# 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:** 38
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/741 "2010-10-28T15:49:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, it’s not like that even a tiny little bit. And, your departure from coherence is complete. > > 1. Because that is the reference I found. As I have posted a couple of times, the S14467 number matches my search, as does the Oct 7 reference. Perhaps I don’t understand how the referencing works, but your allegation that it has nothing to do with the Thomas hearings is wrong, AFAICT. However - > > 2. I went back and checked the footnotes. > > I was wrong, and I apologize. > > The quote is apparently from an interview with Armstrong Williams, so the quote is not of the letter, nor from Hill, but is Armstrong’s recounting of her words. I regret the error. > > However - > > Your description of what the letter says seems rather to confirm what I said, not to contradict it. Williams says the same thing in the interview that he said in the letter, and that he said in the YouTube link, and has said ever since. > > The quote should have read - > As I said, I regret the error, but I stand by what it conveys - Armstrong Williams, who worked with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, described how Anita Hill praised Clarence Thomas for his fair treatment of women, and his commitment to equal rights for them and for minorities. > > Regards, > Shodan My guess is that your cite is to the daily not the permanent record. Generally people cite to the permanent record, but that’s not a big deal. You say the quote is from an interview? Is there a transcript from it? Because it just seems odd the cite is word for word the same as from the book, with that being the only Google result from it. Now Google isn’t perfect, obviously. But this isn’t about an error. Unless I am totally misunderstanding what you said, you knew when you posted it that it wasn’t a quote from Anita Hill, but instead was from Armstrong Williams. How do you justify your attribution of the quote to Ms. Hill? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/742 "2010-10-28T16:35:34Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > “\*\*Shodan \*\*rapes kittens every night, after which he puts the kitten bodies into a blender with the blood of Christian babies, drowning them in the blood, then whips the whole thing up into a fine froth, which he drinks himself and then force-feeds to grandmothers.” > > Congressional Record, May 25, 1987, p. S21687. > > Hey, this is fun! The Aristocrats! ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/743 "2010-10-28T16:55:26Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > The Aristocrats! I laughed for at least fifteen seconds. And I keep having aftershocks of further chuckles. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/744 "2010-10-28T17:03:05Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > But wait a minute…there ARE no three-foot-high nuns! > > **'Luci** raped a penguin! **'Luci** raped a penguin! Hey, stop that! My reputation here could really suffer! Well, OK, maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/745 "2010-10-28T17:12:17Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I laughed for at least fifteen seconds. And I keep having aftershocks of further chuckles. That’s very gratifying to read, **Shot From Guns** , and I thank you for the validation (such as it is). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/746 "2010-10-28T17:24:06Z")
> [@villa](#): > > My guess is that your cite is to the daily not the permanent record. Generally people cite to the permanent record, but that’s not a big deal. > > You say the quote is from an interview? Is there a transcript from it? Because it just seems odd the cite is word for word the same as from the book, with that being the only Google result from it. Now Google isn’t perfect, obviously. > > But this isn’t about an error. Unless I am totally misunderstanding what you said, you knew when you posted it that it wasn’t a quote from Anita Hill, but instead was from Armstrong Williams. How do you justify your attribution of the quote to Ms. Hill? What else would Thomas say? I am starting out and I have a pretty good job, but my boss is a porn loving harasser. It would have ended her career. Plenty of employees will praise their boss to the top execs because they know that is the smart thing to do. That does not mean that they believe what they have to say. Politicians do it all the time. People in subservient position have to do it to keep their jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/747 "2010-10-28T17:30:15Z")
> [@villa](#): > > But this isn’t about an error. Unless I am totally misunderstanding what you said, you knew when you posted it that it wasn’t a quote from Anita Hill, but instead was from Armstrong Williams. How do you justify your attribution of the quote to Ms. Hill? Because I thought it was a quote from a letter written by Armstrong Williams in which he quoted Anita Hill. It turns out that it was a paraphrase by Armstrong Williams of what Anita Hill said, which is identical in sense and meaning to the letter that **was** read into the Congressional Record. So basically, yes, you are misunderstanding what I said. I did not know it was not a direct quote from Anita Hill. It was Williams’ reporting of a quote from her. He described what she said in an interview, and also in a letter. Both descriptions were identical. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/748 "2010-10-28T17:48:25Z")
