Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Anyone who Molly Yard is against can't be all bad.

    I'm English - give me some background, please - like who is this
    person?
    
    Alice T.

Article: 532
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Center for Const. Rights: Judge Thomas nomination
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Organization: PACH
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 02:56:24 GMT
 
/** pn.publiceye: 32.0 **/
** Topic: CCR Statement on Judge Thomas **
** Written  3:15 pm  Aug 27, 1991 by peacenet in cdp:pn.publiceye **
 
From ccr Mon Aug 26 10:22:53 1991
 
                                  STATEMENT BY  
                      THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 
                           AGAINST THE NOMINATION OF  
                              JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS 
                            TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT 
 
 
The Center For Constitutional Rights 
666 Broadway, 7th Floor 
New York, New York 10012 
 
Tel.  (212) 614-6464 
Fax. (212) 614-6499 
 
The Center for Constitutional Rights urges all groups and 
individuals who are concerned with social justice to vigorously 
oppose the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme 
Court.   
 
This nomination is completely unacceptable for the many 
reasons detailed below, which include Judge Thomas' controversial
role as administrator of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC), his views on the most serious issues currently
facing women and people of color, and his judicial
qualifications, which, like most of the Bush-Reagan appointments to 
the federal bench, reflect slender legal and judicial experience.    
     
Moreover, this nomination is an insult to the African-American community 
which must now endure, if President Bush has his way,the replacement of 
a legendary African-American fighter for human rights -- Justice Thurgood 
Marshall -- with a right-wing African-American bureaucrat -- Judge Clarence 
Thomas.   
     
It is also an affront to millions of Americans -- people of
color, women, laboring people, the poor, the elderly -- who, for
the past 25 years, looked to the Supreme Court as the final
arbiter and protector of their rights. 
     
By selecting Judge Thomas, President Bush seeks to get one 
step closer to the goal he and President Reagan charted 11 years
ago, and which they have nearly accomplished: the appointment of
conservative judges to all levels of the federal court system, 
including the Supreme Court, who will alter the judicial face of
our country for generations to come.   
     
While President Bush, who recently demonstrated his dedication to 
civil rights by opposing the Civil Rights Bill, cynically
plays on the legitimate desire of many people to see diversity on the 
court, let there be no doubt about it:  he intends to utilize a 
person of color to put the last nail in the coffin containing the
progressive legacy of Justice Marshall.  This nomination raises
the nightmarish prospect of right-wing presidents using women and 
people of color to reverse the gains won over the past three 
decades, gains won with blood and tears.  It cannot -- to use 
President Bush's own words in another grim context -- be allowed
to stand. 
 
Judge Thomas is an unsuitable candidate for the following 
reasons: 
 
                                    ********* 
 
         Record as Chair of the Equal Employment Commission 
 
 
While serving as Chairman of the EEOC, the agency which 
enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination on
the basis of race, sex, national origin and age, Judge Thomas
informed a senate committee that more than 13,000 age discrimination 
complaints were at risk of being lost because they were not 
processed before the expiration of the two-year statute of 
limitations.1 
     
During his tenure, the number of class action suits declined
precipitously in comparison to the number of individual cases.  
This meant that the agency was more concerned with individual
cases than with challenges to systemic discrimination.  In fact,
Judge Thomas wrote, "most of our cases involve discrimination by a 
particular manager or supervisor, rather than a 'policy' of 
discrimination..."2 
     
Judge Thomas' methodology was described as follows in a 
profile in the Atlantic Monthly: 
 
     If an employer over the years denies jobs to hundreds of 
     qualified women or blacks because he does not want women 
     or blacks working for him, Thomas is not prepared to see 
     a "pattern and practice" of discrimination.  He sees 
     hundreds of local, individual acts of discrimination.  
     Thomas would require every woman or black whom that 
     employer had discriminated against to come to the 
     government and prove his or her allegation.  The burden 
     is on the individual.  The remedy is back pay and a job.  
     "Anyone asking the government to do more is barking up 
     the wrong tree," Thomas says.3 
 
The General Accounting Office found in 1988 that a large 
number of cases were closed -- from 40 to 87 percent -- because 
allegations were not fully investigated by the field offices and
state fair employment practices agencies.4  In addition, the 
backlog of cases at the EEOC rose from 31,500 in 1983 to 46,000
in 1989, as did the processing time -- from 4 to 7 months in 1983 to
almost 10 months in 1989.5  The number of equal pay cases
declined from 35 in 1982 to 7 in 1989.6  And the agency ceased to 
aggressively pursue its mandate: former EEOC Chair Eleanor Holmes
Norton wrote, "The EEOC effectively has lost the role as lead 
agency conferred to it by the historic Civil Rights
Reorganization of 1978, not because of any change in law, but by 
abdication to the Justice Department."7  Finally, even the Civil Rights 
Commission, which had lost much of its steam in the Reagan years, 
reported in 1987 that "on a number of policy issues requiring regulatory 
activity, the EEOC to date has accomplished very little."8 
 
 
                Actions and views about affirmative action. 
 
Judge Thomas regards affirmative action as useless and
harmful to the initiative of African-Americans (this despite the fact
that he took advantage of an affirmative action policy at Yale Law 
School).  The author of the Atlantic Monthly portrait described 
Judge Thomas as believing that "There is no governmental
solution" [to historical discrimination], and that "government simply
cannot make amends, and therefore should not try."9 
 
In an interview in the New York Times in July 1982, Judge 
Thomas said: 
 
     I am unalterably opposed to programs that force or even 
     cajole people to hire a certain percentage of minorities.  
     I watched the operation of such affirmative-action 
     policies when I was in college, and I watched the 
     destruction of many kids as a result.  It was wrong for 
     those kids, and it was wrong to give that kind of false 
     hope.10 
 
He wrote, "A positive civil rights policy would aim at reducing 
barriers to employment, instead of trying to get 'good numbers.'"11  
 
And further: 
 
     I don't think that government should be in the business 
     of parceling out rights or benefits.  Rights emanate from 
     the Constitution and from the Declaration.  They are 
     there, and they should be protected.  I am not confident 
     that Washington is any more moral or stronger than anyone 
     else to assign rights, or even better able to do it.  We 
     should be careful not to concede the rights of 
     individuals in our society in order to gain something 
     such as parity.  Ultimately that will do us a 
     disservice.12 
 
While heading up the EEOC, Judge Thomas changed its previous
practice of setting goals and timetables for employers to make
jobs available to women and people of color.  In 1985, according to an
Alliance for Justice report, "the EEOC acting general counsel,
with the Chairman's support, ordered EEOC regional attorneys not to 
include goals and timetables for settlements or in actions in
which the EEOC had intervened.  The general counsel also ordered legal
staff not to seek enforcement of goals and timetables in existing
consent decrees."  This prompted a protest by five congresspersons 
who stated that the "Commission is forfeiting the most effective
tool to combat centuries of discrimination."  It was only when
the Supreme Court handed down three decisions in May and June 1986 
upholding the use of goals and timetables that Judge Thomas promised to 
reinstate the policy.13 
     
Judge Thomas acknowledged the deeply entrenched racism in
this country when he said, "There is nothing you can do to get past 
black skin.  I don't care how educated you are, how good you are
at what you do -- you'll never have the same contacts or 
opportunities, you'll never be seen as equal to whites."14   Yet
he eschews affirmative action as a way to reduce "barriers to 
employment," and offers no other alternatives, leaving women and
people of color to the mercy of the very people he distrusts. 
 
                              Other racial matters 
 
Judge Thomas complained about civil rights leaders who
"bitch, bitch, bitch, moan and moan and whine" about the Reagan 
Administration.15 
 
A sharp exchange took place between Judge Thomas and Joseph
H. Duff in a symposium on affirmative action: 
 
Thomas:  A race-conscious law is one that defines rights
based on race. Segregation and apartheid are race-conscious laws.
 
     Duff:    I was admitted to law school under the University
     of  California's Equal Opportunity Program.  I passed the bar 
     exam, and now practice law in the community.  That is a good
     race policy. 
 
     Thomas:  It is good for you. 
 
     Duff:  It is also good for the community and the society. 
 
     Thomas:  No, I think it is good for you.  When I went to 
     college the problems with those policies were quite 
     significant as were the animosities they generated.16 
 
     
              "Right to life," the family, and contraception 
 
Although Judge Thomas has not ruled directly on these issues
during his tenure as a judge, a good idea of his general attitude
about family issues can be obtained from the 1987 report issued
by President Reagan's Working Group on the Family, of which Judge 
Thomas was a member.  This report is such a litany of right-wing
views about the family that it is worthwhile quoting it at
length.  It includes discussions about the nature of the family
(preferably, a traditional nuclear constellation), divorce (it 
should be made harder to obtain); the Supreme Court's "weakening" 
of the traditional family; teen-age sexuality (it must be restricted); 
women staying at home to care for children (it should be encouraged), 
and so on: 
 
     ...If an ever larger percentage of adults choose not to 
     marry or choose to remain without children, there will be 
     public implications...With current fertility levels and 
     without immigration, our population will decline; this is 
     a problem we share with much of the western world...17 
                               *** 
     The disconcerting truth is that judicial activism over 
     the last several decades has eroded this special status 
     [of the family] considerably.18 
                               *** 
     ...[In the past 25 years the Supreme Court has handed] 
     down a series of decisions which would abruptly strip the 
     family of its legal protections and pose the question of 
     whether this most fundamental of American institutions 
     retains any standing...The Court has struck down State 
     attempts to protect the life of children in utero, to 
     protect paternal interest in the life of the child before 
     birth, and to respect parental authority over minor 
     children in abortion decisions...The Supreme Court has 
     turned the fundamental freedom to marry into a right to 
     divorce without paying court costs.  It has journeyed 
     from protection of the "intimate relation of husband and 
     wife" in its contraception cases to the dictum that "the 
     marital couple is not an independent entity with a heart 
     and mind of its own..."19 
                               *** 
     ...traditional divorce laws inhibited easy 
     separations...In so doing, they sometimes made things 
     difficult, and changes in divorce law may well have been 
     overdue.  But in a relatively short period of time, 
     almost all the states adopted a model divorce law that 
     established, in effect, no-fault divorce.20  
                               *** 
     ...enrollment in a family planning program appeared to 
     raise a teenager's chances of becoming pregnant and of 
     having an abortion.21 
                               *** 
     At a minimum, no Federal program should provide 
     incentives for sexual activity by teens.  No Federal 
     activity should contravene the approach we have taken to 
     drug abuse: we do not compromise with self-destructive 
     behavior.  We insist that it stop and we provide 
     assistance to those young people who want to regain 
     control of their future.22 
                               *** 
     Government should not provide incentives -- or make 
     things easier -- for teenagers tempted to promiscuity.  
     For example, AFDC benefits should be restructured to 
     limit their availability to those minors who agree to 
     continue to live with their parents.  This step would go 
     a long way toward making illegitimate motherhood less 
     attractive in the poverty culture.23 
                               *** 
     Unlike Sweden, for example, the mothers of America 
     managed to avoid becoming just so many more cogs in the 
     wheels of commerce.24 
                               *** 
     In one of the great tragedies of American life, tens of 
     thousands of childless families wait for children to 
     adopt while 1.8 million other Americans abort their 
     unborn children each year.25 
      
Judge Thomas' comments about abortion have raised such 
enormous concern that most leading women's organizations are 
opposing his nomination.  In a speech he made in 1987 to the 
Heritage Foundation Judge Thomas spoke favorably about an article
written by another conservative, Lewis E. Lehrman, in which
Lehrman wrote: 
 
     Adapting Lincoln's words from his patient struggle for 
     the inalienable right to liberty in the 1850's, we may 
     now say that the "durable" moral issue of our age is the 
     struggle for the inalienable right to life of the child- 
     in-the-womb -- and thus the right to life of all future 
     generations... 
 
     May it be reasonably supposed that an expressly 
     stipulated right to life, as set forth in the Declaration 
     and the Constitution, is to be set aside in favor of the 
     conjured right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, a spurious 
     right born exclusively of judicial supremacy with not a 
     single trace of lawful authority, implicit or explicit, 
     in the actual text or history of the Constitution itself?  
      
     Are we finally to suppose that the right to life of the 
     child-about-to-be-born -- an inalienable right, the first 
     in the sequence of God-given rights warranted in the 
     Declaration of Independence and also enumerated first 
     among the basic positive rights to life, liberty, and 
     property stipulated in the Fifth and Fourteenth 
     Amendments of the Constitution -- are we, against all 
     reason and American history, to suppose that the right to 
     life as set forth in the American Constitution may be 
     lawfully eviscerated and amended by the Supreme Court of 
     the United States, with neither warrant nor amendment 
     directly or indirectly from the American people 
     whatsoever?26 
 
Judge Thomas said Lehrman's article "on the Declaration of 
Independence and the meaning of the right to life is a splendid 
example of applying natural law."27  This view, according to some
legal scholars, puts Judge Thomas to the right even of Justice 
Scalia in the matter of abortion, since no justice currently on
the Supreme Court has voiced the view that the fetus has either God-
given or constitutional rights.  Translated into current
realities, a court that took this position could not only overturn Roe but 
could make abortion illegal in all states. 
 
The Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which gave married 
couples the right to obtain legal contraceptives, also caused
Judge Thomas some unease.  He wrote:  
 
     Some senators and scholars are horrified by Judge Bork's 
     dismissal of the Ninth Amendment, as others were 
     horrified by Justice Arthur Goldberg's discovery, or 
     rather invention, of it in Griswold v. Connecticut." 
     ["The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, 
     shall not be construed to deny or disparage others 
     retained by the people."] 
 
     ...A major question remains:  Does the Ninth Amendment, 
     as Justice Goldberg contended, give to the Supreme Court 
     certain powers to strike down legislation?  That would 
     seem to be a blank check.  The Court could designate 
     something to be a right and then strike down any law it 
     thought violated that right. And Congress might also use 
     its powers to protect such rights -- say a "right" to 
     welfare.28 
 
 
           Economic issues and congressional oversight 
 
As illustrated above, Judge Thomas' distaste for welfare 
surfaces in many of his writings and speeches, but probably his 
most widely-publicized comment was made about his own sister, who
received public assistance for six years while she cared for the
aged aunt who had helped raise her.  Judge Thomas said, "She gets
mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check.  That is how
dependent she is.  What's worse is that now her kids feel
entitled to the check too.  They have no motivation for doing better or 
getting out of that situation."29  His distrust of governmental 
economic aid extends to criticisms of minimum wage laws and
unfair labor practices as unnatural interference with the economic 
process.30 
     
Judge Thomas also appears to distrust congress.  He wrote
that congress was "out of control," and cited none other than Ollie 
North as a person competent to assess this:  "Congress remains
the keystone of the Washington establishment.  Over the past several
years, Congress has cleverly assumed a neutral ombudsman role and
has thrust the tough choices on the bureaucracy, which Congress 
dominates through its oversight function.  As Lt. Col. Oliver
North made it perfectly clear last summer, it is Congress that is out
of control."31  Legal scholars fear that Judge Thomas may be 
unsympathetic to congressional initiatives on oversight.   
 
                               Judicial Experience 
 
The idea that President Bush chose the best-qualified person
for this job is not credible. 
 
Judge Thomas has served on the U.S. District Court of
Appeals for only 16 months.  Before that, he was Chairman of the Equal 
Employment Opportunities Commission for eight years, an 
administrative role which was much-criticized and controversial. 
 
His actual legal experience includes three years in then-Missouri
Attorney General John Danforth's office, followed by a two-year 
stint at the Monsanto Corporation.  He then served as a
legislative assistant to Danforth for two years, and served for a year 
at the Department of Education's civil rights division.  
     
In the days following the nomination many legal scholars 
expressed concern about the question of qualifications,
especially Professor Derrick Bell of Harvard, who commented, "Even 
had Bush limited his selection pool to black judges on the federal courts
of appeal, there are at least a half-dozen other black judges whose
accomplishments, both on the bench and before becoming federal 
judges, put those of Thomas to shame."32    
     
Judge Thomas' record since becoming an appeals judge is 
undistinguished and spotty.  As of July 3, 1991 Judge Thomas had
authored 16 opinions.  While these opinions, standing alone,
offer no clear indication of what positions Judge Thomas will take in 
civil rights and women's rights cases if he is elevated to the 
Supreme Court, it appears that he will provide an additional vote
to the Court's present conservative majority in criminal cases. 
     
Two decisions, however, should be of concern to workers and
environmentalists.  In one case,33 Judge Thomas rejected a union
challenge to a Labor Department decision permitting a mine owner
in Alabama to use a high-voltage electrical cable within 150 feet of
a working mine face in violation of federal regulations.  The
union had argued that use of these cables would increase miners'
exposure to dust and methane, create ventilation problems and make escape
from the mines more difficult.  In another case,34 Judge Thomas 
rejected a challenge by an alliance of Toledo, Ohio residents to
a Federal Aviation Administration decision authorizing expansion of
a local airport.  The residents contended that the FAA had
violated several environmental statutes and regulations. 
     
The qualifications issue existed even when Judge Thomas was
nominated to his present post on the U.S. district court:   
fourteen members of congress, all chairpersons and high-ranking 
members of house committees which oversee the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, opposed it.  At that time,
representatives of more than 20 public interest organizations 
expressed concerns about Judge Thomas' qualifications during Senate 
Judiciary Committee hearings. 
 
                                   Conclusion 
 
Judge Thomas, who called Robert Bork's defeat
"disgraceful,"35 is a complicated man, at once a dedicated conservative 
and a self- described admirer of both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm
X, something of a nationalist, a critic of affirmative action and
a "bootstrapper," a man who suffered extreme poverty and 
discrimination but one who believes in little or no government 
assistance to combat these conditions.  His nomination has
appalled otherwise moderately conservative African-American commentators 
like Carl Rowan: 
 
     It horrifies me that the country might have to endure 40 
     years of opinions of a black man who has shown no sense 
     of compassion for the needs of the poor, who hasn't the 
     guts to acknowledge that 'self-help' isn't enough in a 
     milieu of institutionalized racism, and who embraces 
     heartless legalisms where abortion and other rights of 
     women are at issue.36     
 
The Center for Constitutional Rights believes that Judge 
Thomas' inconsistency and complexity should be scant comfort to 
progressive-minded people.   As Christopher Edley, an African- 
American commentator, wrote in the Washington Post:  "If there
were a snowball's chance in Hades that Thomas would be a moderate on
the court, he would not have been nominated."37 
 
In fact, we fear that Judge Thomas' successful appointment 
will impact on the court in a way that goes beyond mere 
conservatism.  His voice will be used to permit extreme 
conservatism to re-emerge.  That it comes from an African-American 
will be used as tragic legitimation of those views.  Judge Thomas will 
likely participate in the end of legal abortion in this country; and he 
may also extend new economic concepts of deregulation, which will make 
life even more difficult for the great majority of people in this  country.   
     
Even if, as some people predict, a defeat of this nomination
is followed by the selection of someone even less suitable, the 
Center for Constitutional Rights believes that this battle is 
worthwhile.  Though the conservative tide is lapping over the
steps of the Supreme Court, there are many millions of people who will
continue to search -- and who will find -- a way to struggle 
successfully for their human rights.  It is this standard of
human rights to which we must insist that all prospective Supreme Court
justices subscribe. 
     
We urge all civil rights and civil liberties organizations
to take a position against the nomination of Judge Thomas and
request all such organizations that haven't issued conclusive positions
to do so as soon as possible.  This nomination is an insult, not a
pat on the back.  Finally, we urge all fair-minded people to 
communicate their ideas and thoughts on this subject to the
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to their congressperson and 
senator, and to their local newspapers and media outlets.  We 
remain convinced that the voices of the millions of people to
whom this is a vital concern will be heard. 
 
New York City 
August 22, 1991 
 
 
                     *********************** 
 
The Center for Constitutional Rights is a non-profit legal and educational 
organization dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed 
by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. 
 
For further information contact: 
 
Joan Gibbs, Dorothy Zellner, Frank Deale or Vernice Miller at: 
 
(212) 614-6464 
(212) 614-6499 (fax) 
 
For distribution and computer networking, contact Chris Agee at
CCR: (212) 614-6437
** End of text from cdp:pn.publiceye **

    >I urge all of you to contact Chairman
    >Joseph Biden and other members of the Senate Judiciary Commitee.  
    
    Can someone provide a pointer to their names and addresses?

	Well, there's Ted "Rape, what rape? We'll drive off that bridge when
	we come to it." Kennedy, Joe "Plagerize! Plagerize! Why do you think
	God made your eyes!" Biden, and Dennis "Wholly owned subsidiary of 
	Keating, Inc" DeConcini.

	Write to all of these distinguished gentlemen c/o 

		US Senate
		Washington DC 20510 

					Tom_K

	PS: Don't forget to address it to "The Honorable Senator soandso".

    Cast my vote for Judge Thomas. It is about time some put the brakes on
    socialism. Hey if the Russians did it so can we.
    
    
    
    
    		Wayne

    I really would prefer a factual reply, not an editorial.

    I support Thomas 

    MHO -- Judge Thomas is TOO CONSERVATIVE for the SOCIAL LIBERAL / FISCAL
    CONSERVATIVE in me.  I'd have to look for a different candidate.

   Whether Thomas makes it to the Supreme Court or not is irrelevant.

   The Supreme Court is already configured so that it will help set this
country back socially by at least 50 years.

   It is as I warned this community it would be when the last judge was
nominated. There is already a majority on the Bench that is capable of
neutralizing the gains made in the sixties and seventies in the areas of 
Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and personal freedom.

   Equally, it is illogical to suppose that even if Thomas is not confirmed
(frankly, I'd be suprised if he wasn't) that Bush would nominate anyone 
who would not reflect his "conservative" stance on various issues.

   An irony for this community to consider: there is one female judge on the
Supreme Court who is somewhat conservative. It would be ironic indeed if
Thomas was not confirmed and Bush nominated and got confirmed a female who 
would become the key to removing the last laws which protected women's
rights.

                                                     -Robert Brown III


   

re .7

	The Senators named in my previous reply are on the
	committee. Mail addressed as suggested, will reach them.
	In fact, mail may be sent to any US Senator at the address given.

						Tom_K

I agree with you, Robert.  Extremely ironic that either a woman or a black
man will put the skids on social gains for both groups.  As for the other
great irony, I borrow a phrase from E Grace...

Gack...Gggaaaaaccccccckkkkkkkkkk...hhaaacccckkkkk.....hhhaarooouuukkkkk!!!

Likely, *IN MY OPINION*, the greatest support for Judge Thomas will come
from conservative white males...which only goes to show you that THEIR
value system is put into action for themselves....mainly, the ends justify
the means.

GGGggggggggaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barb

p.s. I do oppose...

