If you have the time, I’d like to be pornified.
Videos to be shared, right? C’mon, videos!
I just ordered a 3d IMAX camera. This is gonna look like the front row at a Gallagher show.
Somebody had a lot to gain by lying. was it Thomas? he got a lifetime job for big bucks and prestige he could never earn, especially for a limited jurist like him.
Hill got nothing. she stuck her neck out to do the right thing. She made no money and went on with her career in legal education. This thing is so simple. She kept a low profile. It took Thomas’s dumb wife to bring it all up again.
Now, don’t you start in pornifying around here, boy! These are good, Og-fearing Dopers in these parts, and we don’t much like citified pornification! No sir!
But wait a minute…there ARE no three-foot-high nuns!
’Luci raped a penguin! 'Luci raped a penguin!
I leave a thread I start for just a short time…I come back and it’s pornified.
Bricker, Why do you hate America? 
[ul][li]Hill moved in 1983. Reagan’s budget proposal for 1983 did not eliminate the Department of Education. I assume Hill recognized that. []Hill was a Schedule A, or “career” lawyer. Schedule A employees cannot be fired except for cause.[]Hill’s statements at the time were to the effect that she went to EEOC because she wanted to stay with Clarence Thomas. During her testimony, Hill alleged that she did not know who was going to be Thomas’ successor at Education. In fact, it Harry Singleton, who was at Education for some months before Hill and Thomas left, and asked her to stay on. She refused, expressing a desire to “go with Clarence (Thomas)”.[*]Diane Holt, Thomas’ long-time secretary, testified that Hill told her that her (Hill’s) desire to change jobs was motivated by a desire to follow Thomas, and that Hill was enthusiastic about the change.[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
Hill would be smart to recognize that the Department’s existence and chances for advancement within it were tenuous as long as Reagan was in office. His rhetoric about how local control of education was better than Federal funding continued throughout his administration. It’s easy to say in hindsight that the D of E was safe, but in early- to mid-eighties?
What happens to them if their departments get downsized or eliminated?
Her other testimony also describes how in the months before and immediately after the change, Thomas had backed off, leading her to believe (prematurely) his inappropriate behaviour had ended. I don’t have the necessary links to her complete testimony to evaluate the statement you’re paraphrasing. What exactly did she say? And even if she’d forgotten or was misinformed about Singleton taking over the department, what difference does it make?
Same thing. What exactly did Holt say, and even if she thought Hill specifically wanted to follow Thomas, what difference does it make? Thomas could easily have been a good boss with an interesting portfolio when he wasn’t being a letch, and Hill casually admits he wasn’t a letch all the time.
In short, I don’t see what bearing any of this has. Could Thomas have been a good boss with two plum assignments in a row that carried lots of opportunity for interesting work for his assistant AND a sexually aggressive creep? Yes, he could.
If Hill’s to be taken at her word, she made the transfer with Thomas at a time when his aggressiveness had temporarily stopped. If she’s not to be taken at her word, then it’s possible to hypothesize all kinds of stuff about her.
Our librarian pulled that cite from the Congressional Record for me. It had nothing to do with the Thomas hearings.
The problem is you attribtued it to Anita Hill. And, apparently, you knew it wasn’t something she said. Even forgetting where this Congressional Record cite came from, I don’t see how that can be anything better than deliberately misleading. It would have been just about acceptable to say:
When asked when she said that, you could have responded that Armstrong Williams said she said it. That’s OK.
But to put it as a direct quote from Anita Hill - surely you can see how fundamentally wrong that is, when you knew you weren’t reporting a direct quote.
The two cites you give in here - the second is to youtube, the first to somethign that simply says “Cannot open tmp file.”
Here’s a cite which has transcripts of the hearings - 4 separate days. I don’t see Armstrong Williams as a witness, or any submission from Armstrong Williams. I could be missing it though.
That’s funny, because the heading says
:shrugs:
I went to thomas.gov, or whatever the search engine for the Congressional Record is called, went to the records for 1991, and did a search on Strom Thurmond’s entries for the reference number listed. There it was.
They don’t get fired.
I assume you realize that Reagan talked about government cuts in general, 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.
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).
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
The documented facts aren’t particularly in dispute. The interpretations of those facts, however, certainly are.
Regards,
Shodan
ETA - Armstrong was not called as a witness.
You know, I was going to defend Bricker here and say this issue was already discussed and he’d conceded that she had a valid reason to report the call to Campus Security if she thought it was part of the harassment she’s been experiencing for the past twenty years. But then I saw this:
:rolleyes: Thanks for saving me the time by proving you’re still an idiot sometimes.
No, considering things from the perspective of someone who thought Hill had lied was entirely valid. He was testing the assertion of the OP, that anyone, regardless of politics or opinion, would find the call to be tone deaf. I disagreed with his *conclusion *(and got him to concede that it would be either tone deaf or shit-stirring), but not the basic test of concept.
Yeah, just like all those battered women who stay with abusive partners are just applying bruises with makeup because they don’t walk away on the days when they’re not getting hit.
You’re fucking disgusting.
Shame. Shame and loathing.
No, not exactly. There *is *a certain subset of interpersonal interaction that can either be harassment or not, depending on the relationship between the two people involved. However, it does *not *follow that therefore *any *interaction between two people is also subject to this same subjective classification. For example, someone emailing you to ask you to order more paper cannot be classified by any reasonable person as sexual harassment. You only get to decide about the things in the gray area.
That is quite possibly *the most amazing *insult I’ve ever read on this board.
You left out the word “pickaninny,” you disgusting sexist racist piece of trash.
For this cite???
Congressional Record, October 7, 1991, p. S14467
Aside from the cite, can you explain why you attributed it as a direct quote to Anita Hill when you knew it wasn’t?
This is the quote you attributed to Anita Hill.
It matches word for word a line in the book, The Real Anita Hill.
I’ve tracked down the Senate Record for that day, with Strom Thurmond reading a letter into the record. The closest the letter comes to this is:
137 Cong. Rec. S25678 (Oct. 7, 1991)
Then we have Thurmond’s commentary on the letter:
Id.
So here are my questions:
(1) why did you attribute a line from a book to the Congressional Record?
(2) why did you attribute a quote from an author describing something a person said about Anita Hill, in a letter to Strom Thurmond, as a quote from Anita Hill?
Again, if I am mistaken, I apologize. But can you please answer these?
I have already conceded error on the point – I was explaining the reasoning that led to my error. In other words, I thought X at the time. X turned out to be wrong.
However, to not make that explicitly, crystal clear was indeed a sign that I’m still an idiot sometimes.
Yeah, that was confusing as hell. Good to know my memory isn’t completely shot, though. Or that you didn’t suddenly change your mind for completely inexplicable reasons. 
No, it’s not like that even a tiny little bit.
And, your departure from coherence is complete.
- 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 -
- 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
Yes, it is. You’re using the fact that she stayed with someone who was sexually harassing her during a period when he’d cooled off because to do otherwise might have fucked up her career as evidence that she wasn’t really being harassed, and was therefore lying about the whole thing.
Please. Your whole post reeked of condescension towards the Poor Little Black Girl. You disgust me.