There’s a couple of problems there. First, I still cannot get over you thinking it is appropriate to use a quote box and attribution for something that wasn’t a quote. If you were looking to cite, you should have cited to the book, _The Real Anita Hill_, because that is where you got the information from. You could have said… “As David Brock wrote in _The Real Anita Hill_, Hill told Williams that ‘it was great to be working for Thomas, because he was fair, he had so much integrity, he hired women, he was the ideal boss.’” But you didn’t. You instead claim it is something Hill directly said. I don’t see that as anything but deliberate, and it is just unjustifiable to do. And to claim that this is identical to what is in the letter is completely false. It has a similar meaning, but, for example, the letter never used the word integrity, and never said Thomas was an “ideal boss.” They aren’t identical descriptions, even though the meaning is similar. But bottom line is you attributed a report from someone else as a direct quote from the person. Even if Williams was accurately quoting Hill, it would still be disingenuous to present it as you did. Given that there is significant potential for dispute over Williams’ accuracy, it’s downright dishonest of you. I’m sure you’ll just shrug this off as partisan attacks, but I’m incredibly disappointed someone would try to pull this sort of crap off, and maybe even more disappointed at their weasling after. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/749 "2010-10-28T18:29:22Z")
> [@villa](#): > > There’s a couple of problems there. > > First, I still cannot get over you thinking it is appropriate to use a quote box and attribution for something that wasn’t a quote. It was a quote, of something Armstrong Williams alleged Anita Hill said. > [@](#): > > And to claim that this is identical to what is in the letter is completely false. It has a similar meaning… That is the same thing as saying it is identical in sense and meaning. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you’ll just shrug this off as partisan attacks.. Well, not necessarily as a partisan attack, but I don’t see this as some huge gotcha. YMMV, but… Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/750 "2010-10-28T18:34:19Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > “\*\*Shodan \*\*rapes kittens every night, after which he puts the kitten bodies into a blender with the blood of Christian babies, drowning them in the blood, then whips the whole thing up into a fine froth, which he drinks himself and then force-feeds to grandmothers.” > > Congressional Record, May 25, 1987, p. S21687. If I were to change the attribution on this quote to **Shodan** , and make it first person instead of third, I could be warned or even banned from this board. The fact that you, **Shodan** , think it’s meaningless that you did the same thing with an off-board source says a lot about your character, you disgusting ball of slime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/751 "2010-10-28T18:36:18Z")
Shodan: Surely you’ll agree that there’s a huge difference between “Steve said he saw a UFO,” and “Bill said, ‘Steve told me he saw a UFO.’” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/752 "2010-10-28T18:37:09Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It was a quote, of something Armstrong Williams alleged Anita Hill said. In other words, it was a quote by Armstrong Williams, not Anita Hill. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/753 "2010-10-28T18:39:03Z")
**Shodan** , you have \*\*Bricker \*\*and \*\*Dio \*\*appealing to you for reason. That’s gotta tell you something… …as for me, I think I need to check that thermometer I stashed in Hell to see if it froze over…😃 ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/754 "2010-10-28T18:44:22Z")
**Shodan** +holes+rule+first=epic fail. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/755 "2010-10-28T18:48:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > \ That is the same thing as saying it is identical in sense and meaning. \ Since when does "It has a similar meaning… " equal “…identical in sense and meaning”? Only in **Shodan** -land. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/756 "2010-10-28T18:57:58Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > If I were to change the attribution on this quote to **Shodan** , and make it first person instead of third, I could be warned or even banned from this board. The fact that you, **Shodan** , think it’s meaningless that you did the same thing with an off-board source says a lot about your character, you disgusting ball of slime. And, I’d add, you **should** be warned or banned for doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/757 "2010-10-28T18:59:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Shodan: > > Surely you’ll agree that there’s a huge difference between “Steve said he saw a UFO,” and “Bill said, ‘Steve told me he saw a UFO.’” Sure there’s a difference. That’s why, the moment it became clear, I withdrew the statement and apologized. I don’t expect it to have much effect on the Usual Suspects; they would rather have their tantrums. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In other words, it was a quote by Armstrong Williams, not Anita Hill. Actually, a quote of Armstrong Williams _of_ Anita Hill. > [@Shot From Guns](#): > > The fact that you, Shodan, think it’s meaningless that you did the same thing with an off-board source says a lot about your character, you disgusting ball of slime. The fact that you think less of me is not that much of a drawback - just the opposite, in fact. Shouldn’t you be calling me a homophobe, and complete the racist/sexist/homophobe trifecta? Just a suggestion, since your ability to think seems to have been compromised by a serious case of cranio-rectal inversion. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 28, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/758 "2010-10-28T19:01:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They don’t get fired. That doesn’t answer my question. What happens to someone whose government department gets downsized or eliminated? Even if Hill would continue to draw a government paycheck, where would she end up working? Would it be fair to say it might not be work she finds interesting or good for her career? > [@](#): > > I assume you realize that Reagan talked about government cuts in general I assume you can read, which is why I don’t understand why my quoting of his 1982 SOTU address including a line specifically mentioning cutting the Department of Education is being ignored. There’s nothing “general” about that. Should Reagan have been taken seriously or not? Should a career-minded person working at the Department of Education be concerned or not? > [@](#): > > so it is hard to believe that EEOC would be any safer from cutbacks than Education would be. And your assertion that it was smart to assume that she might lose her job