Article: 711
From: jlohrmann@igc.org
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism
Subject: misc.activism.: People For Amer Way on Thomas
Date: 15 Sep 91 17:20:37 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Organization: PACH
 
The People for the American Way is working on the Judge
Thomas nomination
 
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY
(Defending Constitutional Liberties)
2000 TMU Street NW
Suite 400
Washington DC  20036
202/467-4999
202/293-2672 FAX
 
People for the American Way invite you to do the following:
 
*Join them for a national conference call on the Judge Thomas nomination, to be
held on September 16, 5 pm EST.  The call
will feature a briefing on the nomination and an activity
discussion.  Call the PFAW Field Department at
1/800-326-PFAW (7329) to sign up.
 
*Invite your friends and associates without computers to
join FAXNET, the PFAW Information Network.  If they have
a fax machine and want to receive regular updates on the
Thomas nomination and action discussion, just call PFAW
at 1-800/326-PFAW (7329)
 
*Contact the PFAW Field Office at the above listed
800 number if you are interested in becoming a local
contact point.

    I was listening to the Thomas hearings on radio this morning.

    Thomas answered promptly questions about uniform sentencing and  the
    death penalty. He waffled and ultimately did not answer a question
    covering 1st amendment rights in any federally funded programs, a
    general reframing of the Rust V Sullivan (gag rule) case.  

    Funny that a man can have and talk about his opinions on some topics and
    have none or talk about none on other topics....  

    BTW, the American Bar Association came out against the Rust v Sullivan
    ruling on the grounds that it can be too broadly applied and get in the
    way of any professional/client relationship that requires the
    dispensing of professional information or advice. The ABA  mentioned
    defendant/public defender relationships as an example.
       
       Margaret

>    Funny that a man can have and talk about his opinions on some topics and
>    have none or talk about none on other topics....  

 Not funny; predictable. You know which torpedos can sink your ship and
which can't. If you had a chance to be on the supreme court and all you had to
do was not say the wrong thing about charged issues, I think you might be
tempted to batten down the hatches and weather the storm, too.

    The death penalty (which he favors as a proven means of deterrence)
    is a charged issue.  I know darn well why Thomas keeps his silence on
    the issue of choice.  If he were pro-choice he would say so.

    The knowledge that anti-choice is a stance that (probably) could
    scuttle his chances suggests that he knows where public sentiment lies,
    and certainly what the mood in the senate is.  Phaw.

      Margaret

    
    Thats preciely why Justice of the SCOTUS is not an elective office...

    SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States

    
    ...they're delaying the vote.
    
    D.

Re: <<< Note 1004.20 by GEMVAX::BROOKS >>>
    
>>    ...they're delaying the vote.

Yup, another case of being tried by the media and being guilty until proven
innocent...

                           Roak

Nnsense, Roak.  I heard several Senators (among them, bowtie Simon) asking
why they hadn't heard what the judiciary committee evidently heard a month 
ago, requesting a fuller investigation before a confirmation vote.  That 
isn't trial by media, that's just barely noticing that a potential Supreme
Court Justice may have violated the law on sexual harassment, within the
past ten years.  So they delayed the vote.  He hasn't been found guilty;
he's just going to have to answer more questions for the Senate.

DougO

      <<< Note 1004.22 by FMNIST::olson "Doug Olson, ISVG West, UCS1-4" >>>

>I heard several Senators (among them, bowtie Simon) asking
>why they hadn't heard what the judiciary committee evidently heard a month 
>ago, requesting a fuller investigation before a confirmation vote.  

	Then it would seem that the NEXT vote (after the one to delay)
	should be to abolish the Committee system. Just have all nominees
	field questions from all 100 Senators.

	Even Professor Hill admits that her affidavit was submitted to the
	Committee well in advance of the hearings. From this we are told
	that the FBI was asked to investigate and found nothing (other than
	Prof. Hill's testimony) to substantiate the charges. These facts
	were made known to Committe members prior to the vote.

	The Senators are "responding" to media charges that, as men, they
	are not sensitive to "women's issues". This may well be true, but
	it has nothing to do with this particular nominee.

Jim

General comment:

	Whether you support Thomas or not, I think if you step back for a
	minute, you'll agree that something fishy is going on here.
	The comittee holding back the information to the eleventh hour perhaps
	as a trump if they thought he'd be approved?  I don't know.  But the
	timing is just a little too convient for me to think that this "just
	happened" to break just before the vote, and then the immediate calls
	for the vote to be delayed.

	Again, it doesn't matter if you're for him or against him, something's
	wrong here...

                            Roak

    Wow!  It takes a unanimous vote of the Senate to delay something
    like this -- according to what I heard on the news (Christian Science
    Monitor) this morning.  "From this we are told that the FBI was asked
    to investigate and found nothing (other than Prof. Hill's testimony)
    to substantiate the charges."  Well, what *I* heard last night was
    that the F.B.I. did not even speak to Prof. Hill, so I would be very
    surprised if they found anything; they didn't look.
    
    What timing would people have liked?  That Prof. Hill had lied when
    a reporter [finally] asked her what she had told the committee.  (She
    didn't just broadcast this information, you know.)
    
    		*		*		*
    
    Another little something about Justice Thomas, from a letter by Prof.
    Joel F. Handler to the New York Times:
    
    To the Editor:
    
    Your July 7 article about Judge Clarence Thomas[] reports his oft-
    repeated quotation about his sister, then on welfare:  "She gets mad
    when the mailman is late with her welfare check. ... What's worse is
    that her children feel entitled to the check, too. ..."
    
    This is an appallingly callous statement and contrary to the facts.
    ... Judge Thomas's father deserted the family.... When a fire destroyed
    their home and belongings, the mother, who could no longer support
    the children cleaning houses at $15 a week, sent the boys -- not
    the girls -- to live with their grandfather, an independant small-
    businessman.
    
    [The sister] stayed home and graduated from high school.  She got
    married and had children, and then her husband deserted her.  While
    the judge was attending Yale Law School, she supported her family
    with two minimum wage jobs. ...
    
    Then the aunt suffered a stroke, and Emma Mae Martin had to quit work
    to take care of her.  This was when she went on welfare.  She was on
    welfare for about four and a half years.  Now she works as a cook....
    She has three children.  One works as a carpenter; one was just laid
    off, and the 15-year-old is in school.
    
    ..."
    
    						Ann B.

Re: <<< Note 1004.25 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
    
>>    What timing would people have liked?  That Prof. Hill had lied when
>>    a reporter [finally] asked her what she had told the committee.  (She
>>    didn't just broadcast this information, you know.)

Why did the reporter go to Hill now?  The information's been lying around for a
month!  Did it just "happen" to come out now?  Did someone just "happen" to tell
the reporter now?  It wouldn't be the first time a reporter has been used...

Sorry, it smacks of being orchestrated from behind the scene...

                               Roak

    	If the charges are true (that Thomas did, in fact, commit sexual
    	harassment) - then who the hell CARES how the information came
    	out???
    
    	If he'd committed murder, would anyone be suggesting the info was
    	only brought out as some sort of "plot" (or whatever?)
    
    	Or maybe the problem is that he ONLY committed this crime against
    	a mere woman (a mere BLACK woman, at that.)
    

    Something really stinks about this 11th hour smoking gun.... Seems
    that these two have been talking to each other for the last 7 years
    after she charged him with sexual harassment....
    
    REK 

    Heard this morning on NPR that memebers of the Senate Judiciary
    Committee want an investigation into how the information is leaked.  It
    seems that some members feel the fact that information was leaked to
    the media is more damaging then whether or not Thomas is a suitable
    person as a Supremem Court Justice.
    
    Meg

    REK - You don't have a clue as to the ways women have dealt with
    harassment from their bosses and male relatives.  Have you ever left
    a position on less than best terms with a manager and still contacted
    them for the skills they did possess?  Many of us have and it annoys 
    me that this comment keeps coming up.  We make choices and deal with
    bad behavior on the part of managers for a variety of reasons and that
    does not change the bad behavior or make it right.  Also negative
    behavior in one position can be tolerated and in another it is
    intolerable.
      
    This woman chose not to prosecute this case for whatever reasons when
    it happened.  
    
    To her, it has become necessary to examine the issue again in the light
    of the Supreme Court Nomination, a life appointment that should be held
    by a person of high standards.  

    I've been horrified at seeing some of the Senator's attitudes during
    the past 4 days, esp. DeConcinni (sp?), Hatch, and Danforth.  They
    really seem to have decided, without any facts that I can see, that
    Prof. Hills is obviously lying.  Afterall, they have Judge Thomas' word
    that it never happeed, and how can we doubt him?  It almost feels like
    the "old" attitudes you would see in a rape trial.
    
    Jim

    right, and a wonderfully sensitive comment from Strom Thurmond, to the
    effect that why did she wait until the last minute to make it public?
    
    one, it appears that she didn't.
    
    two, could it be that having been sexually harassed is a very painful 
    thing to talk about, and she had a great deal of difficulty doing it?
    
    cheryl

    RE: .28  REK
    
    > Something really stinks about this 11th hour smoking gun.... Seems
    > that these two have been talking to each other for the last 7 years
    > after she charged him with sexual harassment....
    
    People who have been brutally beaten by their spouses sometimes stay
    married to them - does this mean that the assault didn't take place?
    
    If a store-owner talks to a perp after a robbery, does that mean that
    the robbery didn't take place?
    

 In the absence of compelling corroboration, the "investigation" will be
little more than window dressing as we have two people who are believed to
be trustworthy coming out with contradictory statements. Who do we believe?
Whomever is most convenient, of course. If we want to see Thomas confirmed,
we shrug our shoulders and say "what's with this woman, why would she come
out with such a tale?" and take Thomas at his word that this never happened.
If we want to see the nomination derailed, why then he's a nasty, sexist myn
and thank the goddess for this fine woman for saving us from him.

 I would tend to believe that in all likelihood, nothing conclusive will
turn up in the investigation. Thomas will be attacked by his opponents,
and Hill will be attacked by supporters. There will be considerable mud
slinging and it will almost certainly be a circus of the highest order. And
in the end, no one will be satisfied one way or another.

 I can't imagine why this woman would lie. On the other hand, I couldn't
imagine why Charles Stuart would shoot his wife and himself. I am wary of
making a judgement in the absence of significantly more detail, detail that
is probably not forthcoming. There's so much I don't understand. Why would 
somebody who is on friendly terms with another act in a manner to deny
that person advancement? 

 Is this whole thing being blown out of proportion? Did he say "saw that new
John Holmes movie last night"? Or did he go into considerable detail about
the mechanics of a certain film or other, and imply "it could be us"? Did
he imply that her advancement potential was tied to sexual liaisons between
them? Or is there something to this woman spurned thing?

 Finally, is it a given that past actions definitely indicate a person's
character? We already know that smoking a bone cost one judge the same job.
Does talking dirty disqualify one permanently from a supreme court post?
To what degree? How often? Over what period of time?

 I fear there are infinitely more questions than answers forthcoming.

    I think 1004.34 said it all. Good note IMHO.
    
    
    Jerome.

	Typical Democrat slime tactics.

	If a Senator leaks information from an FBI investigation, it
	is grounds for expulsion from the Senate. I think this ought
	to be attended to before the Senate takes up the Thomas
	confirmation vote.

	Note that the *Democratic* chair of the Judiciary committee
	had this information quite some time ago. He could have
	delayed the *committee* vote if he wanted this investigated.
	Why didn't he?

	It would have been supreme irony if a single Senator had the 
	courage to oppose the call for a delay, and Thomas had been
	denied his seat due to unproven allegations.


				Tom_K

    Re:30 I am not talking about "other" women and how they have dealt
    with S_H. I'm talking about Judge Thomas's situation.
    
    REK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: .28  REK
    
    > Something really stinks about this 11th hour smoking gun.... Seems
    > that these two have been talking to each other for the last 7 years
    > after she charged him with sexual harassment....
    
    People who have been brutally beaten by their spouses sometimes stay
    married to them - does this mean that the assault didn't take place?
    
    If a store-owner talks to a perp after a robbery, does that mean that
    the robbery didn't take place?

Sue, you are getting off the subject here. I am talking about what is going 
on with the Surpreme Court nomination.....

REK

BTW After reading more about the phone calls between these two people it
really doesn't sound like a victim talking to her harasser?
    

    Alright, men.  How many of you have been twenty-five year old women
    who needed to be nice to a man in order to get/keep your job?
    Oh yeah, black, single women, that is.
    
    Those of you who have, congratulations!  You are now in an excellent
    position to give an informed opinion of Professor Hill's actions.
    The rest of you, well, your position just isn't as good.
    
    						Ann B.

 So apparently the Senate ought to simply reject the nomination, since they
are in no position (save for two of them) to form an opinion regarding the
veracity of Ms. Hill's testimony?

    RE: .38  REK
    
    Sexual harassment is a crime, even if the victim is willing to be
    civil to the perp after it happens.
    
    (And I can think of many, many reasons why Prof. Hill would choose
    to be civil to him in spite of what he did.)

    Re: what actually transpired between Hills and Thomas
    
    There are a couple of things to note here.  First, I believe that Hills
    is on the record saying that what transpired may/may-not-be "Sexual
    Harassment" as defined by the legal code.  She's also said that it
    really isn't important it legally Thomas "broke the law".  The real
    issue was one of conduct: if her sworn statement is true, was the
    conduct of Clarence Thomas appropriate for a judge/SCJ?  I heard part
    of her 1 hour interview (which was released to the full Senate) and 
    found her to be very lucid, forthcoming, and not appearing to be on
    a witch-hunt.
    
    She has described in detail what some of the comments made to her were
    and, without repeating them here, its my judgement that anyone in
    Digital making similar comments to a co-worker could be brought up on
    sexual harassment charges.  (Please don't quote me on this; I'm not an
    expert in the process).  Even I ;^) couldn't imagine making commments
    like that in a work situation; even in a social situation they would
    make many people extremely uncomfortable.
    
    Jim

    Sue, no one has said that sexual harassment was not a crime. And to
    inivte him to speak to her class?
    
    REK

Re: <<< Note 1004.27 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    	If the charges are true (that Thomas did, in fact, commit sexual
>>    	harassment) - then who the hell CARES how the information came
>>    	out???
    
>>    	If he'd committed murder, would anyone be suggesting the info was
>>    	only brought out as some sort of "plot" (or whatever?)
    
I would meet an eleventh-hour accusation of murder or jaywalking with the same
amount of suspicion as I met this.

>>    	Or maybe the problem is that he ONLY committed this crime against
>>    	a mere woman (a mere BLACK woman, at that.)

Let's stick to reasoning instead of accusing everyone of hating women, being
racist, etc...

My problem is with the timing, not the accusation (and if anyone takes that
statement out of context and accuses me of not caring about the alleged crime,
*I'll* go to the primal scream note, too).

                                Roak

    the jist of her press conference as reported in the Washington Post
    yesterday:
    
    1.  She was 25 at the time of the incidents (yes there were more than
    one).  She had only worked for Thomas for 9 months, and would not
    likely get a good job recommendation.  How many of us were told in our
    young working lives that we should stay at least a year or two to
    establish a track record of work products and habits?
    
    2.  At the time of the incidents, she confided in a woman who has given
    a statement to the committee about what Hill revealed to her.
    
    3.  She went from the Education Dept. to the EEOC because the incidents
    had stopped (for a time only) and because of #1 above.  She believed
    that the incidents were over and she would get on with her life in
    spite of the incidents.
    
    4.  She has not had that much contact with him in the last 7 years. 
    The telephone calls were at the behest of Oral Roberts University
    people who wanted Thomas come and speak at the university.  Because she
    had worked for him, they asked her to make a call to Thomas and ask him
    to accept the speaking invitation.  Because of their exhortations, she
    made the call but only spoke to Thomas' secretary and passed on the
    message.
    
    5.  She was contacted by a staff person from the Judiciary Committee
    because the committee had heard rumors about Hill being sexually
    harassed by Thomas and they wanted her statement.  She gave a statement
    to them for their deliberations, and she did not want her name made
    public.  She continually asked whether all the members of the committe
    had had a chance to read her statement and was informed that some had
    not.  The nomination was then voted out of committee.  She has only
    made this public now because not everyone knew about her statement and
    she wanted a full investigation.
    
    6.  The FBI investigated the matter and presented their findings to the
    White House.  The FBI spokesperson says that they work for the White
    House.  Interesting piece of news, I thought they worked for the
    American people.  Anyway, the FBI says that they just present what they
    find, and do not make conclusions.  The White House said that the
    allegations were "unfounded".  I love that term.  It conveys so much
    while meaning little.
    
    I think that this matter does need a full airing.  I hope the media
    machine doesn't cover up this one.  Thomas has further conveyed his
    contempt for women in this instance.
    
    Sen. Gore on last night's CSPAN channel gave a very reasoned speech as
    to his take on this whole mess.
    
    more later,
    
    sue

    RE: .44  Roak

>>    	Or maybe the problem is that he ONLY committed this crime against
>>    	a mere woman (a mere BLACK woman, at that.)

> Let's stick to reasoning instead of accusing everyone of hating women, being
> racist, etc...

    It's too bad I forgot to threaten to go to the Primal Scream topic
    if anyone accused me of *this*!
    
    I could have saved myself a trip...
    

    <<< Note 1004.45 by GUCCI::SANTSCHI "violence cannot solve problems" >>>

>Thomas has further conveyed his
>    contempt for women in this instance.
 
	How was this determined. Prof. Hill says that Judge Thomas harrased
	her, Judge Thomas said that he didn't. 

	Is "contempt" now defined as "I deny that I did what this woman 
	says I did"? What if he really DIDN'T do it? Is it STILL comtemptable
	that he deny the allegation?

	At this point we have two people that have given mutually exclusive
	statements. It seems that many are willing to condemn the male half of
	this dispute simply because he IS, in fact, a man. 

	Folks, that IS sexist behavior.

Jim

    It appears in the real world, not wnotes, there were enough people that
    were willing to consider Professor Hill's testimony as unfounded.
    
    Of course this has been going on for years so what is new?

    RE: .47  Jim
    
    > At this point we have two people that have given mutually exclusive
    > statements. It seems that many are willing to condemn the male half of
    > this dispute simply because he IS, in fact, a man. 

    > Folks, that IS sexist behavior.

    BS, Jim.  It's only your erroneous assumption.
    
    Thomas has the less creditable position in this.  If he'd admitted that
    he had the conversations with Prof. Hill as she described them, but said
    he was sorry (and agreed that they were inappropriate or that he'd made
    a mistake in judgment) - I wouldn't condemn him nearly as much, personally.
    
    She has very little reason to put herself through this circus for the
    kinds of things he said to her.  He has every reason to lie to protect
    his chances to get one hell of a good lifetime job.
    
    He doesn't seem worthy of being condemned because he is a man.  If I
    knew a woman who refused to admit wrongdoing, I'd consider her every
    bit as much of a jerk for it.

    The following is entered anonomously [with spacing changes by me] on
    behalf of one of our contributors.
    
    						Ann B.
    						Co-moderator
    ======================================================================
    The experience I relate below is just one of many I've had in my career.
    We might choose to continue to work for these bozos, but that doesn't
    mean they should be on the Supreme Court!
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I thought I might add some perspective as to why a woman might continue
    to work for, and retain professional ties with a man who sexually harassed
    her.
    
    Back in the late seventies, I was an entry level staff accountant in a
    public accounting firm.  On several jobs, I was the only woman.  Sexually
    explicit jokes, references, etc. were the norm.  I was constantly
    on-guard, because everything I said was picked up for double meanings...
    for example, in a discussion about moving apartments, and the difficulties
    I had transporting furniture, a comment was made about "that large CHEST
    of yours".  The men I worked with had a game where every women at the
    client was rated, with a number.  Every woman -- every time they walked
    by.  This went on up to partner level.  Did I complain?  No.  I wanted
    to succeed -- I put up with it to get ahead.  And I did -- I didn't
    "make waves";  I was accepted as "one of the boys" -- I was promoted,
    rated well, and moved on.
    
    The question is not whether a women puts up with it or not.  Not
    reporting it does not change whether or not it was harassment.  A woman
    does what she has to do to get by.  In my case, the manager on this
    job was a "fast tracker" -- he wanted me on other jobs, and I continued
    to work for him -- putting up with his nonsense, in order to succeed
    professionally.  The issue is not the fact that I did put up with it --
    the issue is that I should not have to have put up with it.
    
    This man was a pig... but if he had another opportunity for me, and it
    was a good one, I might take it....  Does my willingness to put up with
    an obnoxious work environment to get ahead negate the fact that he's a
    pig?
    
    So, I can understand why Ms. Hills continued to work for Judge Thomas, 
    didn't "file a report", and even followed him to the EEOC.  All of that's
    irrelevant.
    
    Discounting her charges on that basis is just more of blaming the victim.

    Jim,
    
    Professor Hill has corroborating testimony -- a woman she told AT
    THE TIME -- and Judge Thomas does not.  Professor Hill has nothing
    personal to gain by lying and Judge Thomas has fame and power almost
    within his reach -- if he can get 51 of 100 people to believe that
    he is telling the truth.
    
    						Ann B.

>    Professor Hill has corroborating testimony -- a woman she told AT
>    THE TIME


	Actually, Professor Hill has a woman who claims that Professor 
	Hill told her at the time. I am unaware of any proof that these
	claims are either true or false.

					Tom_K

         <<< Note 1004.52 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>

>    Professor Hill has corroborating testimony -- a woman she told AT
>    THE TIME -- and Judge Thomas does not.  

	I am willing to wait for the public disclosure of the facts.
	News reports have been sadly lacking concrete evidence. 

	You have heard a report that Prof. Hill told a co-worker (who BTW
	has specifically refused to make a public statement or to even
	be publicly identified), I have heard reports that other co-workers 
	(also unidentified) have testified that Prof. Hill may be trying to 
	"get even" with Judge Thomas for rejecting HER  attentions. So far 
	NO ONE has been reported to have overheard the alleged remarks.

	What will happen if Prof. Hill testifies that that she was harrassed
	and Judge Thomas says that he didn't do it, all in front of the
	Judiciary Committee? Is the accusation, absent of any other testimony,
	enough to cause the rejection of Judge Thomas? I hope not, because
	that's NOT the way it's supposed to work in this country. 

	If he did do it, then he should not be confirmed, but the accusation
	alone is not enough for me. Unfortunately it IS for some members of
	this noting community.

Jim

re .34,

> Finally, is it a given that past actions definitely indicate a person's
> character? We already know that smoking a bone cost one judge the same job.
> Does talking dirty disqualify one permanently from a supreme court post?
> To what degree? How often? Over what period of time?

