It never ceases to amaze me how proudly **Shodan ** shows off the holes he keeps for himself. It’s as if he doesn’t understand the difference between Hill’s modest career and, say, the last few years of lucrative attention-whoring by the former Governor of Alaska.
True - but then a jurist in government service hired her, and thought highly enough of her performance that when he moved job, he took her with him.
I guess either her performance as a first year associate was either pretty typical of more academic minded law graduates seeking to get some firm experience before moving into a more cerebral area, or, alternatively, the person who hired her and took her to his next job was a pretty stupid man who had no ability to judge performance.
Something makes me think you might try to have this both ways, though.
More of the same. So her entire career is a result of the testimony? She was a lawyer and law professor. Are you too stupid to understand making 100K is not life changing money for her? She was making a good salary . She did not Palinize her life into becoming a celebrity. She has been very quiet for nearly 2 decades.
Your slant knows no bounds.
She graduated from Yale Law. Sounds potentially pretty lucrative.
After the testimony ,she was a law prof. at Oklahoma, her home state.
She stayed until she took a sabbatical to study psychology and and psychology of harassment.
She turned down almost all interviews with one on 60 minutes being the exception. She spoke often for free.
She returned to Oklahoma as a law prof, specializing in the law of harassment.
Now she is a prof. at Brandeis
That is a career of an educator. That is not a Palin type career as a celebrity. You are as usual dead wrong.
As usual SHODAN scrapes his sphincter to come up with right wing lies .
Where did she make this money you dreamed of?
As usual you are dead wrong and Fox has led you astray once again.
I don’t recall claiming that she was mega-rich.
Let me see if I understand - Hill didn’t get any of her post-hearing speaking fees, book deals, and tenured professorships because of the hearings. Is that what you are claiming?
It was pure coincidence. They just picked her name at random, because she was a professor at Oral Roberts University.
:shrugs:
If you believe that, you are either too stupid to be capable of debating the issue reasonably, or trolling, in the way that the SDMB allows.
She followed him, actually. That was an important point in the testimony.
Hill claimed to think that she had no choice but to follow Thomas when Thomas changed jobs, and this despite the alleged sexual harassment. Unfortunately for her credibility both as a witness and as a lawyer, it had been explained to her when she first joined that this was not the case. Hill, in other words, chose to follow a man even though she claimed he had sexually harassed her. She didn’t have to do anything to end the harassment. Yet she chose to take a course of action that, if her allegations had been correct, would have continued something she claimed was horrid and unwelcome.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, by her own testimony, she thought the behaviour was boorish but (barely) tolerable - hardly the stance of someone who sees herself as a victim. And I could buy that her early job opportunities were limited. A black woman trying to make it in Law in the early eighties? That ceiling ain’t glass - it’s iron.
Sure, her fame (or notoriety if you prefer) brought her to the attention of people who otherwise wouldn’t have heard of her, and/or may have seen hiring her as a statement in opposition to Thomas and Republican policies. So? I don’t see how motive to lie (again, if you prefer to describe it as such) proves a lie was told.
I’m a reasonable person and you have failed to convince me.
You’re claiming she told lies to Congress, under oath, for the *purpose *of getting some speaking fees. So no, you don’t understand.
She didn’t lie in order to get jobs - that was an unexpected benefit. She wanted her allegations against Thomas to be anonymous, in fact. Nina Totenberg and either Sen. Paul Simon, or one of his staffers, forced her to go public by leaking her report.
She wanted to sabotage the nomination because Thomas is a Republican. She mentioned this to Rick Tepner, a friend of hers at OU. She said much the same thing in an interview published in the Oklahoma Daily, where she claimed Thomas was the victim of a “rigid ideology”.
I am not claiming that Hill lied in order to further her career. gonzomax, having as he does the IQ of an E. coli bacterium, claimed that she didn’t benefit monetarily from her testimony. That’s pretty obviously stupid, as is pretty much everything he posts, so I shot it down with a few cites. She did benefit - she got awards and cash bonuses from the ACLU, the National Trial Lawyer’s Association, and the National Women’s Law Center. She taught contract law, but all the professorships subsequent to the hearings were in subjects like ‘Gender and the Law’.
Hill can be concluded to have lied because her testimony conflicted with the established facts at enough places that her truthiness is an implausible theory.