from cutbacks at any time is problematic, since the Department of Education exists to this day. It’s only problematic if one assumes all issues should be decided in hindsight. Is that the standard you want to use? > [@](#): > > They actually tried to get Anita Hill hired as a Schedule C, or “political” employee, which would be subject to being fired without notice if your political sponsor/boss leaves. But being hired as Schedule C generally takes some kind of activity for a particular party before being hired. They didn’t have any such for Hill - _Newsday_ found she was a registered Democrat (not a Republican as was falsely reported elsewhere). Who is “they” and what relevance does this have? > [@](#): > > I would have thought it was pretty clear what went on - Anita Hill was an apparently bright young star - valedictorian of her small high school, Yale graduate. She gets hired by a fairly high-pressure private firm, and finds she is a bit out of her depth. They ask her to leave That is by no means clear. One attorney at the firm (Burke) described her being asked to leave, and another attorney (Donald Greene) quickly stepped in and disputed this, describing how they had no records Burke and Hill had worked together, but Burke _had_ worked with a different black woman who _was_ asked to leave ([PDF cite](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/1019-1021.pdf), for the second time). If your argument relies on the premise that Hill’s work record was spotty, be advised that the solidity of this premise is in question. > [@](#): > > and a friend of Thomas’ helps out the nice young black woman by getting Thomas to more or less take her under his wing, and hire her at Education. I’ll assume this is true with a shrug. Getting jobs through friends and acquaintances is hardly unusual. > [@](#): > > All is well, more or less, and then Thomas moves to EEOC. Hill has obviously decided to hitch her wagon to this rising star, and moves with him to EEOC. Unfortunately, when this happens, not only is Thomas more distant and less accessible (he has a larger staff and more work), but begins the move politically rightward that many mention. There are then more colleagues who notice the less-than-stellar quality of Hill’s work, but she relies on the increasingly rare chances she has to maintain Thomas as her primary work contact. If there’s sworn testimony by witnesses describing this version of events, I look forward to reading it. > [@](#): > > The final straw is when Thomas decides to hire someone to supervise the lawyers who work for him. This would mean even less direct contact between Thomas and Hill, as well as a possibly less sympathetic direct supervisor for Hill. She lobbies for the position, does not get it, and decides therefore to leave EEOC. She flounders about for a bit, teaching at Oral Roberts University, of all places, but maintains contact with Thomas out of common sense, and perhaps even a lingering hope of becoming his protege, or even more. Then Thomas marries, and this is the last contact between Hill and Thomas. Interesting that she is no longer interested now that he is no longer single. How much of this and the previous paragraph can be independently verified, i.e. by a source other than David Brock? > [@](#): > > But she finally lands a tenured position, and all is well. Thomas continues his rise, until finally he is nominated for the Supreme Court. Hill is now secure in her position, and still resentful over Thomas’ abandonment of her as well as his rightward shift, figures she can accuse him anonymously and sabotage his chance of voting to overturn Roe v. Wade. Totenberg and Simon out her, and she has the choice of admitting what she has done, or brazening it out. By this time, she may even have been able to convince herself that it really happened. And things went as they did. When I said Hill had plausible reason to believe the Department of Education might be abolished, I supplied supporting evidence. What you’ve written is more akin to a novel in which Hill is one of your characters. > [@](#): > > The documented facts aren’t particularly in dispute. The interpretations of those facts, however, certainly are. How much of your documentation comes from Burke or people quoting Burke? Documentation alone doesn’t make a fact true. I see no reason to revisit or reconsider my earlier “solid refutation” stance. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/759 "2010-10-28T19:03:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It was a quote, of something Armstrong Williams alleged Anita Hill said. > That is the same thing as saying it is identical in sense and meaning. > Well, not necessarily as a partisan attack, but I don’t see this as some huge gotcha. YMMV, but… > > Regards, > Shodan You want to know the difference? You were quoting from _The Real Anita Hill_ by David Brock. That book has been repudiated by the author himself. You didn’t want to use that as your citation, so you decided to claim the quote was from Anita Hill herself. However, you needed to attribute it. So, remembering (wrongly) it was from the Congressional hearings, and a letter Wallace wrote to Thurmond, you found the Congressional Record page that included that letter. The problem was, you weren’t able to read the Congressional Record itself, so you assumed it was in there. I’d wager a bet the fact that you couldn’t view the page itself made you feel safe no one else could. Unfortunately for you, that didn’t happen. You got busted using an incorrect cite that you had not checked, when you had a perfectly good cite at hand (citing to the book). But, as noted above, that cite, though accurate, didn’t give you the credibility you sought to add to claim this was a quote from Anita Hill, and so you fudged. You **knew** the book did not say it was a direct quote from her, so you couldn’t use it as a cite. That’s staggeringly dishonest, and a breach of every possible convention of debating and/or citation. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/760 "2010-10-28T19:06:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > . > Actually, a quote of Armstrong Williams _of_ Anita Hill. In other words, a quote by Armstrong Williams alone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798.md?page=39)