Mark, 'talking dirty' is one thing, talking dirty to a subordinate young
woman who needs your signature on her review is something else.  To what
degree would you find that acceptable?

DougO

    I don't know.  How DO you feel about the use of eyewitness
    testimony in civil cases?
    
    					Ann B.

    	RE: .54  Jim
    
    	Well, if people come forward to suggest that Prof. Hill may have
    	an axe to grind against Thomas, I hope all the people who doubt
    	her word *because* she's been civil to him all these years will
    	use her civility as reason to doubt that she has had an axe to
    	gring against him all these years...
    
    	Somehow I doubt it, though...
    

 It depends on the situation in question. Certain behaviors are categorically
"bad," others may be "bad" or not depending on the situation and relative
comfort levels of the various participants. If you and a coworker share a 
common interest in, say, erotic literature, is it necessarily harrassment
for you two to discuss this unless you are both on the same level? If you
and your boss discuss this stuff, is s/he necessarily harrassing you? Does
it matter what the gender of your boss is? 

 If what Judge Thomas said was merely inappropriate, I would consider the fact
that 10 years have passed since the alleged incident and that a decade is plenty
of time to grow as a person and a jurist. If what Judge Thomas said was truly
harrassment material, I would be sufficiently uneasy to be skeptical of
whether 10 years of growing would be enough, or even likely. If we never know
whether he really said anything or not, then I can't say that anybody's vote
should change as a result of the allegations. That establishes a clear path
for political bastardization of the process, one which may sit well with those
who are benefitting this time, but which creates a precedent they might find
distressing at a later date.

 The Doctah

    There may ultimately be reasons to doubt the credibility of Anita Hill's
    charges against Clarence Thomas, but it enrages me to hear the "reasons"
    that some male Senators, commentators, and others are giving for not
    believing her story!  While I can understand their ignorance, it is
    appalling nevertheless, and they certainly should hurry to upgrade
    their education about sexual harrassment, sexual power, sexual
    politics, and the realities of women's lives. 

Based on my own experience, I conclude that when a woman experiences
sexual harrassment, she has to think through a number of options and
make a series of decisions.

1) If it seems "out of character" with her previous experience with that
   man, she will question whether he did, in fact, say what she clearly
   heard him say.  (Or do what she clearly felt him do, etc.)

2) Once she establishes in her own thinking that, yes, he clearly *did*
   say or do what she experienced, she must make a decision:  Should she
   tell, and if so, whom should she tell?

3) Reasons that a woman may decide *not* to tell:

   - They were alone, no witnesses, no proof; her word against his 
   - The woman feels that she personally can deal with the man and does not
     see him as being an immediate threat to other women
   - Telling would hurt his wife/family and her husband/family
   - Telling would mean the end of a much-needed business or professional
     relationship

4) If she decides not to tell, she is quite likely, in my opinion, to continue
   as normal a relationship as possible with the man, especially if their
   relationship involves her (or her family's) livelihood!


My generalizations are based on my own experience, as follows:

   A man who was a friend of ours and a business associate of my husband's,
   got my work phone number, called me long distance, and asked me to do
   specific physical things.  It was entirely unexpected and I kept thinking
   he had some business message for me to give my husband -- until he abruptly
   hung up and I realized what personal activity of his own he had been
   engaging in while on the phone!

   There are so many factors to consider in a case like this!  I told my
   husband, but I did not tell the man's wife nor ask my husband to refuse
   any further business dealings with the man.

   - I didn't want to "raise a stink" or be considered a prude.  
   - I didn't want to deprive my husband of a much-needed business contact.
   - I didn't want to give his wife information that would cause her pain and 
     embarrassment.  (We were friends as couples.)
   - I was not afraid of a physical sexualy assault and felt that he was not
     likely to be a physical threat to any other woman, either.

   Furthermore, if I had confronted the man the next time I saw him, he could
   easily have denied that the phone call ever occurred -- and I had no way
   to prove that it did.  I, like Anita Hill, would have been scrutinized.

   Even though I think I told someone at work, that would not have been proof
   of *who* had called me!   

   So my husband and I agreed that the man was in some sense "crazy" and we
   would be cautious.  I further decided that if he repeated anything like that
   again, I would be prepared, would confront him, and would probably tell his
   wife.

   I received that phone call approximately ten years ago.  Fortunately, the
   incident has never been repeated.  My husband continues to do business with
   the man and we occasionally go out together as couples.  Most of the time
   I don't even think about the incident, and I feel reasonably comfortable
   when the four or us socialize.

   But what he did was *way* out of line and cause me a great deal of stress
   and turmoil!

   Fortunately, this man will never be a Supreme Court nominee and I will never
   have to deal with the tell/don't tell issue in the context that Anita Hill
   had to do.

   If Anita Hill's allegations are true, I can fully understand why she did not
   report them sooner -- and why she continued to maintain friendly,
   professional contact with Clarence Thomas.

   The incredulity of male Senators who cannot understand this is evidence of
   a greater rift between men and women than I had believed possible.

    Oh yes, and I just heard Pat Robertson (700 Club) say that Hill's
    allegations were just that Thomas "asked her out" on a date!  This
    man (Robertson) who claims to be a TV journalist (rather than a
    televangelist) either is professionally negligent in keeping up with
    the news or is deliberatly deceiving his viewers by "omitting" the
    allegations that Thomas described sexually explicit activities and
    the plots of pornographic movies.
    
   Nancy Smith
   Oct. 9, 1991
     

    
The problem that I'm having with Ms. Hill's accusations is that it
seems that Ms. Hill herself did not think the accusations serious
enough to come out in public *up front*.  She did not come out in
public and apparently would have let the nomination go through until 
the press started howling at her door because of the "leak".  The 
Committee had the information, but should a man be crucified by the 
*accusation* of a single woman, and a woman who wishes to remain 
anonymous at that.  Yes there are a lot of drawbacks to coming out
in public with this kind of accusation with little or no supporting
evidence, but if it was *that* important, IMHO, Ms. Hill should have
been one of the first people screaming bloody murder when Thomas's
nomination was announced.

One thing that bothers me with all this is the number of people 
advocating that the *woman's* testimony should be given *more*
weight.  That would be spitting in the face of the very constitution
that they are claiming to try to protect ( equal rights?? ).
The problem is our society has determined that someone is *innocent*
until *proven* guilty and the unsubstantiated accusations of one
*person* is not enough evidence to hang another *person*.  People have 
literally gotten away with murder on a *lot* more *evidence* than has been 
presented in this case.  

I *do* believe that the charges could be very serious.  If they could
be backed up by corroborating evidence, then Thomas should be rejected.
However, I have equally strong misgivings about the "trial by hysteria" 
and "conviction by accusation" that I am seeing in this case.

re the leak.
Leaking information in this manner can seriously hamper future 
investigations.  The Committee *had* the information.  The FBI
*investigated* the accusations and made their report to the committee.
However, in the future, anyone who does not wish to be dragged
through the public mud will not be able to trust their right to
confidentiality.  They may likely just keep quiet.

fred();

Re: <<< Note 1004.46 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>> Let's stick to reasoning instead of accusing everyone of hating women, being
>>> racist, etc...

>>    It's too bad I forgot to threaten to go to the Primal Scream topic
>>    if anyone accused me of *this*!
    
**             <<< Note 1004.27 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
**
**    	If the charges are true (that Thomas did, in fact, commit sexual
**    	harassment) - then who the hell CARES how the information came
**    	out???
**    
**    	If he'd committed murder, would anyone be suggesting the info was
**    	only brought out as some sort of "plot" (or whatever?)
**    
**    	Or maybe the problem is that he ONLY committed this crime against
**    	a mere woman (a mere BLACK woman, at that.)

Seems you are accusing all people advancing the "plot" theory of possibly
discounting women or being racist.  Using standard english language syntax, I
can't seem to parse that last paragraph any other way.  Perhaps you'd care to
translate if this is not what you intended...

                               Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.56 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>

>>    I don't know.  How DO you feel about the use of eyewitness
>>    testimony in civil cases?

Note that we're not talking about an eyewitness, we're talking about someone
who was told about something happening.

In court, that's called "hearsay."

                               Roak

    No, Roak, it is called "hearsay", and it is admissible in civil
    cases.
    
    The statement of the second woman is very useful, because it
    answers that stupid, whiny question, ~Why didn't she say anything
    at the time?~  So, she told someone at the time.  The woman provides
    a living timestamp, demonstrating that it was not something Professor
    Hill invented to stop a Supreme Court nomination.  In that sense, it
    is first-hand testimony, not even hearsay.
    
    Now here's someone trying to discount her statements entirely, so
    that it is still one naughty woman against a judge instead of two
    responsible citizens against one man who has been shown to have twisted
    the truth in the past (1004.25).  How interesting.
    
    And here's Fred, who talks about innocent until proven guilty, et
    cetera, yet, using the same brain, comes to the conclusion that it
    was wrong of Professor Hill to have quietly communicated with the
    authorized, interested body of people instead of publicising her
    charges to the public at large.  How interesting.
    
    						Ann B.

    ... but he independantly corrected it.
    
    						Ann B.

    My next Primal Scream should be about being on a terminal that won't
    let me edit properly.  :-(
    
    RE: .62 Roak
    
    Look - let me put it to you this way:
    
    Let's stick to REASON instead of discounting anyone with accusations
    of making veiled accusations of sexism and racism (and I *am* talking
    directly to you.)

Re: <<< Note 1004.66 by BUBBLY::LEIGH "Gone flat" >>>

>>                         -< Oh, I read it as "heresy" >-

It was, but I went back and fixed it, but Ann had already started her reply,
which caused the race condition, etc., etc., etc...

                            Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.65 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    Let's stick to REASON instead of discounting anyone with accusations
>>    of making veiled accusations of sexism and racism (and I *am* talking
>>    directly to you.)

I don't think you'll find one place where I'm discounting you, instead you'll
only find specific attacks on your "veiled accusations" -- no more.

I debate ideas and concepts; I do not discount people because they disagree with
me.

Back to the discussion...

Now let me see what facts we have:

	Hill has said she was sexually harrassed by Thomas
	Thomas has said that he did not sexually harrass Hill
	[net, zero so far]

	Hill told someone at the time that she was sexually harrassed by Thomas
	[question, has this person come forward, or is it Hill who is telling us
	 that she told someone?]
	Advantage: Hill

	Hill's timing was terrible (as is evidenced from the lively discussion
	contained within this note).  This does not mean that she's fabricating
	her accusation, just that it smacks of a plot, plot or not.
	Advantage: Thomas

	Does anyone have any other facts about this case?

                          Roak

>	[question, has this person come forward, or is it Hill who is telling us
>	 that she told someone?]

The person has been reported as corroborating part of Hill's statement; ie,
Hill didn't tell this person everything that Hill has since told the Senate
Judiciary Committee.  I believe the news report said it was the initial FBI
investigation that checked with this other person.

>	Hill's timing was terrible (as is evidenced from the lively discussion
>	contained within this note).  This does not mean that she's fabricating
>	her accusation, just that it smacks of a plot, plot or not.

Hill's timing?  She gave testimony a month ago.  That the all-male judiciary
committee didn't see fit to release her testimony or otherwise explain why they
dealocked 7-7 which passed Thomas to the full Senate WITHOUT a positive or a
negative recommendation is hardly Hill's fault.  It got leaked, and the phones
in Congress evidently got rung off the wall; reports are that half a million
consitutents called in to express concern that the nominee would be confirmed
without the Senate even checking this story out.  Quite obviously this is a
matter that congressional constituents are very concerned about.  Don't blame
the timing on Hill.

DougO

    RE: .68  Roak
    
    You attacked what you *interpreted* as a veiled accusation - but I'll
    let you slide on it (you've made much too much of this already.)
    
    Prof. Hill's and Thomas's testimony contradict each other - so we need
    to ask ourselves who stands to gain what by lying (since they can't
    both be telling the truth.)
    
    So far, the only indication of a motive for Prof. Hill is resentment
    over his rejection of her advances (which someone in this string
    mentioned earlier today.)  Would she be mad enough at (what? not being
    asked on a date???) to lie to a Senate hearing?
    
    What motive would Thomas have for lying?  Appointment to the Supreme
    Court?
    
    Phone logs have shown that she did not demonstrate any signs of having
    an "axe" to grind against him all this time.  She also tried to report
    the harassment without being identified, so she wasn't looking to get
    famous over it.  
    
    So why would she go out of her way to lie about him (especially with an
    accusation that is not as startling or damning as the accusation COULD
    have been if she were making it all up)?
    
    Advantage:  Prof. Hill.  The timing was beyond her control (she
    reported it long before it came out in the press.)

    What, in the name of star-spangled rotifers, makes "bad timing"
    an argument at all??????
    
    She went to the Senate committee when Thomas' nomination was announced.
    That's good, honest `timing'.  She remained quiet while the committee
    deliberated.  That's polite, and so it ought to be politic, but I
    don't know if it is or not.  *After* she had ascertained that not all
    the committee had familiarized themselves with her statements, she
    spoke to a reporter.  The timing may be someone's idea of "bad", but
    as behavior goes, it seems reasonable, and honest.  What more can
    you judge?
    
    						Ann B.

>	Hill told someone at the time that she was sexually harrassed by Thomas

	I cannot even take that as fact. Hill claims she told someone. 
	That person may or may not have corroborated that. Even if 
	she has, I'd like to see independent evidence, not just folks 
	saying so.

				Tom_K

>   So far, the only indication of a motive for Prof. Hill is resentment
>    over his rejection of her advances (which someone in this string
>    mentioned earlier today.) 

Also contradicted by those same phone logs; she called him sometime in the
last two or three years to congratulate him on his wedding (just read in 
today's paper).  Hardly the actions of someone who would then perjure herself
in resentment over rejection.

DougO

    Tom,
    
    Tell you what:  Let's be fair.  Clarence Thomas said he's innocent.
    "I'd like to see independent evidence, not just" this one guy "saying
    so."
    
    Does that really sound fair to you?  (I didn't think so either.)
    
    						Ann B.

	The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

				Tom_K

    
    	Outside a criminal court, the proof doesn't have to be beyond
    	a reasonable doubt.
    
    	Prof. Hill's testimony is enough to warrant some concern about
    	the appropriateness of Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court.
    

	So, you are willing to deny Judge Thomas a seat on the Supreme
	Court on the basis of hearsay? Excuse me while I go barf.


						Tom_K

    Okay, Tom.  *You* have (essentially) accused Professor Hill of
    repeatedly lying.  The burden of proof is now yours.
    
    						Ann B.

>    Okay, Tom.  *You* have (essentially) accused Professor Hill of
>    repeatedly lying.  The burden of proof is now yours.

	I have done no such thing. I only said that I have seen no proof.
	No more, no less. I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.

					Tom_K

	On the bright side, at least while the Senate is busy with 
	this fiasco, it has less time to dream up ways to further
	drive the country into the ground.

					Tom_K
	

    Tom, From your reply .72:
    
    ">	Hill told someone at the time that she was sexually harrassed by Thomas

	I cannot even take that as fact."
    
    *That* is accusing Hill of lying.
    
    "Hill claims she told someone."
    
    *That* is accusing Hill of lying.
    
    						Ann B.

	If I were to say that I thought she was lying, then I'd 
	be accusing her of lying. I said I've seen no proof that
	confirms or disproves that what she said is true. That is 
	taking a neutral, open minded position, and I stand by it.

				Tom_K

             <<< Note 1004.76 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    	Prof. Hill's testimony is enough to warrant some concern about
>    	the appropriateness of Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court.
 
	Why? You're saying that the accusation AND THE ACCUSATION ALONE
	should bear on his appropriatness for the Court?

	A different tack. There seems to be a current of "He has more to
	gain, so he MUST be guilty" running here.    

	An Example,

	It just so happens that Roak is campainging for a spot on the Board
	of Directors for the governing body of our sport. All in all, a pretty
	big deal and a fairly important job.

	Now let's say I accuse Roak of some heinous activity (like giving
	a cash donation to HCI, [just joking Rog]). 

	There are no witnesses to this activity. I claim that he did it, he 
	claims that he did not. Does this mean he is not qualified to serve?
	IS the accusation alone, without independent information or 
	confirmation enough?

	After all, I have nothing (at least nothing anyone knows about) to gain
	and Roak will get this position of power and prestige (an inside joke).

	Therefore he MUST be guilty, right?

	Sorry folks, this doesn't wash any better than those who are arguing
	that Thomas is guilty because he's a man.

Jim

    
    	RE: .77 Tom_K
    
    	> So, you are willing to deny Judge Thomas a seat on the
    	> Supreme Court on the basis of hearsay?
    
    	I was willing to deny it to him *before* this came out, so why
    	not now?  :-)
    
    	> Excuse me while I go barf.
    
    	Have a good one.

    
    	RE: .83  Jim
    
    	NO ONE is arguing that Thomas is guilty because he is a man
    	(except in YOUR mind!)
    

    
    	RE: .83  Jim
    
    	If Roak is nominated to the Supreme Court and you testify about
    	his wrong-doing under oath to the Senate, I'd support their
    	having concerns about Roak's appropriateness for the post.
    

             <<< Note 1004.86 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

    
>    	If Roak is nominated to the Supreme Court and you testify about
>    	his wrong-doing under oath to the Senate, I'd support their
>    	having concerns about Roak's appropriateness for the post.
 
	As far as I can recall Prof. Hill has not offered sworn testimony
	in an open forum. 

Jim   

    
    	Who said anything about an "open" forum, Jim?
    

             <<< Note 1004.50 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    Thomas has the less creditable position in this.  

	OK, if it's all in my mind, please state the basis for this 
	assumption.

	You have two well-educated professional individuals. They both
	make statements that are mutually exclusive. There is no independent
	evidence for either statement. One what basis do you choose to believe
	one or the other?

	YOU are the one crying for his blood. I'm simply saying wait for 
	the evidence.

Jim

    
    	RE: .89  Jim
    
    	Excuse me????
    
    	Where did I "cry for his blood"???  
    
    	OH - you must mean where I stated that the Senate should have
    	some concerns about the appropriateness of Thomas as a Supreme
    	Court justice after hearing Prof. Hill's testimony...
    
    	(Exaggerate much, Jim?)  :-)

    Maybe I've missed something....
    
    Has this discussion already covered what Professor Hill has to lose by
    going public with a negative aspect of a hierarchically superior male
    of the species?
    
    Has somebody already noted that the legal profession is a paradigmatic
    old-boy network?
    
    Has it been mentioned that Hill stands to lose her future prospects
    (and probably will anyway, regardless of the outcome of this fiasco)
    for stepping forward and saying, "It was *me* who said those things,
    and they are still true."?
    
    A successful woman who stands up and sounds off about a famous male 
    colleague in an intensely competitive profession dominated by men is 
    *not* likely to be an embittered, jilted bimbo who is taking advantage
    of an opportunity to make someone she perceives as an a**hole pay for
    her pain.
    
    The circumstances alone lend credibility to her tale, by my lights, and
    I believe she will lose regardless of whether Thomas becomes a Supreme
    Court Justice. I'll bet she believes the same thing.
    
    
    John H-C

    I hestitate to get involved in a note whose tone has already
    become so nasty, but there is evidence that Professor Hill told
    a colleague about the harrassment at the time, and that colleague
    has corroborated her statement.
    
    Eileen

Re: <<< Note 1004.70 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

    RE: .68  Roak
    
>>    You attacked what you *interpreted* as a veiled accusation - but I'll
>>    let you slide on it (you've made much too much of this already.)

And I'll let you slide on your accuasation.
    
>>    Prof. Hill's and Thomas's testimony contradict each other - so we need
>>    to ask ourselves who stands to gain what by lying (since they can't
>>    both be telling the truth.)

Are you going to decide on who's lying and not lying based solely on "who stands
to gain?"  Are you even giving any weight as to "who stands to gain?"  What a
travesty of justice!  I'm glad *you're* not nominated for a SCotUS position!
    
>>    So far, the only indication of a motive for Prof. Hill is resentment
>>    over his rejection of her advances (which someone in this string
>>    mentioned earlier today.)  Would she be mad enough at (what? not being
>>    asked on a date???) to lie to a Senate hearing?

I'm glad you threw in a couple of question marks in there, Sue, because neither
you nor I know the answer to that question.  This unknown, of course, is added
to the fact that she has not testified "to a Senate hearing".
    
>>    So why would she go out of her way to lie about him (especially with an
>>    accusation that is not as startling or damning as the accusation COULD
>>    have been if she were making it all up)?

Another question mark.  Good.  Again, neither you nor I know the answer to this,
or even (at this point) if she's lying or telling the truth...
    
>>    Advantage:  Prof. Hill.  The timing was beyond her control (she
>>    reported it long before it came out in the press.)

It was leaked.  Even if she didn't have any control over it, the negative
reaction to the timing is a disadvantage to her.  Note:  The fact that it is
to her disadvantage that it was released when it was does not mean that I think
it's right; it's very, very, wrong.  It is also a fact that people will look
at this as a "plot" because of it's timing, and that will reflect badly on her
(again, I feel that's wrong, but just pointing out the ugly facts of life).

This unfortunate fact of life is also reflected in those who state "he has
everything to gain and nothing to loose, and she has nothing to gain and
everything loose so he must be lying".  That's the way some people will think,
(including many in this file) unfortunately...

                           Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.91 by SPARKL::JOHNHC >>>

Hey John, is isn't as nice over here as in the SCUBA notes file, so watch out!

>>    The circumstances alone lend credibility to her tale, by my lights, and
>>    I believe she will lose regardless of whether Thomas becomes a Supreme
>>    Court Justice. I'll bet she believes the same thing.

So, do we:
	1) Block a nomination because what she's saying might be true, or
	2) Wait for more information and make an informed decision?

You, as the majority of the people in this file want Thomas not nominated
bacause he was accused of sexual harrasement.  This is taking the path of
guilty until proven innocent.

He may have sexual harrased Hill.  He may not have.  Using fuzzy logic such as
"The circumstances alone lend credibility to her tale..." should not be used
as a basis for condemming Thomas...

I guess what all my responses have tried to say, over and over, is that we don't
knwo who's lying.  And we don't yet have enough information to determine that
yet.  To side with Thomas or Hill at this point is pure speculation.  Any
"reasoning" such as "he's twisted the truth before" or "she's a woman scorned"
or "why should she do this if it wasn't the truth" is a waste of time.

Again, the facts are:
	Hill says she was harrassed
	Thomas says she wasn't
	Net: 0

	Hill has a timestamp in the form of someone she told at the time
	Advantage: Hill

	The timing of the leak was terrible
	Advantage: Thomas (through no fault of Hill -- she's unfortunately a
			   pawn however this turns out).