I note that no one has noticed that, if Lillian McEwen’s (unsworn, nineteen years after the fact) statements are true, Hill’s denial that she and Thomas had been dating or in a sexual relationship must have been false. Do those who believe McEwen believe that? Why not?
Regards,
Shodan
No, I am not.
Regards,
Shodan
Are too. So there.
Before this goes further, you are claiming that she lied, right? I mean, it’s easy to rattle off motivations for someone to have told a lie, but pointing out an actual lie requires counter-evidence (none of which I’m aware of) or for the alleged liar to have undermined their own credibility (same).
What established facts were those? Did she accuse Thomas of doing something crass at the office at a time when he was reliably proven to be out of town or something?
Wait… what? McEwan was dating Thomas. Hill was working for Thomas. Did McEwan say Hill was dating Thomas? I must have missed that.
McEwen said that she believes Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas had a sexual relationship.
Cite.
Yes, she lied.
I have already mentioned some of them - Hill claimed that she had had no choice but to follow Thomas when he changed jobs. As mentioned, it had been explained to her that she did not have to, when Hill first started the job. Hill also testified that no one had told her to start looking for other jobs during her performance evaluation at the private law firm for which she worked. As mentioned. the partner who gave her the eval said that this was not true.
Etc. See my earlier posts - everything I have stated is true.
No offense, but in the Pit, cites don’t always help. Twits like ElivisL1ves have now seized on something (they made up) that they can use as an excuse to ignore everything and keep repeating foolishness over and over.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, she followed him. Which means he was willing to have her come with him. That’s what happens when people like that shift positions. They aren’t required to take everyone in their prior staff. What happens is they decide who they want, and those people are then asked if they want to continue in their current position, or go with the person to the new job.
Which means, doesn’t it, he was happy with her job performance? So your snide piece of character assassination about her performance as a first year associate is kind of worthless. Then again, that’s pretty typical of how the ultra-right has treated Ms. Hill from Day One - lies and innuendo.
Okay, I buy that it’s true that McEwan believed Hill and Thomas were involved.
I don’t see how this belief has any bearing on Hill’s testimony, though.
For highly generous interpretations of “true”… a generous “maybe”, but while I’ve always accepted it as possible Hill lied, I’ve yet to see anything that suggests it was probable that she did.
And in any case, for Virginia Thomas to bring this issue up again was foolish, albeit understandable. I don’t believe Virginia is crazy, as some posters have suggested - just nursing a resentment that over-ruled what should have been her better judgement.
Is it unfair to draw the conclusion that she (Hill) didn’t feel the harassment she experienced was significant enough to keep her from following him to a new position?
True, but… were the law on sexual harrassment to include a requirement that you sacrifice a potential advance at work to get away from a sexual harrasser, it probably would be relevant. Given, however, that the entire fucking purpose of protecting people from sexual harrassment is to ensure they don’t have to make the choice between career advancement and being treated with respect and dignity, I’m not sure how relevant whatsoever it is whether she chose to continue to be exposed to it or not.
Hill testified that Thomas sexually harassed her - that he asked her out, and she refused.
If you believe everything McEwen said, that is not true and Hill lied.
You didn’t see what I posted about the partner who gave Hill her performance evaluation? You didn’t see what McEwen said? You didn’t see what Hill claimed about her job security?
I sort of hate to do this, because you are not generally unreasonable, but Shodan’s Law - if they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second either.
Agreed. It was stupid - understandable, but stupid.
Regards,
Shodan
Her testimony casts some light on this: she liked the work a lot, she held out the hope that the job change would put an end to Thomas’ inappropriate behaviour (which it did for the “first months at the EEOC”), she was concerned that staying with the Department of Education was tenuous since the depertment might be eliminated by the Reagan administration, she didn’t have other job prospects brewing at the time…
How much of the above is plausible is a matter of opinion, of course. I can just say it sounds plausible to me.
[quote=“Bryan_Ekers, post:615, topic:557798”]
Okay, I buy that it’s true that McEwan believed Hill and Thomas were involved.
I don’t see how this belief has any bearing on Hill’s testimony, though.
You don’t see that by Hill omitting that little tidbit of information before congress says everything about Hill’s credibility ?
This does not speak well of Thomas either. In fact, having an office romance with a subordinate is seriously bad judgement.