a liar, it isn’t unreasonable for her to ask for an apology. And as I noted later, it isn’t just that **Bricker** doesn’t necessarily actually believe it, he specifically later said he didn’t believe it. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/389 "2010-10-21T22:16:59Z")
[QUOTE=WordMan] This thread is not about Galileo… [/QUOTE] > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > This thread isn’t about Elizabeth Smart either, but we had to spend three pages knocking that bullshit around. I can’t wait to see the next analogy. I’m just shocked the fucking Nazis haven’t come into play yet. Would it be tone deaf if Galileo had demonstrated that objects fall at the same rate regardless of weight if he had dropped Elizabeth Smart and a really heavy Nazi (say Herman Goering) off the Tower of Pisa? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/390 "2010-10-21T22:20:38Z")
**villa** : The subject of tone deafness does not depend on that or any initial assumption. Ms. Thomas is equally ruled tone-deaf if one assumes Thomas was lying, or both Thomas and Hill were, or if it was all just a misunderstanding. But \*\*Bricker \*\*jumps right to the assumption that fits his partisan alignment nevertheless and holds onto it so tenaciously as to pout when it’s put to bed. Of course he asks that it be considered an “assumption”, and even purports to disavow personally believing it - that lets him avoid taking any responsibility for the consequences of his putting partisanship above all, and trolling accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/391 "2010-10-21T22:21:27Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > If you think “Bayesian analysis” necessarily requires exact probability estimation and formula plugging, we’ll agree to disagree on the meaning of the term. Actually, I was interested in your mathematical guess that… \*I use Bayesian analysis to guess the answers to questions like that. On that basis it seems more than a thousand times as likely that Thomas was lying \* You used math to guess that Thomas was lying. I’m interested in seeing the work that precipitated this finding. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/392 "2010-10-21T22:35:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why did I, until I learned she did not contact the FBI? > > Because a main mission of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States. Even if Hill had contacted the FBI directly, I don’t see your point, or perhaps I simply don’t appreciate your attempt at humour. If it is true that Hill has received death threats in the past, then a call from a person claiming to be Virginia Thomas and asking for an apology is of some minor concern, worth bringing to the FBI’s attention if they have processed various phone threats against Hill before. It’s unclear that Hill would instantly recognize the caller as Thomas (I rather doubt they talk by phone on a regular basis) and if it turns out to be a crazy person who felt compelled to impersonate Thomas and request an apology on her behalf, doesn’t that deserve some minor attention? The call does not contain a threat of any kind, to be sure, but I get the impression the FBI would rather know about it than not. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/393 "2010-10-22T00:00:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **villa** : The subject of tone deafness does not depend on that or any initial assumption. Ms. Thomas is equally ruled tone-deaf if one assumes Thomas was lying, or both Thomas and Hill were, or if it was all just a misunderstanding. But \*\*Bricker \*\*jumps right to the assumption that fits his partisan alignment nevertheless and holds onto it so tenaciously as to pout when it’s put to bed. > > Of course he asks that it be considered an “assumption”, and even purports to disavow personally believing it - that lets him avoid taking any responsibility for the consequences of his putting partisanship above all, and trolling accordingly. That’s a legitimate argument, depending on the meaning you put on tone deaf. I can also see the argument that **if** Ms. Hill was purposefully lying, then asking her for an apology is not tone deaf. There’s an interesting comparison to be made with Justice Thomas himself here. I disagree fundamentally with his view of the constitution, and the way he analyzes cases. I think it is intellectually flawed. However, he makes the right decisions more often than not (though for reasons I don’t agree with), just like all Supreme Court justices get the majority of cases right. He is a skilled and knowledgeable jurist in many areas. Similarly **Bricker** ’s legal philosophy is, IMHO, fundamentally flawed. That doesn’t mean I look at everything he writes and assume his motivation is automatically flawed. It also doesn’t mean his legal analysis is not often correct, as he has shown himself to be a skilled and knowledgeable legal mind in many areas. And in this instance, like it or not, there is a colorable argument for the position he took. That if Anita Hill lied deliberately about Clarence Thomas, asking for an apology isn’t tone deaf. Back in my married days, if someone had told terrible lies about my wife, seeking to prevent her getting a promotion she deserved, I would have at the least requested an apology, and I don’t think that would have been tone deaf. Hell, if I find someone doing that now, five years after a divorce, I’d feel the same way. I simply don’t see that pointing that out has to be the product of partisanship. I don’t think Thomas should have been placed on the Court, for reasons including what I believe to be his prior treatment of Ms. Hill. Now I don’t think that saying that Mrs. Thomas is tone deaf regardless of her views on Ms. Hill’s veracity is necessarily the product of partisanship. Similarly the opposing view isn’t necessarily a partisan one. I’m not certain which side of it I come down on, and I am heartily partisan against Thomas. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/394 "2010-10-22T03:52:24Z")
There are 2 possibilities with the same result. If she lied she would not offer an apology. On the other hand if she told the truth , no apology should be expected. Therefore no information is possible about the lack of an apology. Nice trap, but illogical. Then saying they make the correct decision more often than not? So 51 percent correct decisions is acceptable from the Supreme Court? I hope we have not sunk to that level. Maybe with the Roberts Court that may be a high bar after all. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/395 "2010-10-22T04:21:34Z")