    
    This is getting a little out of control here::
    
    As of yet there is NO evidence from Prof Hill that she was sexually
    harrassed. She has not given testamony. All she has is made a couple of
    statements to the press. She has yet to appear to give her SWORN
    testamony. When she does, then Judge Thomas will give his testamony to
    the opposite (I expect). When all this happens, there will still be NO
    PROOF that Prof Hill is telling the truth. So what else is needed???
    	. Any physical evidence??? (doubeful)
    	. Any letters or notes?? (possible)
    	. Any witnesses??? So far there haven't been any. The person
    	  Prof Hill told is NOT a witness.
    	. Did Prof Hill inform anyone of authority that she was being
    	  sexually harrassed??? If so where are they???
    
    All we know so far is that one person says it did happen and one person
    says it didn't. All this warrents is for a investigation to uncover who
    is telling the truth. Someone is obviously lying. If it's Thomas, there
    is no way he should get the seat. More likely what will happen is that
    there won't be enough evidence to confirm which one is telling the
    truth. If that's the case then it shouldn't stand in Judge Thomas's way
    of being appointed.
    
    re - about the leak of the FBI report.
    
    I hate to burst your buble, but the Democrats had nothing to gain from
    this. The report confirmed Thomas. If it was a Senetor, then it was
    most assurdly a Republican (at least a Thomas supporter).
    
    re - Prof Hill has nothing to gain.
    
    B*ll....
    "Prof Hill, I'm a lawyer representing a private interest group, and if
     you would come forward and tell the Senate hearings that you were
     sexually harrassed by Judge Thomas, then I've been authorized to offer
     you 5 million dollars"
    
    Anyone want to deny that this can't happen????
    
    
    
    My personal opinion is that Thomas is guilty of the accusation. And he
    shouldn't be nominated the Supreme Court. However my gut feeling and
    what really happened could be totally opposite. And I sure as hell
    wouldn't want to ruin someones career/nomination over something that
    could/might have happened. I need proof. And as of yet there isn't any.
    
    Another_Mans_Outlook
    

Re: <<< Note 1004.92 by MLTVAX::DUNNE >>>

>>    I hestitate to get involved in a note whose tone has already
>>    become so nasty, but there is evidence that Professor Hill told
>>    a colleague about the harrassment at the time, and that colleague
>>    has corroborated her statement.

There is an advantage to the timestamp of telling her at the time (Advantage:
Hill), but unfortunately what she told her colleague is mere hearsay (Advantage:
None).

Now an eyewitness (earwitness?) would have been great...

                                Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.86 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    
>>    	If Roak is nominated to the Supreme Court and you testify about
>>    	his wrong-doing under oath to the Senate, I'd support their
>>    	having concerns about Roak's appropriateness for the post.

Ok, he testifies under oath that I did it.  I testify under oath I didn't do it.
There is no other evidence.

Now what?  Should I get the nomination or not?

                          Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.90 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    
>>    	RE: .89  Jim
    
>>    	Excuse me????
    
>>    	Where did I "cry for his blood"???  
    
>>    	OH - you must mean where I stated that the Senate should have
>>    	some concerns about the appropriateness of Thomas as a Supreme
>>    	Court justice after hearing Prof. Hill's testimony...

Very good.  You completely avoided Jim's question.  I'll ask it again...

How do you justify the statement "Thomas has the less creditable position in
this." in reply .50?

                              Roak

Oh, so careful with the quote marks, Roak.  She testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.  Under oath.

DougO

                     <<< Note 1004.91 by SPARKL::JOHNHC >>>

>    I believe she will lose regardless 

	It has been reported that she is a TENURED Professor of Law.

	If this report is true, she risks nothing. Does this then, alone,
	make her claim LESS credible?

Jim

    OK, this is my last one here. I don't really like being "another one of 
    those men who take up all the disk space that belongs to WOMANNOTES."
    
    Being a tenured law professor (or any kind of professor) is a looooong
    way from the heights of professional achievement. There, as in many
    other pursuits, "teachers are those who can't." Tenure means nothing if
    you want status outside the parochial boundaries of staff meetings. It
    is especially meaningless if you want to make a difference in the
    world. Having seen my fair share of academia nonsense, I think she will
    suffer within her own hallowed halls. (Unless the NAACP put her up to
    this.... How come no conspiracy-theory-prone folks have suggested this
    yet?)
    
    Roak---
    
    Thomas is a guy who's made a living wrestling with legal issues and
    their implications, right? Yet he doesn't have an opinion, or can't
    recall his stated opinion on the issues surrounding Roe v. Wade?
    
    (Uh, that last was rhetorical.)
    
    Thomas: -23
    Hill: 0
    
    United States Judicial System: Hanging in the balance....
    
    (If he wins, guess what the score will be.)
    
    
    And what do you mean this is less nice (warm? friendly? whatever?) than
    SCUBA? Are you suggesting there are hard-hearted people opening this
    file? Or so you mean that folks are opinionated? Oooof! THAT one shoos
    me away.
    
    
    
    John H-C

             <<< Note 1004.88 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    
>    	Who said anything about an "open" forum, Jim?
 
	Well actually YOU did. You keep refering to Prof. Hill's "testimony",
	you use "testify under oath", as relating to the Hill/Thomas dispute
	in answering my little scenario.

	Testimony (in this case) implies going before the Judiciary Committee
	in open session. Supplying data in written form is NOT testimony.

Jim   

             <<< Note 1004.90 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

    
>    	Where did I "cry for his blood"???  
 
	Well exuce ME, if I percieved something you did not intend to
	convey.

	In .27 you say "He only committed this crime..."
	
	In .33 you compare this incident to wife-beating AND robbery.

	In .41 you say "in spite of what he did..."

	in .50 you say " Thomas has the less credible position", "he has
	every reason to lie" and implied that he has refused to admit his 
	wrongdoing.

	And finally in .84 you admit your obvious bias with "I was willing to
	deny it to him before".

	Far be it from me to interpret these remarks as "crying for his blood".
   
>    	(Exaggerate much, Jim?)  :-)

	Only a little.

Jim

	One other thing bothers me about this accusation.

	Prof. Hill did NOT, by all accounts contact the Committee. An 
	aide (by some reports a Kennedy aide, which would TRULY be ironic
	given the charges) contacted her. She responded to his questions
	and ultimately submitted a written document to the Committee. She
	SPECIFICALLY requests that her identity NOT be revealed (so much
	for being able to face one's accusers).

	Time marches on.

	The hearings are over, the tie vote has been recorded and the issues
	raised in Prof. Hill's document have NOT been raised during questioning
	(reportedly because the Committee after reviewing the FBI findings could
	NOT substantiate the charge or for that matter even find "probable
	cause" to pursue them). 

	Thomas' confirmation (by all reports) is virtually a certainty. 
	Prof. Hill STILL remains silent. 

	Someone associated with the Committee "leaks" either Prof. 
	Hill's written statement or the FBI report or both to the press. 

	At this point Prof. Hill begins responding to the questions of 
	reporters. 

	Then things REALLY begin to roll. Appearances on all three morning news
	shows, press conferences and so on.

	What I still do not understand is why was she willing to let the 
	confirmation proceed?

Jim
	

      <<< Note 1004.99 by FMNIST::olson "Doug Olson, ISVG West, UCS1-4" >>>

>She testified before the Senate 
>Judiciary Committee.  Under oath.

	When did this happen? All reports are that she submitted a written
	statement to the Committee. She did NOT appear before the Committee
	OR answer questions from Committee members.

	As to whether her statement was "sworn", reports have refered to
	it as a affidavit, this has a specific legal description as a 
	sworn statement. But unless the document itself is released we
	will not know if it was, in fact, an affidavit in the legal sense
	or whether the term was used loosely by the media.

Jim

    RE: .98  Roak
    
    > How do you justify the statement "Thomas has the less creditable 
    > position in this." in reply .50?
    
    Sorry, in my editor-less haste, I misspelled "credible" - I regard
    Thomas's denials as less credible than the accusations against him
    (and NOT, I repeat NOT - let me say it once again: *NOT!!!* because 
    he is a man.)
    
    Cases of sexual harassment are most often bungled as badly as the
    one brought up by Prof. Hill (even if investigators as well-paid
    as the FBI are the ones doing the "investigating" - and I use the
    term loosely.)
    
    Her predicament is a very familiar one in this country, unfortunately, and 
    she will pay the usual price extracted from women who dare to report it.

Re: <<< Note 1004.106 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    > How do you justify the statement "Thomas has the less creditable 
>>    > position in this." in reply .50?
    
>>    Sorry, in my editor-less haste, I misspelled "credible" - I regard
>>    Thomas's denials as less credible than the accusations against him
>>    (and NOT, I repeat NOT - let me say it once again: *NOT!!!* because 
>>    he is a man.)

Hadn't even noticed the misspelling, those things happen, and I just cut and
pasted from your last note.

You again repeat your bias -- "Thomas's denials as less credible than the
accusations against him" but you still offer no support for this bias, nor offer
how you arrived at it -- *that's* what I'm asking for...
    
>>    Cases of sexual harassment are most often bungled as badly as the
>>    one brought up by Prof. Hill (even if investigators as well-paid
>>    as the FBI are the ones doing the "investigating" - and I use the
>>    term loosely.)

What!  You don't trust your own government!?  Tell you what -- I'll meet you
over in the GUN_CONTROL conference... :-)
    
>>    Her predicament is a very familiar one in this country, unfortunately, and 
>>    she will pay the usual price extracted from women who dare to report it.

Again, it's obvious that you feel that Hill is telling the truth without the
slightest questioning; on what do you base this conclusion?

Note that I'm not saying that Hill is lying or Thomas is telling the truth;
I'm willing to admit that I DON'T KNOW and I'm willing to wait for more
information before I start casting stones or put people on pedestals...

                     Roak

    RE: .103  Jim
    
    Your apology is accepted (with regard to your misperception about my
    being "out for his blood.")  Thomas can keep every drop.  :-)
    
    The Supreme Court wasn't set up as a "neat job opportunity" for Thomas.
    It's an important (lifetime) job requiring someone with the highest
    possible integrity (something very much in question with Thomas now.)
    
    By the way, you were also wrong about my being biased against Thomas.
    I was against his nomination, true, but I'd accepted the inevitability
    that Bush would continue to create the most lopsided Supreme Court in
    our nation's entire history (and that his main concern was to find a
    minority Justice to push the Civil Rights movement back to the 19th
    Century.)
    
    Even if Thomas were turned down now, Bush would find someone worse to
    nominate (that much is a given.)
    
    One good thing about all this is that legislators are finding out that
    their constituents will not take this appointment well (and they may
    find some rude awakenings upon the next few elections.)

Re: <<< Note 1004.101 by SPARKL::JOHNHC >>>
    
>>    Thomas is a guy who's made a living wrestling with legal issues and
>>    their implications, right? Yet he doesn't have an opinion, or can't
>>    recall his stated opinion on the issues surrounding Roe v. Wade?
    
>>    (Uh, that last was rhetorical.)

Yes, but I'll answer it anyway :-).  He wouldn't answer, not that he couldn't
or that he had no opinion...
    
>>    And what do you mean this is less nice (warm? friendly? whatever?) than
>>    SCUBA? Are you suggesting there are hard-hearted people opening this
>>    file?

I ment not to suggest any of the above; It's just more political and therefore,
let's say, heated.  And yes, opinionated.  In SCUBA we debate over snorkel-
clearing techniques.  If you don't like the way I clear, just don't do it my
way :-).

             Roak

    RE: .107  Roak
    
    > Again, it's obvious that you feel that Hill is telling the truth 
    > without the slightest questioning; on what do you base this conclusion?
    
    Stop the mind-reading, Roak.  You're lousy at it.
    
    I reserved judgment on it until I'd done some reading on the issue.
    
    When it's one person's word against another's (and outside the criminal
    courts) - it's a matter of deciding whose story to believe (based on
    whose story is more credible.)  Civil courts don't base these things
    on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
    
    What I've tried to tell you repeatedly (and which you steadfastly refuse
    to comprehend) is that her description of sexual harassment is not at
    all unusual.  All the elements have much in common with the real-life
    stories of people I know about.
    
    I'm sure that Thomas considers himself "innocent" (even if he did say
    the things Prof. Hill has described.)  What's the harm in a little
    sex talk with a pretty woman at the office, after all.  Boys will be
    boys, after all.  Why should he be held to higher standards than most
    men are held to (just 'cause he's going for the Supreme Court)?
    
    Well, he should, that's all.
    
   >Note that I'm not saying that Hill is lying or Thomas is telling the truth;
   >I'm willing to admit that I DON'T KNOW and I'm willing to wait for more
   >information before I start casting stones or put people on pedestals...
    
    You're willing to appoint a lifetime Supreme Court Justice on the 
    basis of "Well, he was accused of a crime, but it wasn't proven"??
    
    I'm not.  I'm funny that way.

Re: <<< Note 1004.110 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    > Again, it's obvious that you feel that Hill is telling the truth 
>>    > without the slightest questioning; on what do you base this conclusion?
    
>>    Stop the mind-reading, Roak.  You're lousy at it.

I'm not mind-reading, I'm text reading.   Text such as the following:
    
>>    I reserved judgment on it until I'd done some reading on the issue.

Past tense.  Ok, you have the information, you know Hill is telling the truth
and Thomas is lying (statement after statement you've made support this, if you
*really* want me to, I'll go back and collect a few examples).  Care to share
what information you have available that leads you to this conclusion (third
time you've been asked, Sue!)
    
>>    When it's one person's word against another's (and outside the criminal
>>    courts) - it's a matter of deciding whose story to believe (based on
>>    whose story is more credible.)  Civil courts don't base these things
>>    on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

And you seem to have decided.  Based on what? (yhea, same question I asked
above, fourth time you've been asked, but since this is the same note as the
thrid request, we won't count it...)
    
>>    What I've tried to tell you repeatedly (and which you steadfastly refuse
>>    to comprehend) is that her description of sexual harassment is not at
>>    all unusual.  All the elements have much in common with the real-life
>>    stories of people I know about.

Good, her description matches other sexual harrassment cases.  I guess I fail to
see how that even *implies* that she's telling the truth!

Me: "Officer, I was walking out to my car, and Sue Conlon snuck up behind me
and hit me on the head with a tire iorn and took my wallet"

Officer: "Yup, that story has all the elements in common with the real-life
muggings that I know about, so we'll just skip the trial and throw her in the
slammer."

Yup, that's how I'd like *our* justice system to work... :-(

>>    I'm sure that Thomas considers himself "innocent"...

Love that spin; compeletly discards any shread of possibility that he's truely
innocent; the best he can do is that he may "consider himself innocent" but you
do know better, don't you Sue.  He's guilty, guilty, GUILTY!
    
>>   >Note that I'm not saying that Hill is lying or Thomas is telling the truth;
>>   >I'm willing to admit that I DON'T KNOW and I'm willing to wait for more
>>   >information before I start casting stones or put people on pedestals...
    
>>    You're willing to appoint a lifetime Supreme Court Justice on the 
>>    basis of "Well, he was accused of a crime, but it wasn't proven"??

I must have a problem with my terminal; I don't see anything in that paragraph
that says we should nominate him before we figure out who's lying and who's
telling the truth.  Now who was accusing who of being a poor mindreader?

                                    Roak

    No matter what his politics, and no matter what he's done or not done
    in the past, isn't there just a *slight* 8-) possibility he might
    actually be good at the job he's being nominated for?
    
    Alice T.
    
    I'll be honest with you here: I know very little about him.

    RE: .111  Roak
    
    You can ask your question til doomsday - I've answered it repeatedly,
    but you simply won't accept it:
    
    Her story is more believable than his.  I'm not on a jury in a criminal
    court of law, so I'm not required to use the "proof beyond a reasonable
    doubt" criteria.  I can listen to both sides and form my own opinion
    about who is telling the truth.  I've decided.  You don't have to like
    my decision, but I have every right in the world to make it (and NO
    obligation to justify it to you!)
    
    >> I'm sure that Thomas considers himself "innocent"...

>Love that spin; compeletly discards any shread of possibility that he's truely
>innocent; the best he can do is that he may "consider himself innocent" but you
>do know better, don't you Sue.  He's guilty, guilty, GUILTY!
    
    Why are you being so nasty?  What do you care if I believe Prof. Hill
    over Thomas?  I'm entitled to think he committed sexual harassment.
    
>I must have a problem with my terminal; I don't see anything in that paragraph
>that says we should nominate him before we figure out who's lying and who's
>telling the truth.  Now who was accusing who of being a poor mindreader?
    
    Ok, I'll offer you this:  Let's agree that his nomination
    should not be approved until we know for absolute certain who is
    telling the truth.  (Most likely, we'll never know, of course.)
    
    Here's another novel idea:  Let's put someone on the Supreme Court
    who has NOT been accused of sexual harassment.

  I hope Ellen Goodman's column is in the Glob as well (I read it last night
  in the Concord (NH) Monitor and it is awesome).

  Folks, Thomas's guilt or innocence is not what has people upset.  It is
  the fact that the Judiciary Committee has been sitting on this information
  for over a month and that they were apparently ready to deal with it in
  the traditional "old-boy" manner.  In Goodman's words, "It was her word
  versus his.  They took his without hearing hers.  They didn't tell the rest
  of us."  And that stinks.

  The reality is that in sexual harassment cases, it is usually one person's
  word against another's, with no eyewitness and no physical evidence.  We
  are going to have to learn to deal with that situation and the only scheme
  I can think of is to listen to both sides, judge the relative credibility
  of the principals, and make a choice.

  I think what is going on here echoes the discussion in the "what is rape?"
  topic.  Our illustrious Senators, faced with these charges against Thomas,
  are thinking "that can't be sexual harassment, because if that _is_ sexual 
  harassment, then I myself..." At this point the Senators go non-linear due
  to the number of potential charges that could surface against any of them.

  Many valid sexual harassment charges are never made for reasons already
  mentioned.  But if the newly-raised consciousness about harassment causes
  even 1% of such potential charges to be aired, well, I suspect that Ted
  Kennedy and others might have good reason to be worried.

  Personally, I think the current brouhaha is wonderful.  Everyone in the
  country is wrestling with the admittedly difficult issue of sexual
  harassment, and that is a good thing.  And I am delighted that the Giplet's
  clever nomination ploy may blow up in his face.

  No one believes that Thomas is the most qualified person for the job, or
  even that he is on the list of the 100 most qualified.  No one believes
  he would have been nominated were he not black.  (No one believes Thomas has
  no opinion on abortion, either, but that's neither here nor there.)

  The US Constitution says quite clearly that Supreme Court nominations are
  done with the advice and consent of the Senate.  Bush could have consulted
  with the Senate and gotten a list of candidates everyone could live with --
  this approach has been taken in this century, so there is precedent as
  well as constitutional support for this.  But no...  Bush had to get cute
  (I think of the Thomas nomination as Bush's monument to Lee Atwater...).

  Ok, ok, I'll shut up now.

  JP

    
    	RE: .115  John H. Parodi
    
    	Thanks - agree 100% !
    

yes, John's .115 makes plenty of sense.  

                <<< PEAR::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< SOAPBOX: to seek out strange new opinions >-
================================================================================
Note 101.699                     Clarence Thomas                      699 of 760
RT93::KALIKOW "Then: Ruble; Now: Rubble!"            24 lines   9-OCT-1991 11:11
                -< Would someone with today's Boston GLOBE... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ...kindly post (-:without permission:-) Diane White's commentary on
    this matter?  I skimmed it quickly over breakfast this morning and was
    impressed with some of the subtleties she expressed about this
    situation, both at the time of the alleged incident, and now as it's
    coming to light.  
    
    The female perspective on sexual harrassment is very different from the
    male.  I learned something valuable from White, and from many other
    women observers. 
    
    IMHO it's too early (for me) to firm up my spectator's opinion on this
    matter, but I will say that Hill seems a solid citizen, and that
    Thomas, despite his intellect and accomplishment, was a willing
    participant in a Senate confirmation system that "places a high premium
    on disingenuousness," in the words of some political pundit whose name
    I've forgotten.  By this I mean that the Judiciary Committee members
    accepted answers (e.g., that he's neither discussed nor formed an
    opinion on Roe V. Wade) that, though given under oath, trash credulity. 
    At least my opinion of his credulity.
    
    Whether my view of his credulity when dealing with Ms. Hill will be
    related to my view of his credulity when responding to legal questions
    like the one above, remains to be seen.  Let the soap opera continue...
                                                                           

	1) Another bright side: The whole issue of harassment is/will
	   get a lot of much deserved attention.

	2) Intelligent people, such as the two in question, can legitimately
	   see the same events in different light. It is possible that
	   event X occurred, Ms Hill considered it harassment, Mr Thomas
	   did not. Which would leave them *both* telling the truth. 


						Tom_K

    
    RE: .119  Tom_K
    
    > It is possible that event X occurred, Ms Hill considered it harassment, 
    > Mr Thomas did not. Which would leave them *both* telling the truth. 
    
    Agreed.  Of all the possible scenerios (of what really happened,) 
    I regard this one as the most likely possibility.
    

    Yeah, but even if your 2) was what actually happened, I sincerely doubt
    that Judge Thomas would ever publicly testify that he broached *any*
    sexual subject with Professor Hill....
    
    So I predict he'll have to deny anything of the sort ever happened.  So
    we'll have to make our own judgements about the veracity of the
    testimonies.  (More importantly, the Senate will have to...)  Now of
    course there could be corroborating testimony that will shed more light
    on one side or the other, as well...
    
    Taking the above argument one step further:  Given that Judge Thomas
    will (p=.99) deny ever having raised the subject, that could be (a)
    because he actually never did, and Professor Hill is lying, or (b)
    because he actually did, independent of whether he considered it
    harassment.  Pretty tough to tease apart, and part of the tools that
    will be used to do this will be Professor Hill's testimony.
    
    'nuff rambling
    
    Dan_who_could_certainly_never_even_get_nominated_for_anything

Re: <<< Note 1004.112 by RDGENG::LIBRARY "A wild and an untamed thing" >>>

>>    No matter what his politics, and no matter what he's done or not done
>>    in the past, isn't there just a *slight* 8-) possibility he might
>>    actually be good at the job he's being nominated for?

Yes, he might.  And he might not.  I'll wait until more information is
presented.  It's called having an open mind.  You seem to possess one too,
Alice.  That's a refreshing breath of fresh air in this note...

            <<< Note 1004.108 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

    
>    It's an important (lifetime) job requiring someone with the highest
>    possible integrity (something very much in question with Thomas now.)
 
	THIS is what bothers me the most about this entire string. Over and
	over we are told that Thomas' "credibility" or "integretity" has
	suffered or is now "suspect". This is WRONG people, very wrong.

	A charge has been made, no evidence has been given, but we have those
	that are willing to say that Thomas is somehow "less" that he was
	prior to the accusation.

	According to this mornings NPR report, Hill will testify tommorrow.
	To support her accusation, three witnessness will also be called.
	Two are co-workers she says she complained to at the time, another
	is a person that says she told him she left EEOC because of 	
	harrasment (but he says no names were mentioned).

	Thomas' witnesses include other female co-workers that say their
	relationship with him at EEOC was strictly professional and others
	at EEOC that say that the working relationship between Hill and
	Thomas was "cordial and professional".

	Except for one thing it seems to be a zero sum game. That one thing
	(at least in my mind) is my belief (potentially streotypical) that
	a person that engages in sexual harrassment in the workplace does
	not "single out" a particular victim. More likely is that the 
	behavior will be directed to more than one person.

	In this case no other woman (women) has come forward to say
	"Thomas harrased me as well". Either from Education OR EEOC.
	Unless this does happen, I'd say the game goes to Thomas. If
	it does happen, then he's toast (and justifiably so).


Jim

Re: <<< Note 1004.113 by SPARKL::BROOKS >>>
    
>>    Those interested in understanding women's feelings about sexual
>>    harassment might want to read the numerous articles on the subject in
>>    today's and yesterday's Boston Globe.

Well, I'm a couple of thousand miles from Boston, but I think the major heated
point in this string is the discussion trying to point out that assuming Hill is
telling the truth is just as wrong as assuming Thomas is telling the truth; it
(unfortunately) can't get beyond that point so we truely can discuss sexual
harrassment...

                            Roak

    
    	Alice, the job of Supreme Court Justice is granted for life 
    	(until the Justice passes away or makes his/her own decision
    	to retire.)  Clarence Thomas is only 43 years old, so if he
    	doesn't do a good job, we could be burdened with his presence
    	for several decades.
    
    	Clarence Thomas could get any number of other wonderful jobs
    	if he missed his chance at this one.
    
    	I see no reason in the world why we should take a chance with
    	him when there are any number of qualified candidates (both
    	men and women of all races, creeds) that could be nominated.
    
    	Keeping an open mind to a new such candidate, myself...

    RE: .123  Jim
    
    Well, I'm glad everyone's notes seem calmer this morning.
    
    > In this case no other woman (women) has come forward to say
    > "Thomas harrased me as well". Either from Education OR EEOC.
    
    The paper announced this morning that the White House is planning
    an attack on Prof. Anita Hill (in an attempt to destroy her
    credibility.)
    
    How many women do you think will feel comfortable coming forward
    under these circumstances?  Even Prof. Hill did not want her name
    revealed.
    
    Knowing what I know about how women are treated after complaining
    about sexual harassment, I would never recommend to another woman
    that she bring such charges forward (NOT EVEN HERE AT DIGITAL!)
    
    This is the hell of sexual harassment.

re .115:

>  Folks, Thomas's guilt or innocence is not what has people upset.  It is
>  the fact that the Judiciary Committee has been sitting on this information
>  for over a month and that they were apparently ready to deal with it in
>  the traditional "old-boy" manner.  In Goodman's words, "It was her word
>  versus his.  They took his without hearing hers.  They didn't tell the rest
>  of us."  And that stinks.

From listening to Senator Biden on CNN Headline News, that is simply
not what happened.  He said that a person has the right to face his
or her accuser; that the accuser wished to remain anonymous; and
that therefore he had no intention of repeating the charge to the
full Senate or to the public, not in this case nor in the future
should it happen again.  When the accuser went public, the vote was
delayed so that the accusation could be considered.

That sounds more like a long held principle of the American judicial
process (the right to face ones accuser) at work to me, not like an
"old-boy" network at work as Ellen Goodman states.  Her criticism is
way off base.  The confirmation process seems to be working to me.

Dan

    
    Those in the Boston area who are interested in understanding women's 
    feelings about sexual harassment might want to read the numerous articles 
    on the subject in today's and yesterday's Boston Globe.
    
    Dorian

Re: .122 

>presented.  It's called having an open mind.  You seem to possess one too,
>Alice.  That's a refreshing breath of fresh air in this note...

Possibly because Alice is British, and like the rest of us (maybe) over here,
find US politics an amusing bit of entertainment at best, so can afford to be 
unbiased and "open-minded".


...and surely this whole matter has very little to do with sexual harrasment, 
but much more to do with politics and the rules (or lack of) that politics is
played by....

    ... one possible construction is to lessen the probability that another
    woman WILL come forward.  I agree with an earlier note that opined that
    this eventuality would "toast" Thomas, hence the utility of the White
    House attack on Hill.  Aside from its normal utility as the standard
    "establishment" reaction -- i.e., to "reject the allegation and resent
    the allegator."
    
    But watch out if the ploy fails and a SECOND credible allegator
    emerges.  Then the attackers will be toast.
    
    (-: And spare me the extensions of the above metaphor; I know that
    allIgators live in swamps.  :-)

    Let's assume that Professor Hill is telling the truth about the
    *actions* she took (and the press did not scramble them  (So that
    isn't the best assumption in the world.)).  In that case:
    
    	a.  She told a friend, ten years ago, that Clarence Thomas
    	was saying sexual things that made her feel uncomfortable.
    	b.  She filed an anonymous report, ten years ago, stating that
    	Clarence Thomas was saying sexual things that made her feel
    	uncomfortable, and that she was therefore charging him with
    	sexual harassment.
    	c.  She continued to treat Clarence Thomas civilly whenever they
    	met/interacted.
    
    Now, why would she do that THEN?
    
    	1.  She is precognitive, and did that to block his forseen rapid
    	advancement in the world.
    	2.  She is a horrid, spiteful, two-faced woman who did it for
    	horrid, spiteful reasons best left to the imagination of the
    	reader.
    	3.  She was harassed, she figured she could handle it, but, since
    	there were other, perhaps less ept, women around, she reported
    	it so that it would be corroborative if anyone else filed a
    	similar complaint.
    
    Reason 1. is just flat-out unlikely.  Reason 2. doesn't jibe with
    action c. and, because of c., implies an "I will bide my time until
    I can do him the most harm" mentality that requires the same exquisite
    foresight as 1..  Reason 3. sounds very ordinary, very common, and
    very plausible.
    
    How many of you know how hard it is to tell an elaborate lie?  And
    keep repeated tellings consistant?  Without having anachronisms
    creep in?  (Two years ago, I got to read an elaborate lie.  It
    included an alleged discussion of "cold fusion" in early March, 1989.
    Thunk.)  How much harder do you think it is to tell a long, detailed
    lie than to tell a lie like, "Nothing happened.  No.  Nothing like
    that happened. <repeat>"?
    
    						Ann B.
    

   Here are some ramblings from me:

   1)  It is extremely hard to believe that these Senate confirmation
       hearings can be any different from other confirmation hearings.  It's 
       hard to believe that the Senate is really trying to determine whether 
       Thomas is really qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.  It is much 
       easier to believe that the Senate is using the hearings to sound out
       what is the best course of action for politics *right now*.

       There may actually be Senators who really want to decide if Thomas is 
       really the best man for the job.  But their voices will be lost in
       the din for the best political appearance.


   2)  The Bush administration has been extremely clever with how they
       handle the media.  It would not surprise me to learn that this entire 
       Thomas thing has been handled extremely well from the beginning. 
       Thomas is not known for *anything*.  The Senate could not get him to
       express his opinions about *any* important/controversial topic.  Now
       he has become the center of media attention.  And now with sexual
       harrassment charges, nothing useful about this man will ever be
       known.  The topic of sexual harrassment is *extremely* important, but
       it should NOT be piggybacked on this confirmation.  It will serve to
       discredit BOTH issues. 


   3)  What does the Federal government have to gain by engineering this
       circus?  Has anybody noticed that the sessions of the Supreme Court
       have begun this week, anyway?  And that many HIGHLY important issues
       are being decided RIGHT now?  Did anyone notice that one of the
       justices whose name I can't remember right now, stepped down the week
       before these sessions were to begin, i.e., he decided not to wait for
       the Thomas confirmation hearings to be concluded?  (Note that this
       also took place before Hill's charges were leaked to the press.)


   It may be good that sexual harrassment in general is getting national
   attention RIGHT now.  Some useful things may actually come out of this. 
   But more damaging things may be going on that we'll only start to notice
   in the long run.

   I'd be willing to wager that both Thomas and Hill are pawns in a much
   larger political game and that neither the Bush administration nor the
   Senate really care whether Thomas gets confirmed or whether Hill was
   really sexually harrassed or not.


   							Terza

    re: .47
    
    re: my post about Thomas' contempt for women.  He has trashed his
    sister who was on welfare.  The whole story is that is mother could not
    care for all of her children so she sent the BOYS off to live with
    their grandparents so they could get a good education and support
    themselves.  But also remember that this was the time period when it
    was thought that girls married and their husbands supported them.  This
    is indeed what happened with Thomas' sister.  But then her husband ran
    off and didn't support his family so she worked 2 minimum wage jobs to
    support her family.  She went on welfare when she had to take care of
    an ailing relative, whom no one else was caring for.  Sometimes you
    have to look beyond mere factual statements to understand the
    circumstances.
    
    Also, Hill did not speak to the press until the reporter read the
    leaked statement to her verbatim.
    
    sue

Re: <<< Note 1004.116 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

    
>>    	RE: .115  John H. Parodi
    
>>    	Thanks - agree 100% !

See, Sue and I can agree, at least in this case to the 85% mark!

             Roak

    	A couple of points that have been ignored.  
    	First, anyone that is nominated to the supreme court by Bush or any
    other president is almost certain to be accused of a crime by the
    opposing political party.  The fact that Thomas has been accused of a
    crime is just part of the job (being nominated to the court).
    	Second, From what I have read here and elsewhere, it isn't sexual
    harrassment until and unless the supposed harrasser has been informed
    by the harrassee or some third party that the harrassee considers some
    form of behavior to be harrassment.  From what I can tell, this has
    only occurred withing the past week.  If Thomas talks dirty to Hill now
    or in the future, it will be harrassment.  What he did in the past was
    not harrassment (whether or not he said anything sexual to Hill)
    because he was not asked to refrain, and had no reason to be aware that
    she may have objected.
    	Third, she did not make any form of record at the time of the
    alleged offense, so the best we will ever get from this is two or three
    people's recollection of some events ten years ago.  All of these
    recollections will be tainted by the present events.  My spouse has
    been in a sensitive position at work.  When events occurred that might
    have led to later problems she has written her description of the
    events had me witness it and mailed it to herself certified mail.  This
    doesn't make it public, but protects her if something goes wrong in the
    unforseeable future.  If professor Hill thought that something
    significant had occurred she should have done something like this at
    the time.
    						John
     

Re: <<< Note 1004.114 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    You can ask your question til doomsday - I've answered it repeatedly,
>>    but you simply won't accept it:
    
>>    Her story is more believable than his.

In other words, it's the truth because I think it's the truth.

You have pre-judged Hill to be telling the truth.  There's another word for
that, too...

>>    Why are you being so nasty?  What do you care if I believe Prof. Hill
>>    over Thomas?  I'm entitled to think he committed sexual harassment.

Believe me, I don't care what your final conclusion is, I only am interested in
how you arrived at it.  You have concluded that Hill is telling the truth
and that Thomas is lying (or, at the very best, unaware that he comitted sexual
harrassment).  In the absence of any supportng evidence except "I choose to
believe Hill and choose not to believe Thomas" I can reach only one conclusion
as to why you take that stance, since there is only one, glaring difference
between Hill and Thomas.
    
>>    Ok, I'll offer you this:  Let's agree that his nomination
>>    should not be approved until we know for absolute certain who is
>>    telling the truth.  (Most likely, we'll never know, of course.)

As you've pointed out, we'll probably never know for certain; as you've also
pointed out you need not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Thomas sexually
harrassed Hill in a civil case.  So, if Thomas is not found guilty of sexual
harrassment, he should be nominated.
    
>>    Here's another novel idea:  Let's put someone on the Supreme Court
>>    who has NOT been accused of sexual harassment.

Ok, finally!  I've been waiting for this.  I knew it was what you were basing
your conclusions on.  I'm glad it's out in the open now.

The legal operative that Ms. Conlon is working from is that whenever sexual
harrassment is accused, it did in fact happen.  No ifs, ands or buts.  One
merely has to accuse someone of sexual harrassment and, after all, why would
they *accuse* someone of it if it really didn't happen?  Guilty until proven
innocent.  Guilty *EVEN IF* proven innocent!

The "shift of power" (for lack of a better word) is moved from the accused,
who usually "gets off" because of lack of evidence, to the accusor, who now
has to prove nothing; once accused, the accused is guilty.

If Ms. Conlon didn't like the next Supreme Court nominee, all she'd have to
do is call her senator's office, and say s/he sexually harrassed her at some
time in the past, and TA DA!  That judge has now been accused of sexual
harrassment and (by Sue's standards) ineligible for the position.

I don't know if Sue knows, but she's following the most basic tennent of
Politically Correct thought.  First, you divide people up into opressed and
opressor catagories.  Then, to be politically correct, you do not only
even out the two catagories, but you switch them allow the opressed to
opress the previous opressors, to pay for the sins of opression.

Me, I'll keep an open mind.  If Thomas is found guilty of SH, I'll be first in
line to say he shouldn't be nominated.  If he's not found guilty, I'll be just
as fair and say he should be nominated...

                  Roak

 
 Re: .127 (Dan)
 
 This of course would not be the first time that Sen. Biden played fast and
 loose with the truth to further his own interests.
 
 Given that what we have allegations to work with rather than facts, it is
 pretty hard to prove anything.  But according to Hill's statements, the
 "confronting the accuser" argument seems bogus.  She says that she made
 repeated calls to the Judiciary Committee asking whether she needed to
 appear (granted, she wanted to do so in closed session).  So the Committee
 certainly could have had that confrontation if they had wanted it.
 
 The way I read it, they wanted the allegations to go away.  They aired
 the allegations only after they became public through other channels.
 
 And I disagree that the confirmation (indeed, the nomination process) 
 is working as it was intended, for the reasons outlined in .115.
 
 JP

Re: <<< Note 1004.126 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    
>>    The paper announced this morning that the White House is planning
>>    an attack on Prof. Anita Hill (in an attempt to destroy her
>>    credibility.)

And I'm sure the non-supporters are planning an attack on Thomas (in an attempt
to destroy his credibility).  If they're not, someone's not doing their job!

Through this method I hope we'll come as close to the truth as possible.

                     Roak

    i was quite interested this morning to hear Sen Edward Kennedy
    supporting Professor Hill's actions in re the harassment charges.
    He stated that her behavior was quite normal for a woman caught
    in the situation. While I was pleased that he was coming out
    so strongly in her support there was a small voice in the back
    of my mind wondering just how much direct experience Kennedy had
    had, sigh.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .133  Roak
    
    BS, Roak.  If you are attempting to claim that my only criteria for
    believing Prof. Hill is her sex - you are dead wrong.  Absolutely,
    positively, without question.  100%.
    
    If you want to know the kind of abuse subjected to someone who 
    reports sexual harassment - just look at the abuse YOU are heaping
    on me for simply BELIEVING her claim.
    
    It is MY CHOICE to believe one person over another.  All your biting,
    vicious sarcasm over my exercising this choice only serves to
    demonstrate the severity of the problem of sexual harassment (both
    reporting it and what happens when others, such as me, BELIEVE it.)
    
    Thanks for your cooperation.  It was worth the annoyance of reading 
    your notes.

If anyone wants to call Professor Hill's office to express support, here's her 
telephone number at the law school in Oklahoma where she teaches:

405-325-4699

(It was given out at a meeting last night of Lexington NOW.)

Dorian

    File this under "It'll never happen... but it's sure fun to construct a
    petard anyway..."
    
    "Well, Senator, let me just say that as a nominee to the highest court
    in the land, it is a virtual certainty that I will eventually have to
    express, and in fact perhaps even author, either a majority or minority
    opinion on what exactly constitutes sexual harassment.  This is a
    subtle area with many pitfalls and deep implications for jurisprudence,
    and it may well affect American society down to its roots.  For that
    reason, I feel that at this time I should reserve any judgment as to
    whether any action I might or might not have taken with respect to
    Professor Hill might be construable to have been, at the time, what you
    have termed sexual harassment.  This position, that it would be
    inappropriate for me to comment on a matter so weighty, is consistent
    with those I have taken at several other times in response to many
    other questions posed during the first time I appeared before this
    committee.  Since you accepted those answers, I see no reason to give
    further details, and much to be lost to our American Justice System if
    more is requested."  
    
    "And let me close with an anticipation of your next question:  I would
    like to add further that while I have mulled this matter over for
    years, privately, I have as yet formed no opinion or conclusion on it,
    whatever."
    
    :-)
    

            <<< Note 1004.126 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    The paper announced this morning that the White House is planning
>    an attack on Prof. Anita Hill (in an attempt to destroy her
>    credibility.)
    
>    How many women do you think will feel comfortable coming forward
>    under these circumstances?  Even Prof. Hill did not want her name
>    revealed.
 
	OK, I can buy into the argument that Prof. Hill had reasons for
	not going public. Many of those reason will prove to be well
	founded in the coming days. But I don't beleieve that those
	same reasons apply to a second (fictional to this point) woman.
	She would be believed INSTANTLY, she would have unassailable
	credibility (plus she would make a bundle from the book rights).

	But so far nothing, how come?

	Maybe I find this thing so hard to believe because of the women
	I know personally. I can't think of even one of them that would
	keep silent if they were uncomfortable with remarks that were 
	made to them, by an employer or anyone else for that matter.

	A simple, "I don't appreciate that kind of talk" would have been 
	sufficient. 

	Another thing that bothers many men (at least myself) is that
	we can UNKNOWINGLY commit this offense and unless the woman
	does choose to say something we have NO IDEA that we did
	anything "wrong". We can not even attempt to correct the behavior
	that the woman finds offensive. And then someday in the future
	this will come back to haunt us. Somehow there's a lack of
	fairness in all of this.

	That's why we are so sensitive to this issue of "accusation means
	your guilty". 

Jim

Re: <<< Note 1004.139 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    If you want to know the kind of abuse subjected to someone who 
>>    reports sexual harassment - just look at the abuse YOU are heaping
>>    on me for simply BELIEVING her claim.

Again, I'm not attacking your belief, I'm merely trying to understand the basis
of that belief.  If I have a belief, and I air it, anyone should expect me
to be able to back up that belief.  The reasoning of "I belive it because I
believe it" I left behind a long time ago because it doesn't hold water.
    
>>    It is MY CHOICE to believe one person over another.

I agree.  Completely.  But when you stated your opinion in this forum, the basis
of your choice was open to scrutiny.  Or perhaps in WOMMENNOTES everything is
supposed to be taken at face value, unquestioned and blindly accepted.  Somehow
I don't think so...

>>                                                     All your biting,
>>    vicious sarcasm over my exercising this choice only serves to
>>    demonstrate the severity of the problem of sexual harassment (both
>>    reporting it and what happens when others, such as me, BELIEVE it.)

I thought we were having a debate; I was hoping to convice you to have an open
mind until more data is available.  I never said your conclusion *was* wrong,
only that it *could* be wrong.  My debate was over the route that you took to
reach your conclusion.  Now this debate is equated to sexual harrassment.
The truth is, I would have had the same identical debate whether my "opponent"
(for lack of a better word) was male or female (one of the beauty of notes).  It
was a debate over the sense of fair play, of what is the right thing to do.  The
comittee burying Hill's accusations was wrong.  Assuming Thomas is guilty of SH
is wrong too.

                            Roak

Ps. I apologize for the sarcasam, but 1) I'm very sarcastic to begin with and 2)
When I perceive that someone has abandoned logic in an argument I use it to
[hopefully] make the person reexamine their foundation.  I've had people change
their minds when they found nothing but an emotional basis for their arguments,
and I have had people change *my* mind when they supplied some fact that I was
unaware of.  And of course I've come across people who don't want to closely
examine or reveal their beliefs at all...

    RE: .143  Roak
    
    Your apology is accepted and appreciated.
    
    Look - I majored in Symbolic Logic for my Philosophy degree.  I have
    not abandoned Logic in this incident (not by a long shot.)  We are
    simply failing to communicate well enough for the message to have
    gotten through to you.
    
    Let me tell you how I viewed this thing from the beginning (perhaps
    it will help.)  If it stops you from making all these false accusations
    about me, so much the better.  I'm getting really tired of being 
    subjected to them.
    
    Listen carefully:
    
    When I picked up the paper and saw the story about charges of sexual
    harassment (last minutes ones,) my first thought was:  "Oh, no.  Not
    some convenient last minute stuff to stop the confirmation.  It won't
    work."
    
    Then I saw the photo of Prof. Hill (she was being hounded by a bunch
    of reporters as she went to work) - she looked positively HORRIFIED
    at the attention.  I said to myself, "Oh, my God."  No publicity-
    seeking person (hoping for big book rights later) here, I thought.
    
    I read the newspaper story.
    
    I looked at what she claimed - not that he wore women's underpants to
    work or flashed her in the elevator - but that he did something pretty
    damn ordinary in our culture (wrong, but very, very, VERY common.)
    
    I also saw that she treated him with civility afterwards (which is
    very, very, VERY normal among the women I've known who have gone through
    things like this.)
    
    I read her credentials - and saw how reluctant she was to be identified
    as the one making the complaint.  Every single thing I read about what
    she claimed, her approach to the Senate (in making her statement,) the
    corroboration of other people she told about it (back when it happened)
    - and I believed her story.
    
    Perhaps Thomas didn't know he was harassing her - it's quite possible
    that he didn't.  So why doesn't he say, "I didn't know it would bother
    her" or "I didn't mean to offend her - I didn't know she would regard
    it as harassment"?
    
    I believe (from looking at all the things that have happened so far)
    that Prof. Hill is telling the truth.  What Thomas did (and I believe
    he did it because I find Prof. Hill's story more plausible than his
    denials) wasn't as bad as other things I've seen and heard.
    
    So why doesn't he admit it?  This is the problem I have with his
    nomination.  You may say he could be telling the truth.  I believe
    Prof. Hill's testimony, so I have to doubt his denials.
    
    I'm not against him for being a man - and I don't think he should be
    convicted of a crime without physical evidence.  But I believe there
    is enough doubt to consider a new candidate for Supreme Court justice.
    
    It's too important a job to simply say "Well, at least he wasn't
    convicted" after a very reputable person has testified that he made
    some remarks (and her character and presentation support what she
    says - eg, she is credible.)
    
    You may not agree with what I'm saying, but I have every right in the
    world to say it.  If you have further questions of the logic I used
    to come to this decision - ASK ME!!!  Don't accuse me again of not
    using any.
    