Judge Thomas voted against a 13 year old girl who was strip searched by the schools vice principle and others, in a desperate attempt to find Ibuprofen they thought she had hidden on her. They found none . But Thomas voted against the girl saying she was probably not the first or last person to secrete items in her underwear. The fact that they found nothing did not bother him. the fact they were strip searching a 13 year old did not bother him. I suspect his concept of sexual rights does not jibe with most peoples. It is an indication of a weird slant on sex. Hill may well be another. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/396 "2010-10-22T04:52:21Z")
Story in the Wapo today about Lillian McEwen who dated Clarence Thomas from 1978 thru the mid 80s. She was a lawyer for the Judicial Committee The Clarence Thomas I knew was fully capable not only of doing the things Anita hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with they way he lived his personal life. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/397 "2010-10-22T05:07:34Z")
[hijack]Ok, I’ve only read the first 3 pages of this thread. IMHO, Bricker’s contributions have gotten _much_ better in the past couple of years. He makes a decent point on page 1, which IMHO wasn’t adequately addressed, at least immediately. When he sees someone else make a good sub-argument, he acknowledges it. I see some solid ignorance fighting in this and other threads: Bricker’s remarks deserve to be treated with focus and concentration. He is an addition to the board. [/hijack] Sorry if this has been covered [1], but a) it seems to me that Ms. Thomas shouldn’t have based her message on Anita Hill lying, but rather on the _possibility_ that Hill was lying. _Assuming_ in her message that Hill was lying was bad form. b) Personally, I’m inclined to cut people slack when they make a single _faux pas_. c) I would characterize the message as “A friendly tone with underlying hostility.” Which is lame. d) Loyalty to one’s spouse is a virtue we should concede, but not the only virtue. e) Dredging this up was not prudent, in terms of its outcome. f) Let’s repeat that message! > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Virginia Thomas to Anita Hill’s answering machine: > > Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day. g) If Ginnie Thomas is a possible head-case, Ms. Hill was wise to release this recording: she wouldn’t want to have be caught in a subsequent mischaracterization in the future. [1] If we’re discussing Bayes on this page, I trust it has been covered. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/398 "2010-10-22T05:07:46Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Pardon me if I call BS here, but please show your work and how you applied the math to deduct Thomas was lying. That’s easy. I linked to polls that showed a lot more people think he was lying than they do Hill. Isn’t that how you judge veracity? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/399 "2010-10-22T06:30:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me she’s only “tone deaf” if you begin the analysis by assuming Ms. Hill was telling the truth. > > Let’s not. Let assume, instead, that Ms. Hill completely fabricated her accusations, made them up out of whole cloth, in an effort to derail Thomas’ nomination, without caring what effect her lies might have on Thomas personally, or on Thomas’ family. > > And, having failed to prevent Thomas’ confirmation, she has for nearly 20 years refused to acknowledge that her testimony was fabricated. > > Why is it “tone deaf” for Mrs. Thomas to ask for an apology under those circumstances? How about if we have to assume that if one of them was a perjurer, that we follow the evidence and because several women reported behavior like this from Clarance Thomas that he was in fact the perjurer and Professor Hill was telling the truth? Several women say Clarance Thomas behaved this way, he denies it under penalty of perjury. No other person has ever said that Anita Hill made false sexual harassment charges. Justice Thomas is a perjurer and his wife is a whack a doodle nut job fascist. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/400 "2010-10-22T07:29:52Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Actually, I was interested in your mathematical guess that… > > On that basis it seems more than a thousand times as likely that Thomas was lying . Based on my perceptions and guessing, incidents of rude “flirting” of the type Thomas was accused of occur 1000’s of times per week in the U.S.A. (If someone thinks this is a wild over-estimate, I hope they indicate what their workplace interaction has been.) Psychopaths who would pursue a perjury to the Senate are _much_ rarer than rude flirters. Those who pursue the perjury with no discernable motive are rarer still. (BTW, the accusations’ details seemed, IMO, more consistent with truth than psychopathy.) Furthermore, AFAIK, there’ s been no corroboration of psychopathy or prevarication by Hill. Where I live, about 99% of the brown-haired women have dyed their hair. This doesn’t “prove” anything, but for a randomly selected brown-haired here, “dyeing” is the percentage bet. Perhaps the matter seems irrelevant to many, but I’m frankly _very_ surprised that so many believe Thomas. I know from experience many intelligent people are unaware of the most basic facts about probability – that’s why I mentioned “Bayesian.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798.md?page=21)