    Thanks,
    Suzanne

	So, when the next Democratic President tries to nominate
	a left wing extremist to the Court, all I need to do
	to nix the confirmation is to fabricate a plausible
	accusation against that candidate?

					Tom_K

    Roak and Jim,
    
    I think that what Suzzane and a lot of other women are saying is that
    we can identify with prof Hill because we have seen it happen too
    often.  We have also seen the "good old boys" circle the wagons as they
    are at this time to discredit someone who doesn't fit in to their idea
    of correctness, or sense of humor.  
    
    Also the fact that the judiciary committee completely ignored the
    original allegations as not important enough or too threatening needs
    to be addressed.  I think it is time that the power structure learns
    that women are real humans and not window dressing/
    
    Meg

    
    	If you plan to do it, Tom, you'd better start 10 years ahead
    	of time (which means you'd have to guess who the nominee will
    	be) and you must sink years of your life working with the
    	person to build the scenerio.
    
    	Then, you must be willing to subject yourself to national
    	abuse (including being targeted by the White House) - and
    	accept the abuse that will be heaped on your family, too.
    
    	Sounds so simple, doesn't it?  Go for it.
    

	I didn't say I planned to do it, and certainly wouldn't.

	I was asking you if such an episode would be sufficient to nix
	a nomination, my understanding of what you have written is that it
	would be, and I wanted to know if my understanding was correct.

					Tom_K

    
    	Please read what I wrote - I'm talking about a 10 year effort,
    	with the credibility that goes with it.
    
    	If someone walked up and said, "Oh yeah, I saw Thomas in an
    	elevator once in DC and he showed me his winky" - I wouldn't
    	have believed it without videotapes.
    
    	Prof. Hill's stature (and the 10 year extent of her situation
    	and descriptions) make her story more plausible than a Supreme
    	Court nominee who simply says "She's lying!"
    
    	The kind of effort it would take to make as plausible a charge
    	as Prof. Hill has made would be very, very, VERY unlikely to
    	be successful (if false.)  It's unlikely enough to be successful
    	even as a *true* charge (without proof.)

    Did anyone see Larry King Live last night?  He was interviewing Sen.
    Hatch, and it was a real demonstration of 'the little woman doesn't
    know what she's talking about.'  Hatch continually harped on the
    fact that the allegations are 10 years old, that 'Prof. Hill' is
    probably a very nice woman, etc. etc.  It was sickening to watch.  The
    same old run around; the tone being that 'oh she's just being a b*tch,
    she has no sense of humor.'  
    
    If anyone took this interview seriously, then I'd say Prof. Hill is
    dead in the water, or at least, her credibility is.
    
    Maia
    

    No, but I saw the network news.  It seems that at one point Thomas
    said, ~Yes, I asked her out, but she declined and I dropped it.~ but
    later he said, ~No, I never asked her out.~  Do you think that will
    diminish his credibility?  Then they showed those staffers who had
    never had Thomas so much as look at them crosseyed.  Well, unlike
    Hill, they cannot sing 1:5 from the Song of Songs, and that could
    make a difference.
    
    						Ann B.

I happened to be on a rowing machine plunk in front of the tv at the
fitness club this morning at 8:30am PDT, and surprise! Prof Hill was
at that moment beginning her opening statement to Biden's committee
(I assume the Judiciary) from 11:30am EDT, for around 20 minutes.  She
spoke plainly of her birth, her family, her religious upbringing, and
her educational background; undergraduate at Oklahoma U, Law degree from
Yale in 1980.  She described starting work at a DC law firm, her meeting
with Thomas, her periods of working with him at the Dept of Education,
the initial incidents she found objectionable, how she reacted, how she
hoped it was all over; why she accepted Thomas' offer to follow him to
work at the EEOC, how the incidents began again, of what sorts of
statements and situations he instigated that she again objected to;
she told her story quite simply and with dignity.  I think she was a
very credible witness and I hope the Senate treats her with the respect
she deserves.

DougO

    Nah,
    
    suzzane it's just PMS.  you *know* how women are at *that* time of the
    month.
    
    Remember, women are hormonal, that why you can't trust anything they
    say, do, or let them control their own bodies and destinies.
    
    Meg

    	If any of you have seen the latest news, there is now a SECOND
    	WOMAN charging harassment - and (of course!!!!) our wonderful
    	Administration is already saying that she is lying, too.
    
    	Gee, if 20 women came forward to charge Thomas with sexual
    	harassment, I wonder if the Administration would claim that
    	they're all menstruating or something.  :-}
    
    	At least I hope that the folks here who claimed they would
    	listen if a second witness came forward are now willing to
    	see Prof. Hill's charges in a different light.
    
    	(Probably not, I bet.)
    
    	I think I'll go camp out in the Primal Scream Topic for a
    	few weeks (I think I'm going to need it more and more.)

Re: <<< Note 1004.154 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    
>>    	At least I hope that the folks here who claimed they would
>>    	listen if a second witness came forward are now willing to
>>    	see Prof. Hill's charges in a different light.
    
>>    	(Probably not, I bet.)

You're wrong.  Jim?

                         Roak

Note, this was written offline while WOMANNOTES was coughing and sputtering;
at that time no one else had stepped forward to accuse Thomas of SH.  I hope
this reply can be read in that light.

Re: <<< Note 1004.144 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

RE: .143  Roak

>>Look - I majored in Symbolic Logic for my Philosophy degree.  I have
>>not abandoned Logic in this incident (not by a long shot.)

And I've taken classes in Traditional and Modern logic, not to mention Boolian,
Combinational and TTL logic as well :-)  Now that we've finished strutting,
back to the discussion at hand...

>>                                                               We are
>>simply failing to communicate well enough for the message to have
>>gotten through to you.

Funny, I thought it was the other way around... :-)

>>When I picked up the paper and saw the story about charges of sexual
>>harassment (last minutes ones,) my first thought was:  "Oh, no.  Not
>>some convenient last minute stuff to stop the confirmation.  It won't
>>work."

Based on zero information, you were actually biased against Hill.  I admit that
I was biased in the same way when I first heard the news...
                                                                       
>>Then I saw the photo of Prof. Hill (she was being hounded by a bunch
>>of reporters as she went to work) - she looked positively HORRIFIED
>>at the attention.  I said to myself, "Oh, my God."  No publicity-
>>seeking person (hoping for big book rights later) here, I thought.

Translation: "She looked honest and sincere" -- correct me if I'm wrong.
Also bear in mind that the same description fit Ted Bundy (used merely to
highlight how fallible looks are, not to equate Hill with Bundy)
                                                                       
>>I looked at what she claimed - not that he wore women's underpants to
>>work or flashed her in the elevator - but that he did something pretty
>>damn ordinary in our culture (wrong, but very, very, VERY common.)

Translation: No outrageous claims, just "standard" (whatever that is, but not
ment to be downplaying) sexual harrassment.
                                                                       
>>I also saw that she treated him with civility afterwards (which is
>>very, very, VERY normal among the women I've known who have gone through
>>things like this.)

Do people who make false claims have a track record of non-civility?  This can
only be used as a datapoint if false accusers have a track record of
non-civility...

>>I read her credentials - and saw how reluctant she was to be identified
>>as the one making the complaint.

Translation: She looked honest.

>>                                  Every single thing I read about what
>>she claimed, her approach to the Senate (in making her statement,) the
>>corroboration of other people she told about it (back when it happened)

Translation: She sounds honest.

And she says they're others that can corroborate her story; this I'll have to
reject as a datapoint, since it already assumes that she's telling the truth,
(and told the corroborators the truth) -- this is very much like using the word
you're trying to define in the definition.

>>- and I believed her story.

Obviously.

I don't see many hard facts, but I do see warm and fuzzy feelings.  That's ok,
if you're running on feelings, I can't argue with them...  The feelings
established the premisies, and as you point out, based on those premisies you
logically came to a sound conclusion.  I often run on feelings, or hunches
(hunches solved a lot of software bugs for me) or "my gut", but it's important
to acknowledge to yourself and others you're running on feelings and when you're
running on fact.

As I stated, I run on feelings much of the time.  But not this time, and due to
the lack of information I will lend equal creedence to both parties until more
information is available.

>>                  So why doesn't he say, "I didn't know it would bother
>>her" or "I didn't mean to offend her - I didn't know she would regard
>>it as harassment"?

What if he hadn't harrassed her?  Would you still have him apologize for
something he hadn't done?

>>    So why doesn't he admit it?

Because maybe, just maybe, he didn't do it!  

>>    So why doesn't he admit it?  This is the problem I have with his
>>    nomination.  You may say he could be telling the truth.  I believe
>>    Prof. Hill's testimony, so I have to doubt his denials.

Ok, let's say, for argument's sake that he really didn't do anything.  How would
his denials of him not doing anything when he didn't differ from denials of him
not doing anything when he did?  (boy, does that really parse in the English
language? :-))
    
>>    You may not agree with what I'm saying, but I have every right in the
>>    world to say it.

You're absolutely right.  Just as Thomas has every right to be innocent unless
proven guilty.  Or is the Bill of Rights just a menu that you pick and choose
from, depending on what YOU think is applicable in each case, depending on each
person?

>>                      If you have further questions of the logic I used
>>    to come to this decision - ASK ME!!!

Both Jim and I did several times...

                        Roak

Bottom line:  We have two credible witnesses with conflicting stories.  Until
more information comes forward, my take is to treat them as equals, a lost
concept, even in WOMANNOTES it seems...

BTW, the only argument that Thomas is less than credible is that he's been
grilled in the public eye for several weeks, his testimony dissected carefully
bit-by-bit.  Hill hasn't.  Is that a fair comparison to base "Thomas is not
credible becuase he's made some slip ups, but Hill is even though she hasn't
had the chance to?"

Re: <<< Note 1004.145 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI "Repeal the 16th Amendment!" >>>

>>	So, when the next Democratic President tries to nominate
>>	a left wing extremist to the Court, all I need to do
>>	to nix the confirmation is to fabricate a plausible
>>	accusation against that candidate?

Let me put it this way, Tom, if she says "no" she's got a lot of backpedaling to
do...

Re: <<< Note 1004.146 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    
>>    	If you plan to do it, Tom, you'd better start 10 years ahead
>>    	of time (which means you'd have to guess who the nominee will
>>    	be) and you must sink years of your life working with the
>>    	person to build the scenerio.

Naah, once the person started the nomination process, you just go back and find
someone that knew them ten years ago.  You find someone who looks honest, they
make no outragious claims [easier to fabricate something if it's simple], they
behave civily toward the accused and you leak it at the last minute to make it a
media circus, rather than a hearing.

[of course, this scenerio is totally fictional and any similiarity to people or
events, past or future is merely coincidental]

BYW, With the new peron stepping forward, I'm leaning toward the conclusion that
Hill is telling the truth.  That does not in any way dillute Sue's dangerous
line of reasoning, which I feel must be played out...

                                    Roak

    	When juries listen to conflicting testimony, they base their
    	convictions and acquitals on whose testimony they believe.
    
    	Lawyers spend a lot of time on "credibility" issues with witnesses,
    	both building it up and tearing it down (depending on which side
    	the individual attorney is on...)
    
    	So, Roak, please don't try to treat me like some sort of touchy-
    	feely idiot for being willing to tell you (after repeated badgering
    	from you) why I find Prof. Hill's story more believable than the
    	"She's lying" denials from Thomas and the White House.
    
    	If it's a dangerous way to regard conflicting testimony, then I
    	suggest you change our whole legal system (criminal and civil
    	law.) 
    
    	See you when you're done with that.  Meanwhile, please get off
    	my back, ok?

    Roak,
    
    1.  No, Suzanne did not say Hill looked "sincere".  She did not look
    "sincere".  I (We all?) worry about people who look sincere.  She
    looked aghast, bothered, miserable; i.e., her appearance led Suzanne
    to conclude that she was sincere.  Perhaps it was because she made
    no effort to look "sincere".
    
    2.  The noter's name is Suzanne.  If you can't figure out what someone's
    name is, do you think that anyone with sense will give much credence
    to your observations and conclusions?
    
    						Ann B.

    
    If I hear that reporter (Nina Totenberg?) say "Judge" Thomas and
    "Anita" Hill once more, I'm going to scream...
    
    D.
    

    	By the way, I wasn't "biased against" Prof. Hill when I first
    	heard about the sexual harassment charges.  I hadn't yet heard
    	her name nor had I read the story yet at the point where I had
    	an "Oh no, not a last minute attempt to block the confirmation"
    	response to a newspaper headline.
    
    	Yes, I was bothered by the timing of the public announcements
    	of the charges - but I got over it when I read the story.
    

  <<< Note 1004.155 by PEAKS::OAKEY "Save the Bill of Rights-Defend the II" >>>

>You're wrong.  Jim?


	Thomas is toast.

Jim

    	By the way, speaking of "how easy would it be to launch false
    	charges of sexual harassment against a Liberal Supreme Court
    	Justice candidate?"...
    
    	Someone could "set someone up" for murder the same way:
    
    		1.  Follow X for months to find a night when X is alone
    		    and has no one present to verify where X was that
    		    night.
    		2.  Go out and kill someone.
    		3.  Find one or more persons willing to perjure themselves
    		    to say that X committed the murder.
    		4.  Steal items belonging to X to place at the scene of
    		    the crime (to "place" the person at the scene.)
    		5.  Establish the basis for "motive" (supply prosecutors
    		    with a "reason" why X would want to kill this possibly
    		    complete stranger.)
    
    	It could be done.  Our legal system makes it possible, albeit
    	illegal (with severe penalties if caught.)  It still happens, tho.
    
    	So should we ban all convictions based on witness testimony (since	
    	human beings have the capacity to lie under oath?)
    
    	If we accept that human testimony under oath has an important place
    	in our legal system, then we should be willing to accept women's
    	testimony about sexual harassment with the same standards that ANY
    	witness testimony is given.
    
    	It is sexism to decide that women's testimony about these things
    	should be discounted as "her word against his" because it is about
    	an action that far, far, far more often is committed towards women.
    
    	Women are *NOT* more likely to lie under oath than any other person,
    	so our legal system shouldn't treat women as if we are more likely
    	to be suspected of it.

            <<< Note 1004.163 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    	By the way, speaking of "how easy would it be to launch false
>    	charges of sexual harassment against a Liberal Supreme Court
>    	Justice candidate?"...
 
	False premise. For one thing murder must be proved beyond a
	reasonable doubt. Plus your scenario incorporates the use
	of physical eveidence.

	Neither of these situations is relavent to the current debate.

Jim

    
    	RE: .164  Jim
    
    	False premise??
    
    	Ever seen the documentary "The Thin Blue Line" showing how a man 
    	was sent to death row for a murder he didn't commit (based on testimony
    	from the man who NOW admits to having committed the murder)??
    
    	Shall I list other cases for you?
    
    	Besides, I didn't say a murder case was LIKE the present case
    	- I was trying to demonstrate that even "proof beyond a
    	reasonable doubt" MURDER cases can be faked with false testimony
    	if someone is determined enough.  
    
    	I was trying to point out the fact that the "danger" of believing
    	witness testimony extends to the most serious criminal cases we
    	have in our courts (in many cases) - so it isn't preposterous to
    	suggest that testimony should be given credence in sexual harassment
    	cases.

Re: <<< Note 1004.159 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
    
>>    2.  The noter's name is Suzanne.  If you can't figure out what someone's
>>    name is, do you think that anyone with sense will give much credence
>>    to your observations and conclusions?

I would have hoped that if she had been offended be me calling her "Sue" (I
usually shotern people's names to one syllable -- it's just a habit), she would
have told me.

I will start calling her Suzanne from now on.

If a habit of shortening people's name to one syllable makes all my arguments
null and void, so be it.  Odd litmus test of what makes a valid argument,
though...

                                   Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.161 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    	By the way, I wasn't "biased against" Prof. Hill when I first
>>    	heard about the sexual harassment charges.  I hadn't yet heard
>>    	her name nor had I read the story yet at the point where I had
>>    	an "Oh no, not a last minute attempt to block the confirmation"
>>    	response to a newspaper headline.

Note that your first thought was not about the legitimacy of the charges, but
that it was an attempt to block the nomination.  In other words, you thought
it was a farce.  That's biased.  You had that bias but then:

    	         "...I got over it when I read the story."

Your bias was against the claim and therefore Hill, even though you did not yet
know her name or her background...

Kinda like not liking Mexian food because it's too hot.  If someone puts a dish
down in front of you, you carry that bias with you to the first taste.  If you
like it, you've overcome the bias.

Just not knowing the names of those involved does not mean that you're not
biased against them...

                           Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.165 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    
>>    	Ever seen the documentary "The Thin Blue Line" showing how a man 
>>    	was sent to death row for a murder he didn't commit (based on testimony
>>    	from the man who NOW admits to having committed the murder)??
    
Oh Suzanne!  Pointing out the damage of believing the accusor over the accused
was *not* what you wanted to do...  Sexual harrassment cases are quite the
opposite, where the "guilty" get off far too often due to lack of evidence.

A bad tactical error in the debate, but I chalk it up to a mistake that doesn't
really have any impact on the discussion...

>>    	I was trying to point out the fact that the "danger" of believing
>>    	witness testimony extends to the most serious criminal cases we
>>    	have in our courts (in many cases)...

Good point, so I assume this supports he assumption that coming into a trial the
accusor should not be given any priority over the acussed.  That in the course
of the trial each person's reliability and truthfullness will be exposed, based
on your point earlier about how hard it is to fabricate a lie.  Am I correct
so far?

>>    	                                     ...so it isn't preposterous to
>>    	suggest that testimony should be given credence in sexual harassment
>>    	cases.

Are you saying it isn't?  Does not the accusor and accused get to meet in
court, each being examined and cross-examined by each other lawyers?  I guess
I'm a bit confused by your statement.

To simplify the questions to which I'm seeking answers (and add a few more):

Should both the accusor and the accused enter the court room on even ground?
Should, in the course of the trial, an attempt be made to determine who is more
        reliable and truthful?
Should a decision be rendered based on the above information?
In the case where a clear determination cannot be made (in terms of reliability
        and truthfullness) between the accusor and the accused, which way should
        the decision be made?
Do you feel that testimony of either the accusor or the accused is not given
        even weighting in today's judicial system?

                                   Roak

Ps.  Sorry, haven't read your mail response from last night, yet...

    	Well, as you mentioned earlier, Roak - the timing of the charges
    	"going public" was not the greatest.
    
    	But luckily, I have an open enough mind to move past my initial
    	reaction to a newspaper headline.
    
    	I brought this point up to show you that I didn't automatically
    	think "AHA, Thomas sexually harassed someone!!!" before I
    	read the story.  If anything, I was already inclined to be
    	suspicious of any GENERAL charge against him at the last minute.
    
    	On second thought, never mind.  Just forget I said anything about
    	this.  I'm not in the mood to spend the next 10 years explaining
    	and clarifying a momentary thought of mine (brought up in passing.)

Re: <<< Note 1004.170 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>              -< Try to resist this as a permanent rathole, ok? >-

Actually I think we have some closure coming up here...

>>    	Well, as you mentioned earlier, Roak - the timing of the charges
>>    	"going public" was not the greatest.

Agreed.  I have no problem here...
    
>>    	But luckily, I have an open enough mind to move past my initial
>>    	reaction to a newspaper headline.

My open mind merely stayed open a little longer than yours, we had a difference
in required information level, that's all.  We're not one in the same person,
that's to be expected.  We've beat that point to death, so if you think that's
a fair statement, we can close this one...
    
>>    	I brought this point up to show you that I didn't automatically
>>    	think "AHA, Thomas sexually harassed someone!!!" before I
>>    	read the story.  If anything, I was already inclined to be
>>    	suspicious of any GENERAL charge against him at the last minute.

Though I originally thought you did automatically think of this, you did clarify
that later on.  I have no problem here...
    
>>    	On second thought, never mind.  Just forget I said anything about
>>    	this.  I'm not in the mood to spend the next 10 years explaining
>>    	and clarifying a momentary thought of mine (brought up in passing.)

Then do you want to move on?  I get the feeling that you think the current legal
system doesn't work very well in the case of sexual harrassment.  I'd like to
know both what doesn't work and what you feel needs to be changed.  As is
evident by my questions at the end of reply .168...

                           Roak

    RE: .168  Roak
    
    > Oh Suzanne!  
    
    Thanks for getting my name right.  :)
    
    > Pointing out the damage of believing the accusor over the accused
    > was *not* what you wanted to do...  
    
    Wrong again, Roak.  It was exactly what I wanted to do.
    
    > Sexual harrassment cases are quite the opposite, where the "guilty" 
    > get off far too often due to lack of evidence.
    
    Ah - the guilty get off because testimony is not given the same kind
    of credence that other types of "witness" testimonies are given (due
    to the "oh, no, what if the woman LIES to screw over an innocent man???")
    
    I was trying to point out that believing witness testimony is ALWAYS
    a danger in our system - but that doesn't mean we refrain from ever
    putting anyone on trial (for murder or any other crime) out of fear
    that citizens will convinct a whole bunch of innocent people by lying
    under oath.
    
    > A bad tactical error in the debate, but I chalk it up to a mistake 
    > that doesn't really have any impact on the discussion...
    
    No such thing, of course.  It's just another one of your many errors
    in the course of pre-judging me.  You'll learn.  :)
    
    Perhaps you should confine more of these messages to mail, though,
    where your mistakes can be corrected with a bit more privacy.

Re: <<< Note 1004.172 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

Rather than respond to your replies to everything but my bottom line questions,
I'll request that you respond to them; perhaps I misjudge you due to a lack
of information -- the answers would go a long way to clear up any
mis-communication we may have...

                               Roak

    RE: .171  Roak
    
    > I get the feeling that you think the current legal system doesn't work 
    > very well in the case of sexual harrassment. 
    
    Do you know how the current "legal system" handles cases of sexual
    harassment now?
    

    
    RE: .173  Roak
    
    > Rather than respond to your replies to everything but my bottom line 
    > questions, I'll request that you respond to them; 
    
    Well, I decline to be cross-examined (sorry, if this word sounds a bit
    harsher than intended.)  I've responded to a number of your notes so
    far, but I'm not interested in a whole new round based on your critique
    of my ideas.
    
    > perhaps I misjudge you due to a lack of information -- the answers 
    > would go a long way to clear up any mis-communication we may have...
    
    I'd prefer you not judge me at all (and I'll reciprocate by not judging
    you.)
    
    Deal?

Re: <<< Note 1004.174 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    Do you know how the current "legal system" handles cases of sexual
>>    harassment now?

From the mail you've sent me I can tell you are very, very dissatisified with
how it operates.  There's a palitible frustration and anger in almost every
sentence when you discuss the current wrongs of the system and how women occupy
the "lower tier" (my words, not Suzanne's).  Do you disagree with my evaluation
of the tone of your mail?

So the questions in .168 remain, and directed you, asking YOUR opinion.  Through
this process I hope to be educated.

                              Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.175 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    Well, I decline to be cross-examined (sorry, if this word sounds a bit
>>    harsher than intended.)  I've responded to a number of your notes so
>>    far, but I'm not interested in a whole new round based on your critique
>>    of my ideas.

We get past all the Hill and Thomas stuff, finally getting to the heart of the
matter and you pull the plug?

I'm seriously interested in your proposals; I may or may not agree with them,
but I am interested.  If the major problem is that you do not want to clutter
up the WOMANNOTES file, mail would be acceptable, heck even lunch would be
acceptable.  If you want to stop dead in the water, that's acceptable too (but
frustrating for me!)

                                Roak

    RE: .177  Roak
    
    Well, in the past, you've asked me if I'd like to go with you and
    your wife to a firing range one of these days.  I may take you up
    on the offer sometime this fall.
    
    [Before anyone has a heart attack, 2nd Amendment rights are one thing
    Roak and I do agree on!!]

    	Well, Thomas hearings have been shut down for the day (to pick
    	up again tomorrow at noon, EDT.)  Four witnesses are ready to
    	testify that Prof. Hill told them about the harassment at the
    	time it occurred.
    
    	Judge Thomas is not holding up well at all (emotionally.)
    	I've never heard someone make as many public references to 
    	death in as short a period of time as I've heard him make 
    	in the past 24 hours.
    
    		He says he would rather have been shot by an
    			assassin than go through all this.
    
    		He says the Senate Judiciary Committee is a
    			high-tech lynch mob.
    
    		He says he would rather die than withdraw
    			his nomination.
    
    		He says he has already died (and is no longer
    			the man he was when they first started
    			the confirmation process.)  He said,
    			quite literally, "I died."
    
    	He has my sympathy for his emotionally distraught state, but
    	I believe Prof. Hill's testimony as much as ever (after having
    	seen both Judge Thomas and Prof. Hill testify.)

    Is anyone else feeling incredibly, personally affected by all of this
    testimony?
    
    I find myself getting obsessed, feeling sick to my stomach, and being
    on an emotional roller coaster with each set of witnesses.
    
    The Democrats don't seem to be effective questioners at all.  I think
    I've been suggesting better questions that they have.  If Thomas gets
    confirmed, he'll have them to thank.
    
    judy

    The Democrats (with the possible exception of Biden) are coming
    across as ineffective questioners. The Republicans, and especially
    Specter (?) and Hatch, are coming across as "anything to get our
    side across, and facts be d*mned" - whenever Specter starts up I
    generally want to throw something at the set. Based on the overall
    testimony, there's no way to tell whom to believe, but it's clear
    that the way it's being approached is puerile, completely
    partisan, and totally confirming to my general [negative]
    impressions of politicians and lawyers as a class.

    This isn't getting too much coverage in the UK....but...
    
    ...I heard this morning that she's passed a lie detector test.
    Is this admissable evidence in your courts?
    Will that change the picture much, do you think?
    
    'gail

re the last couple,

1. The lie detector is not admissable in a court of law unless
a number of agrrements are made, because of it percieved 
unreliability. I've taken one and the experiance really really
sucks. The Senete is not a court they merely use most court 
procedures because court procedures are familiar to them and the
place is full of lawyers.(those are my opinions)

2. For those of you who feel the democrats are lousy questioners
take heart! They don't have to be very aggressive because;
	
	a. They are the majority party and they have almost enough
	votes for the confirmation and agressivness would alienate
	more votes they need for confirmation.

	b. This isn't a court and noone can bring criminal charges
	against anyone here so, I think, Anita Hill's case is 
	strong enough to damage CT's chances of being confirmed.
	You should remember that confirmation is the goal here
	not the sexual harrassment issue.
	
	c. The republican side can use prosecutorial approach 
	but it isn't going to gain them anything because this
	isn't a courtroom. So Thomas supporters can feel better
	but tragically they aren't going to find any smoking gun
	anywhere.

3. My daughter was in a high school production of the play  "To Kill
a Mockingbird" she was a townsperson and her line was..."thems just
chilens." Which I might add we got on video and she did an admirable
job delivering. The play was interesting because to me it showed the
value of derailing a system of procedure with irrationality and emotion.
When the alleged victim of rape was questioned too closely she argued
with the defense lawyer about how the men in the town were cowards and
didn't stand up for the "honor" of a woman. Anita Hill I think has used
the same stradegy. Especially with the lie dectector evidence. 

4. Finally this is history in the making. I grew up with
the spector of the McCarthy hearings as American government being used
to cynically distroy peoples lives. I've wondered which side of the 
arguement I would have supported. I wondered if I would have had courage
enough to speak against McCarthyism. Well we have it now. There really 
isn't a middle ground here. Either CT or Anita Hill have lied there is
no misunderstanding. The Senete is really getting its feet put to the 
fire, maybe one of the Kennedy's will write a book about the courage it
takes to make a decision about this case. I think this is democracy at
its best. 

Fred Mudgett

    
    I had to tune out early last night...what's this about the Republicans
    claiming that yes, Professor Hill is telling the truth in the sense
    that she believes "those things" happened, but she's only fantasizing, 
    because she wanted them to happen? Did someone actually say this, does 
    anyone know?
    
    Dorian

    
    i spent the better part of the weekend watching the testimony given to
    the senate judiciary committee.
    
    i found prof. hills testimony more credible than that of judge thomas.
    
    with respect to the corroborative witness for each side:
      i found john carr, joel paul, and judge hoersener (sp??) very
      credible.  i believed the testimony given by the second wmn on the
      panel, whose name escapes me, but i got the feeling that she was a
      pretty close friend of anita hill's and was speaking from her loyalty
      to that friendship.  [which there is nothing necessarily wrong with,
      but i didn't get that impression from the other three.]
    
    as i watched the two panels of thomas supporting witnesses, i only
    found three individuals, out of eight, to be credible. one was
    assistant prof. hitch, and the other two were men on the second panel
    who had seen prof. hill in aug 1991.  i also had no problem with dianne
    holt's (??) testimony. 
    
    i was left either completely unimpressed or aggitated by the balance of
    the witnesses brought forth on thomas' behalf.
    
    what i found incredible was senator hatch's characterization of someone
    who may behave in the manner that prof. hill alleges of judge thomas.
    his effort to paint this behavior as something completely bizarre,
    "sick", perverted, OUT OF THE ORDINARY - really makes me wonder just
    how much time he has spent as a woman in the workplace.
    
    i believe the allegations are true.
    
    my hope is that the senate does not confirm judge clarence thomas to the
    supreme court. 
    
   ~robin

most overused line in these hearings:

"well I'm not a psychiatrist but..."(*)

and goes on to deliver an opinion on (a)why Prof.Hill might have concocted a
story, or (b)why Judge Thomas might feel lynched.
Dorian, the trash about how AH might believe but be fantasizing, comes from the
above and from the fact that she volunteered for, took, and passes a lie
detector test.

And from the fact that BOTH of these people SEEM sincere, competant, honest, and
no one knows who to believe (unless one is such a partisan that they had made
up their mind about Judge Thomas before Prof. Hill's allegations got leaked).

oh, for five minutes as a telepath!

Sara

(*)interesting...  personally have my doubts as to whether a psychiatrist has
much of a better shot than you or I at figuring out the motivation of 
whichever one of them is lying in this.

    There is very simple reason why democrats are not asking the right
    question.  Professor Hill has put not only Judge Thomas on defensive,
    but the senate and in particular, the judicial committee has found
    itself in hot water by their callous attitude towards her charges.
    
    Simply put, senate would be much happy if they can discredit Professor
    Hill.
    
    Otherwise why were these question not asked to Judge Thomas
    
    1.  Would you take lie detector tests?
    2.  Did you ever talk "dirty" with anyone from the office?
    3.  Did you have a habbit of watching pornographic movies and then
        making comments about it with your colleagues?
    4.  Do you fantasize?
    5.  Have you ever lied?
    
    - Vikas

I heard questions 2 and 3 asked of Judge Thomas, on Friday night.

I myself don't think that lie detectors are called for.  Prof.Hill's use of the
test is interesting, but I have strong hesitations about requiring anyone to
take such a test.

Question 4 is irrelevant.  Question 5 is a useless question - the answer and 
tone etc are the same whether he's a liar or not.

    
    
    i tend to agree with some tv journalists assessment of the democrats
    "backing off" in their questioning of judge thomas.
    
    judge thomas' suggestion of racism being a factor of this investigation
    has the democratic senators treading a lot more carefully than they may
    have otherwise.  senator hatch was making every effort to play up this
    particular part of judge thomas' testimony.
    
    i'm glad i don't live in utah [strom thurmond may be senile, but i
    question his capacity for effective deviousness {-%].

    Anyone desiring to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee can
    telephone:
    
    Senator               State             Phone
    
    Biden                 D-DE         202/ 224-5042
    DeConcini             D-AZ              224-4521
    Heflin                D-AL              224-4124
    Kennedy               D-MA              224-4543
    Kohl                  D-WI              224-5653
    Leahy                 D-VT              224-4242
    Metzenbaum            D-OH              224-2315
    Simon                 D-IL              224-2152
    
    Brown                 R-CO              224-5941
    Grassley              R-IA              224-3744
    Hatch                 R-UT              224-5251
    Simpson               R-WY              224-3424
    Specter               R-PA              224-4254
    Thurmond              R-SC              22405972
    
    Over the weekend most of the Senator's offices were taking polls on
    how the public felt.  You can make a difference in this thing!

      The hearings have affected me personally too.  I guess for me the
    most depressing thing has been the display of stereotypical "catty"
    behavior by witnesses Alvarez and Barry against Professor Hill.
    Also the thought that Professor Hill may have been living with
    these things for ten years.  I agree with the assessment that the 
    Democrats are sitting there like bumps on logs, and hope the person 
    who said they are confident that they have enough votes is right.  
    Even so, I am grateful to Kennedy and Leahy, and occasionally one or 
    two of the others for actually doing some cross-examining.  Questions 
    I would have like to see asked:
    	Of Barry: Were you attracted to Judge Thomas? (She testified
    that "any woman" would be).  Were you jealous of Anita Hill?  (Barry
    described the office as very competitive).  To Alvarez and Barry:
    Do you see an inconsistency between Judge Thomas testifying that
    he did not co-mingle his personal and professional lives and your
    testimony that you are close personal friends?  Did he ever discuss
    Professor Hill with you outside of work?  To all of them: If Judge
    Thomas did do the things alleged, do you feel he should be confirmed
    anyway?  I think they all felt that the charges were irrelevent.
	Linda

    Did anyone else smell a rat when Thomas' talking about racism gave
    Hatch the perfect lead in for his insinuation that Hill had lifted
    the "Long John Silver" reference from an Oklahoma harrassment case and
    the "pubic hair in my coke" reference from "The Exorcist".  The whole
    episode felt planned and staged to me.  Maybe I'm just becoming
    paranoid.
    					- Vick
    
    P.S.  ... and Hatch was leading the witness (Thomas) so unabashedly
    that I kept wanting to jump up and yell "I object, your honor!"

    Oh, well, I have never seen it written, and that's what I heard, but
    it makes more sense spelled that way.  (Blush)
    
    							- Vick

    Overall, while I can't be absolutely positive, the indications are very
    strong that Judge Thomas did in fact do the things Prof. Hill accused
    him of; I found her story to be credible and those of her supporting
    witnesses.  In fact, I had no problem whatsoever empathizing with her
    plight back in the early days of her career.  I wish I lived in Utah or
    PA or Arizona so I could vote against Hatch, Specter, and DeConcinni
    (sp?), respectively.
    
    The lie detector test just further confirms my opinion.  FWIW: the lie
    detector test was administered by a former FBI lie-detector expert and
    his conclusion was that she was telling the truth on all of the
    questions she was asked.  I'm appalled that this isn't being put into
    the official logs as simply another piece of evidence -- you can bet
    money it would have been a major uproar had she failed!
    
    Jim

        ...further, if you had watched late last night, this guy
    Doggett was virtually screaming at the senators.  I was amazed
    that he was able to get away with his massively intimidating tone.
    Even the other three men with him seemed repelled by him.
        From where I sit, these would be my thoughts/opinions.
    1.  It is clear that Thomas has changed, if he was ever as he
        was described (and isn't this the ultimate desire?)
    2.  Anita Hill "sold out" and is experiencing remorse now (not
        being timely with the information.)  Also, parenthetically,
        I can understand her fear and reluctance.
    3.  Hatch must live in a world of ozone...how can he possibly 
        represent people who live in a "real world" of sexual expression,
        etc.?
    4.  The things that Anita Hill reports do not sound so awful to me...
        granted that they may have been inappropriately used.
    5.  If Anita is correct, too bad Thomas didn't admit responsibility,
        remorse, and explain himself (emotionally lonely at the time,
        etc.)  Otherwise, he's not only casting doubt on himself, but
        causing Anita Hill great damage.  Also, Thomas could have said,
        "I became aware of my inappropriateness, immediately changed my
        behaviors...and I'm sorry for not having apologized to Anita" etc.
    6.  Though this guy Doggett annoyed me a great deal, he did make a 
        point I share...if women are as sensitive as some are implying
        that they are, they will never be trusted by men...will never
        be hired for fear of lawsuits and discrimination charges...will
        never make men feel that they can be treated as equals.  (I
        admit this may already be the case, I admit that perhaps some
        of the reverse is currently true, but I also believe that 
        180 degree energy is counter-productive...there must be a bit
        more tolerance than many would like...)
    7.  I do not care for Thomas, he's far too rigid for my tastes, but
        I do not believe Anita Hill's testimony should be the determining
        factor for his confirmation or not.
    
    Frederick
    

Lie detector tests aren't credible if you don't announce in
advance when and where you are taking it.  If you take a test
secretly and fail or it is indeterminate, you simply don't
announce it.  When you've got the routine down and can pass
it, you announce it.  This is supposed to be convincing?

Dan

    Plus, if you keeping tell the same lie the lie becomes fact to you.
    Then the lie detector is useless....
    
    REK

    You want to know what's really sad abut this.. Look at the 12 that are
    questioning the witnesses.....
    
    REK

    
    One thing you have to consider about the lie detector test, before you
    take it as gosple. She took the test without any witnesses. And she
    initiated it. So if she failed the test, then no one needs to know what
    the results were. If she passed the test, then she could publish them.
    It would definetly add more credibility to her story if she took the
    test in front of impartial witnesses. Which by the way she is refusing
    to do.
    
    

Every piece of advice I have seen on harassment says
to write everything down.  Who said what.  Who did what.
When and where did it happen.  What was your response.
Who else was present.

Write down everything.

Maybe you think after the initial incident that it isn't
necessary to keep detailed notes, because this was a one
time aberration that won't happen again.  Then after the
second incident you decide you still won't report it, so
still no notes.  Eventually, you decide it would have been
good to have kept notes from the beginning, but it seems
too late to start now.

Anita Hill is bright, educated, articulate, even worked
for the EEOC which puts out the above advice.  She must
have known the advice.  But for whatever reason, she
decided that she didn't need to follow the advice about
writing everything down, that she could handle the
situation her way.  Yet despite everything she has going
for her, things seem to have gotten out of hand.

It makes you wonder what would have happened if she had
come forward with a ten year old notebook dug out of a box
in the attic, containing complete details of all the alleged
incidents?

Dan

    .179
    
    I don't feel any sympathy for him at all; I think he is grandstanding.
    
    Now if a woman were to use all those references to death, she just
    might be considered unstable, suicidal, dramatic, or pre-menstrual.
    
    argh.
    

    Here is my reckoning on what has and will happen :-
    
    Thomas did sexually harass Hill
    
    Hill did keep quiet for the usual reasons (wanting career to continue
    etc)
    
    Hill upon realising that Thomas was to a a SCJ decided to come out
    (Why keep quiet when he was going for a Judgehood? She should have
    spoken up then)
    
    Thomas denies the allegations. Well he would wouldn't he. He is either
    lying or believes that his harassment wasn't harassment. He may not
    have harassed Hill at all. I think that unlikely.
    
    Eventually Thomas will be made a SCJ anyway. What else do expect when 
    he has the Presidents backing. He probably won't make a v.good SCJ
    because all his decisions will be under intense scrutiny and possibly
    influenced by this.
    
    Hill will be discredited (read ripped to shreds) by the press and
    have a hard time in the future.
    
    This whole thing will put the sexual harassment eradication campaign
    back ten years. Men will be even more reluctant to employ females. It
    will probably result in 1000's of women not reporting any type of
    harassment case in the future when they would otherwise have done. I
    reckon a very large number are unreported already.
    
    In Utopia, Thomas would admit his guilt, publically apologise, and
    stand down as a SCJ nominee and remain as a "lowly" judge.  Hill
    would receive aclaim for having the guts to come forward. Wait a 
    minute, in Utopia there would be no harassment at all.
    
    
    As you can probably gather I know very little of the case other than
    what I've read here, but I find myself tending towards believing Hill. 
    But I do not rule out the remote possibility that Thomas is innocent.
    
                             
    Jerome. 
    
    
    
    

Re: <<< Note 1004.202 by ZFC::deramo "the radio reminds me" >>>

>>Anita Hill is bright, educated, articulate, even worked
>>for the EEOC which puts out the above advice.

Was the advice "write everything down" being given out 10 years ago?

                           Roak

I'd like to make a point on just how subtle sexual discrimination can
be, using .196 as my material.  I am not taking shots at Frederick!

Frederick, by my count you mention four people by name in your note:

o   John Doggett, twice

o   Clarence Thomas, four times

o   Anita Hill, five times

o   Orrin Hatch, one time

Your citations of the men's names are not once accompanied by the given
(first) name of the person named.  Your mentions of the woman's name do
not once *omit* the individual's given name.  One citation, in fact,
uses *only* the person's first name.

This, while subtle, is sexual discrimination; it is commonly recognized
as diminution of the woman so treated.  But it's not harassment.  What
Clarence Thomas is alleged to have said far exceeds this level of
discrimination and does indeed fall under the EEOC's carefully worded
definition of harassment.  But this isn't what I'm getting at.

My point is that if a listener/witness is so thoroughly habituated to
the subtle bias displayed in .196, that witness isn't in a position to
judge cases involving that bias.  It was my impression that at least
10 of the 14 Senators on the Judiciay Committee are so habituated.  How
can they claim to treat these claims dispassionately?  Some of them did
not even display the common decency to acknosledge that the problem
exists at all.  These men are not alon ein their biases; there are more
Senators like them.  How can they judge Hill's claims in a fair
atmosphere?  Nobody proved anything this weekend.  It still comes down
to "he said/she said."  Clarence Thomas isn't in a position to determine
what happens to this country; the U.S. Senate has usurped that right
from him.

What a travesty -- and I don't even want Thomas confirmed!

-dick

Re: .204

I remind you, Jerome, that Hill stated that she would not have come
forward *this* time were it not that her statements were going to be
made public anyway.  She wasn't similarly threatened at the time of
any of Thomas' previous confirmation hearings.

-dick

    I never recall following news hearing in the media or being brought up
    at the hearings.  The judge was very adamant that he was not going to
    answer any questions relating to his sex life.  Really, it seems much
    more possible that he "fantasized" about his own sexual prowess and
    then "bragged".  Prof Hill has nothing to gain but everything to lose
    by fabricating the allegations.  On the contrary, Judge Thomas has lot
    to gain by denying them.  "Have you ever lied, Judge Thomas?"  Is there
    any adult in US who has not discussed the abortion?

    Look at it now.  After 10 years, after she has established her
    credentials as a tenured professor, United States senators have the
    audacity to insinuate that she is "unstable", "imagining things",
    "insane".  I shudder to think how she would have been treated if she
    had come out 10 years ago.
    
    Personally, his evasiveness in answering questions tells me much more
    than his outward indignation

    - Vikas
    
Article: 1023
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Subject: Woman says Thomas talked to her of pornography
Date: 11 Oct 91 15:16:49 GMT
Lines: 30
 
 
	BOSTON (UPI) -- A woman who attended Yale Law School with Clarence
Thomas says the embattled Supreme Court nominee's descriptions of
pornographic movies became a standing joke among his classmates.
	But Lovida Coleman told the Boston Herald in an interview published
Friday that she found Thomas's accounts of an X-rated film ``amusing''
and ``not offensive.''
	Senate hearings began Friday into allegations that Thomas sexually
harassed Anita Hill while she worked for him at the Education Department
and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hill, now a law professor
at the University of Oklahoma, reportedly has told the FBI Thomas asked
her out on dates and described pornographic movies to her in lewd
detail.
	Coleman, now a Washington lawyer, said Thomas related the events of
an X-rated film ``Behind The Green Door'' to her, but ``the nature of
the conversation was not offensive.''
	The conversations ``didn't even focus on the sexual acts. They were
just amusing,'' Coleman said.
	Coleman said Thomas, while a law student at Yale, sometimes went with
friends to a theater in New Haven, Conn., that featured X-rated films.
	``He didn't go for sexual kicks. He did it for amusement --
recreation,'' she said. ``I would not say it was a frequent or regular
occurrence.''
	However, Coleman said Thomas's descriptions of ``Behind The Green
Door'' became a standing joke among his classmates.
	``He'd come into the dining room and we'd say, 'Clarence, got any
good stories today?''' Coleman said.
	``But even though Clarence wasn't afraid to talk about X-rated films
in law school to me, I've never heard him mention them since,'' said
Coleman, who said she has been a friend of Thomas for 14 years.

    
    I don't have a problem with Thomas becoming a SCJ today having
    done these things 10 years ago.  I *do* have a problem with his
    becoming a SCJ today given his lieing today (which I believe
    he is).
    
    To me, he seemed almost bordering on hysteria on the stand when
    I listened to him on Sat. morning.  He sounded like an arrogant
    blathering idiot, and yes, I understand he's under a great deal of
    pressure, but I would have thought someone of his stature could
    handle himself a *bit* better than that.
    

Dan has put his finger on the what has bothered me about Prof.Hill's credibility
in this story from the beginning.  Now, other folks, women included, have told
me that I am unusual in this, but I knew 20 years ago that I had recourse if I
was harrassed and the harrassment didn't stop when I confronted it.  If I knew
it 20 years ago, and if I knew it 10 years ago, then how does it figure that
the Anita Hill of 10 years ago didn't?  

Bear in mind - she is not an ordinary woman herself.  She came up from very
modest beginnings, the last of 13 children.  She worked hard to get what she 
did.  She was a civil rights lawyer at the EEOC for at least part of the period
of harrassment.  Even before all the testimony (from both sides) describing
her as tough and tenacious and a strong-willed woman, I thought she must be an
extraordinarily strong woman to have achieved so much, so young.  That image 
of a strong and competant adult just doesn't jive with the image of a woman so
meek and unsure of herself that she does not even tell a man that he is being
offensive, let alone fight for the principle of the thing in her job in an
agency dedicated to principle.

I'm soooo confused.  But one thing is clear:  politicians are pond slime.

    
    re .210:
    
    Sara, it's obvious (to me, at least) why Hill didn't press this
    10 years ago.  Her career ambitions were at stake.  It *really* is
    that simple.
    
    Don't give me the line "oh, she's a black female from Yale Law
    school - she could go anywhere and do anything she wanted."
    
    Hill had/has ambition beyond what these things could automatically
    give her.  Nothing wrong with that.  An aside, being "black and female"
    may get you *in* the door more easily, but there are still thousands
    of subtle "little discriminations" that happen against employees who
    are the least little bit different that *cannot* be legislated away
    (that happen once you're in the door).
    
    10 years ago this was the case - Hill's ambitions were at stake.
    Today, she's made it.  She's established herself as an excellent
    employee with a solid track record of 10 years (something she did
    *not* have to fall back on 10 years ago).  She can afford to come
    out with her story now.  Her ambitions and reputation may very well
    have suffered had done so she 10 years ago - even to the EEOC.
    Word gets around - Sara, you should know that.
    
    

    Gut reaction. IMHO He's guilty. He harrassed her. He did suggest and
    say everything that she said he did. The Senate is deliberately leading
    the questioning to make her look like a deluded person with an
    overactive fantasy life, so that their friend Judge Thomas will get
    on the SC. Partly because they want to molify the President. 
    
    The only other people that I feel badly for besides Ms. Hill, is Judge
    Thomas' family. What they must be going through. This whole thing has
    caused me to lose faith in the way the people who operate our gov't.
    actually operate.(Like I didn't during Watergate and the Vietnam war,
    right) I have also gained some respect for the way our gov't. is
    supposed to operate, because with Ms. Hill's testimony, the TRUTH is
    being allowed out in the open and despite whatever happens, the people
    will know the TRUTH. Maybe something can be sone in the future. 
    Also just as important, maybe some people will think twice before
    making stupid, insulting, disgusting comments to others.  And yes, I
    can admit that there was a time when I was guilty too. Not of any of
    the many extreme things that Judge Clarence has been accused of, but
    smaller, but no less offensive things. Working in a Gas station/garage
    does that to one, if only to be a "part of the crew". (IOW to survive)
    
    PJ

    One minor casualty of the Thomas hearings:
    
    The president of Ireland is over in the U.S. at the moment 
    on a short visit and was scheduled for a major interview with, 
    I think, NBC today.  The interview was cancelled because of 
    the live coverage of the Thomas hearings and this was to be 
    the major media event of her visit.
    
    Liam

>    Sara, it's obvious (to me, at least) why Hill didn't press this
>    10 years ago.  Her career ambitions were at stake.  It *really* is
>    that simple.

 That does not explain why she didn't document anything, particularly given her
inclination to document _everything_ about work. She testified that she feared
she would lose her job because of Clarence Thomas so she began to document
her assignments with precision. When she was given the assignment, what
actions she took, what the eventual outcome of the assignment was. She claimed
that she wanted to have documentation in case he tried to bust her down or
have her fired. And yet she did not document a single instance of this
harassment? It seems incongruous to me.

 But of course it is possible that things occured precisely as she has 
testified. Clearly Judge Thomas has a strong incentive to lie (assuming
the charges are factual.) On the other hand, I regard his behavior to be
right in line with what I would consider to be expected of a man falsely
accused.

 So where does this leave us? We have two apparently credible people telling
two completely different stories. One or both is lying. It is very likely that 
the full scope of the truth will never be known.

 In my opinion, we take this heightened sense of awareness of sexual harassment
and use it to make progress on this issue, and give the benefit of the doubt
to the nominee because I believe the burden of proof has not been met. I don't
believe that these accusations have been substantiated sufficiently to warrant
changing anyone's mind about whether the nominee belongs on the supreme court.

 Regardless of the outcome of this issue, both Prof Hill and Judge Thomas
are going to lose. And government has once again shown that it deserves our
disrespect.

 The Doctah

    re.214
    
    Well, _I_ certainly haven't changed my mind about Thomas's nomination
    to the SCOTUS.
    
    I never _did_ want him confirmed.
    
      Annie

 Oh, I didn't think this series of hearings was going to influence too many
people to make that particular switch. ;^)

    
    re Doctah:
    
    I can try to give a couple of possible plausible explanations of
    why she didn't document the actual abuses at the time they occured:
    
    1) She actively decided against pressing charges or bringing
    to the EEOC at the time (that's what she says), so she may well
    have believed that she'd never need to have documentation, and
    she'd just as well try to not think about such horrible things
    heaped upon her very hard, especially if she had to keep working
    with the man - and writing something down definitely requires one
    to think hard about it.
    
    2) About her writing other work-related things down - she felt there
    was a good possibility she'd need these things in a very small
    (relatively) time from the time she wrote them down.  There was
    much more to be gained by writing these than writing abuses at the
    time.
    
    3) She knew she could remember very clearly what happened -
    my gosh, if the "Coke" incident happened to me, well, shoot,
    I sure wouldn't need a pen and paper to know it happened and
    remember exactly how and where!
    

Hi, Ellen.  I don't disagree all that strongly with what you say; I know all
those things can happen.  But it just doesn't fit too well with the mental
image I have of a woman who could have accomplished so much, so young.  Also
it probably makes a difference to me that her employer was EEOC, not a private
law firm or <insert name of fave conservative regimented large corporation>.

My questions about Anita Hill's decisions 10 years ago are not helping me to
decide who to believe, or why.

Like every woman who works where men also work, I have experienced sexual 
harrassment, and inappropriate interest and conduct, at work, at the hands of
one or more men.  I know it happens.  What I don't know is if it happened in
this one case.  The evidence is not the kind that lends itself to objective
judgement.

Sigh.  I wish it was!

Sara

RE: .27 and .110 -

That's the crux of the matter, Suzanne....It's really intense to
see the it's ONLY a woman what's the matter can't she take a
joke come out, and THEN have folks say, ah well, that was then
and now is now, so why not give the guy a try?

>Another thing that bothers many men (at least myself) is that
>we can UNKNOWINGLY commit this offense and unless the woman
>does choose to say something we have NO IDEA that we did
>anything "wrong". We can not even attempt to correct the behavior
>that the woman finds offensive. And then someday in the future
>this will come back to haunt us. Somehow there's a lack of
>fairness in all of this.

Jim, that's the whole point with sexual harassment...the onus is 
always on the women to point out what's wrong and then let you know
how you should behave.  Does the same hold true for you when you
deal with people of other races?  Would you be apt to tell someone
of another race or ethnic background that you had NO IDEA that you
"did anything wrong?"

*I think* that the problem is that I heard the word TRIVIAL far
too many times this week-end.  I guess that puts the Senate's mind 
set in perspective for me.....

Thomas will probably be confirmed after all is said and done. After
all, what's the big deal?

Barb

re .217,

Even if you "know" you aren't going to press charges, it makes
sense to document everything, if only to defend yourself against
a bad review (she documented her work performance, why not
document the motive for the bad review?).  As for (3), which is
more convincing,

	"That's something you don't forget, Senator."

or

	"Here are my notes of that incident, dated dd-mmm-yyyy,
	and signed by my friend J. Doe as having been read by
	hir two days later."

If anything constructive is to come out of all of this, I would
hope it to be for people to realize the importance of learning
and following the list of recomended things to do if harassed.

Dan

>    1) She actively decided against pressing charges or bringing
>    to the EEOC at the time (that's what she says), so she may well
>    have believed that she'd never need to have documentation,

 I could understand this if she did not fear for her job. She says she feared
for her job (in contradiction to what we know Thomas' power to be in that 
regard but ignoring that for a moment); would she have used all of her 
documented stuff regarding her work and remained quiet about the harassment
if the decision were unfavorable? I find that to be most unlikely. Why strap
your strong hand behind your back in a very important fight? Seems to me
that you want to keep all options open, particularly if you are worried
that you will lose your source of income. I think that we are not seeing 
everything in a clear light.

>There was
>    much more to be gained by writing these than writing abuses at the
>    time.

 I don't understand why this would be true. In fact, it occurs to me that
the opposite would be true. Can you explain how you reached this conclusion 
please?

>    3) She knew she could remember very clearly what happened -
>    my gosh, if the "Coke" incident happened to me, well, shoot,
>    I sure wouldn't need a pen and paper to know it happened and
>    remember exactly how and where!
 
 I concur. 

 The Doctah

    
    re Doctah:
    
    I don't think she was worried about her income - as has been stated,
    she was a black female with a Yale law degree.  She could have found
    a *job* - but it was her career, with high, high ambitions that would
    have (I *do* believe this) at stake.  Once she pressed charges with
    the EEOC, word *would* get around among the law community and other
    potential high-powered employers that she's the type that "makes
    waves".  Believe me - it doesn't take much and her chances for the
    highest positions in her field would have been extremely jeopardized.
    I do believe that, even *with* documentation.
    

    One point I would like to make here. If he did sexually harassed her
    why did she follow him to another department?
    
    REK

    re: .219 (Barb)
    
          One can't argue with your points too hard, but "for the
    record," there are many cases where the reverse is true.  Just
    a couple of weeks ago, for example, right here in this DIGITAL
    building, several women (in the response center) were made to
    remove calendars, paintings, photographs, etc., of bare-chested
    young men, etc.  Was that sexual harassment?  That's stretching
    it, but it's conceivable that maybe *a* type of male (or even
    female) would find it offensive and therefore harassing.
          Over a decade ago, I filed a "reverse" (this is what it
    was officially called) sex discrimination suit with the EEOC.
    (I also simultaneously filed a mental handicap suit--but it 
    was dismissed--I filed the mental handicap suit because my 
    supervisor said I had an analytical mind and was not suited
    for the work.)  This job, by the way, was as a letter carrier
    with the U.S. Postal Service.  I had to wait a year for the 
    "hearing."  Just prior to the hearing, the judge, who was a 
    woman, told me that sex discrimination is extremely difficult
    to prove, and that reverse sex discrimination is even tougher.
    She recommended that I settle before the hearing.  I did.
         Was I sexually harassed?  Not really.  I sort of enjoyed
    the attention...until I found out that it was being used against
    me.  Was I discriminated against?  There was definitely a bias
    there...but it was complicated by several other factors.  The 
    EEOC was, unfortunately, an inadequate means of seeking compensation,
    but the only one I could afford (I had approached attorneys, ACLU,
    etc., prior to the EEOC.)
         Often, it seems to me, women do similar activities, and for
    whatever reason, don't ever recognize it for what it is.  It takes
    education and dialog and expression of feelings to remedy this. 
    All this circus is/will be of value...or at least won't be a net
    loss.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    re .220, Dan:
    
>
>	"Here are my notes of that incident, dated dd-mmm-yyyy,
>	and signed by my friend J. Doe as having been read by
>	hir two days later."
    
    Do you understand, Dan, how *enormously* *difficult* this would
    be - for *any* woman - high-powered, or not - two days after the
    "Coke" incident?  You still don't seem to get it, Dan.

    She told the Senate, and I believe her, that she had to deal
    with her feelings of victimization for years.  It makes a lot
    of sense to me that she's only able to bring her story out now,
    after dealing with the personal consequences for many years.
    
    What I said in .217 stands - not as why she didn't, but as a
    plausible explanation as to why she didn't.
    

    
    re .218, Sara:
    
    I guess I was assuming that Hill's enormous accomplishments, great
    intellectual ability, and Yale law degree doesn't make her all that
    much different from you and me and other women or any "better"
    inately at handling harassment.
    

    Making waves in government employment is not a great way to improve
    your career.  The government has shown over and over again that it
    doesn't want trouble-makers.  I think it's quite possible that Prof.
    Hill was, even then, pretty tough and savvy and wasn't about to jeopardize
    her career over some low-intensity harrassment.  The very fact that
    she was working for the EEOC was even more reason to make no waves.  If
    you've decided you aren't going to make waves, why write down the 
    details?  The sexual harrassment did not make her fear for her career; the
    thought of blowing the whistle made her fear for her career.
    
    					- Vick

    
    Sara,
    
    If Anita Hill was harassed by Thomas, head of the EEOC at the time,
    where do you think she could have gone to complain at the time?
    I heard that - because of the level of the man she was accusing -
    she would have had to go to a Senate committee that oversaw the
    EEOC, or else to Reagan at the White House. I don't think a 25 year-
    old woman, no matter where she went to school, would have 
    won out if she had tried to do this.
    
    The fact that she didn't leave at the time, or raise a ruckus or
    whatever, is counted against her but it makes perfect sense.
    She was a bright, ambitious young woman from a family so poor
    they didn't have indoor plumbing till she was 13.  It wouldn't
    be so easy for her to throw away an important job.  She probably
    thought the best she could do was put up with it till she had a
    resume.  She says the only reason she came forward now was
    because she was asked direct questions on the subject by the FBI.
    
    I think people can look at the case of who's telling the truth
    on an objective basis.  What motive has Hill to lie?  None.
    What motive has Thomas? Plenty.  
    
    The people who testified in support of Hill said that she told
    them she was being sexually harassed by Thomas years ago.  What
    motive do they have to lie?  What motive would Anita Hill have
    had for telling them lies on the subject ten years ago, well before
    Thomas was being considered for the Supreme Court.
    
    Sue

>What motive has Hill to lie?  None.

 What motive did Charles Stuart have to murder his wife? If you asked that
question last year, most poeple would have said "none." Now of course a much
different picture has come to light. I'll agree that there isn't anything
obvious, but I fall short of stating categorically that she has nor reason to 
lie. It seems obvious that she harbors very deep feelings against him. They
could be for the stated reason or they could be for some reason which has 
remained hidden even now.

    RE: 196

    >If Anita is correct, too bad Thomas....

    Frederick, if you are going to call Judge Thomas "Thomas", please call
    Professor Hill "Hill", not "Anita".

    Thank you,

    E Grace

Re: <<< Note 1004.219 by BOOTKY::MARCUS "Good Planets Are Hard To Find" >>>

>>                        Does the same hold true for you when you
>>deal with people of other races?  Would you be apt to tell someone
>>of another race or ethnic background that you had NO IDEA that you
>>"did anything wrong?"

Whether the "race" obfuscation is in the above question or not, the answer is
"yes".  If I insult Mr. Percival, without knowing it, I'll never know I insulted
(or harrassed or whatever) him unless I'm told about it, right?  This assumes I
have of course made some attempt to learn how NOT to insult Mr. Percival to
begin with.  In other words, "I didn't know" is an excuse if it isn't based on
ignorance.

How would it work any other way?

                                    Roak

     <<< Note 1004.219 by BOOTKY::MARCUS "Good Planets Are Hard To Find" >>>

>Jim, that's the whole point with sexual harassment...the onus is 
>always on the women to point out what's wrong and then let you know
>how you should behave.  

	I don't think that it's the woman's "place" to tell me how to
	behave. I think the issue is more one of pointing out sensitivities.
	Every definition of harrassment I've heard in the last week clearly
	indicates that it's in the eye of the beholder. The comments that
	Prof. Hill attributed to Judge Thomas are clearly harrassment to
	almost (note ALMOST) everyone concerned, but there are those that
	might not take offense.

	My wife and I discussed this at length over the weekend. She related
	several instances where her boss(es) had made "ribald" remarks to
	her. In all cases she did not take offense, and in fact could "give"
	as good as she "got". I have to admit that the remarks she repeated 
	were CLEARLY harrassment in my opinion, but since she did not, THEY
	WERE NOT. 

	The "line" is very gray. You can't point to something and automatically
	say "This is wrong"/"This is OK".

	Back to the Thomas confirmation hearings.

	I listened to a fair amount of the testimony by both Prof. Hill and 
	her supporting panel. I listened to the first panel of Thomas 
	supporters and to a bit of the second panel. I missed Thomas' response
	to Prof. Hill charges (other than the sound bites that made the news
	reports).

	Having heard the witnesses I'm afraid that I've come to the conclusion
 	that she is lying. Why she would do this is something I have absolutely
 	no idea about. I think that trying to attribute motives to Prof. Hill 
	is wrong and that it really serves no purpose.

	As far as the "second woman" is concerned, through some deal with the
	Committee she did not testify, therefore her "evidence" does not
	exist (at least not in my determination of my personal position).

	I believe that Thomas SHOULD be confirmed. Whether or not he actually
	will be or not is still very much up in the air.


Jim

    re: .230 (E Grace)
    
         I'll try...it's hard for me to say "Clarence" for some
    reason.  Also, I suppose calling a woman by her last name seems
    masculine, somehow, to me.  Am I biased?  Yes, but I'll work to
    overcome it to my own standards...
         So, to you and Dick, who already pointed it out, thanks
    for calling it to my attention.
    
    Frederick
    

Frederick,

My answer to some of your questions is that it is not *in my 
opinion* right to harass another whether done by men to women or 
women to men (and, yes, I do think those posters were a form of
harassment).

My point is that harassment of men to women is trivialized, 
especially in the workplace.  Unless there is severe threat of 
"job for sex" or physical threat, it is fairly well thought of as
"drumming something up."

That make the insidious, day-to-day, continual comments/jokes/
proposals/etc. that many to most women have dealt with over a
LIFETIME of a career, something meaningless or harmless (trivial).
If anything is made of it, then re:some back, you will never be
trusted or hired into any position of meaning because you "might
file a lawsuit." 

What a perfectly fitting straight-jacket!

Barb

    I feel frantic and despairing at the thought that Thomas might
    be appointed to the Supreme Court.  A person of good reputation
    has come forward and accused him of behavior that constitutes
    sexual harassment.  There is no reason that anyone can see why
    she would lie (she's the same race, is also a Republican, stood
    to gain a lot if she had a former employee on the Supreme Court).
    
    In this case, when there is a doubt about a man's character like
    this, he shouldn't be appointed to the Supreme Court.  We're 
    not talking about a trial or a conviction where Thomas would
    deserve the benefit of the doubt - we're talking about a life
    appointment to the Supreme Court. People can doubt Anita Hill
    all they want but it's horrendously unfair to put a man on the
    Supreme Court when a good percentage of the country believes
    he's a lying sex harasser.
    
    Sue

            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1004.231          Thomas nomination to Supreme Court             231 of 234
PEAKS::OAKEY "Save the Bill of Rights-Defend the II"  17 lines  14-OCT-1991 14:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: <<< Note 1004.219 by BOOTKY::MARCUS "Good Planets Are Hard To Find" >>>

>>                        Does the same hold true for you when you
>>deal with people of other races?  Would you be apt to tell someone
>>of another race or ethnic background that you had NO IDEA that you
>>"did anything wrong?"

<Whether the "race" obfuscation is in the above question or not, the answer is
<"yes".  If I insult Mr. Percival, without knowing it, I'll never know I insulted
<(or harrassed or whatever) him unless I'm told about it, right?  This assumes I
<have of course made some attempt to learn how NOT to insult Mr. Percival to
<begin with.  In other words, "I didn't know" is an excuse if it isn't based on
<ignorance.
<
<How would it work any other way?
<
<                                   Roak

I am not being snide or facetious when I say that you make it YOUR
responsibility not to be ignorant - ESPECIALLY in the workplace.  The
other point in this discussion is that it is far easier - meaning,
frankly, that most just don't try - to plead ignorance when it comes
to sexual harassment than when it comes to race/ethnic/etc.  Gosh,
I didn't know that would upset/bother you!

>My wife and I discussed this at length over the weekend. She related
>several instances where her boss(es) had made "ribald" remarks to
>her. In all cases she did not take offense, and in fact could "give"
>as good as she "got". I have to admit that the remarks she repeated 
>were CLEARLY harrassment in my opinion, but since she did not, THEY
>WERE NOT.

That is a clear misconception, Jim.  Because your wife did not think
certain remarks were harassment does not mean that they were indeed
not harassment.  If your wife choose not to pursue or deem remarks as
harassing, that's certainly up to her.  But in fact, in the workplace,
there are remarks that are harassment regardless of how given or how
received.  In fact, if your wife could "give" out those remarks, as 
you said above, she has probably "given harassment."  If you and your
brother were fist fighting (as example, obviously I don't know whether
or not you have a brother) and he clocked you one, would it not be 
assault just because you said it wasn't?  Believe me, I am not trying
to be difficult, but, being "one of the boys" is frequently an
unconscious adjustment and at some point internalized.

I agree that it is tremendously hard to work these issues because they
underlie decades/centuries of how we deal with each other.  I 
certainly admire the effort of trying to come to grips with it.  I
learn much as I go, and I thank everyone who pushes me just a little
bit more on that road.

Barb 

    
    Some people will believe Hill; some will believe Thomas.  I think the
    truth lies somewhere between.  Nothing will be decided, and I think
    Thomas will be confirmed.  How can they not confirm him, where so many
    have "skeletons in their closets"?  G-d forbid that Senators come under
    close scrutiny!  They will close the old-boy network and protect each
    other.  Hopefully, the issue of sexual harrassment has been elevated in
    some people so they will think about it, but knowing how naive most
    folks are, they won't consider it for long.
    
    But, the real issue, to my mind, is that the Senate was on trial.  We, 
    the American people, have given this "august" body of folks too much
    power, and like the old saying, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".  
    There seem to be two sets of rules - one for our national leadership and 
    one for the rest of us.  It is up to each of us to be sure that this 
    ceases - no not in our lifetime or our children's lifetime, but perhaps
    by our grandchildren's? 
    
    I have never heard such grandstanding as this week-end.  Look at the
    two sides of the Judiciary Committee.  The Democrats had, amongst
    others, DeConcini (who should have been drummed out of the Senate along
    with the other Keating (S&L) cohorts), and Kennedy (who isn't the most
    "moral" person!).  On the Republican side, I think only Hatch showed
    the least bit of sensitivity.  Specter(sp?) should receive an academy
    award for Bush's prosecutor!
    
    We vote on whom we want to represent us.  Let's remember this, and the
    S&L fiasco and the bad checks, etc. in November.  Perhaps there will be
    a clear choice, and not the "lesser of two evils".
    
    Cynically yours,
    

     <<< Note 1004.236 by BOOTKY::MARCUS "Good Planets Are Hard To Find" >>>

>That is a clear misconception, Jim......


Barb,	I don't know if the word "clear" or "common" should apply.

	As to your example using assault. 

	Both of these terms have legal definitions and in both cases
	(my wife with her boss AND the time my brother whacked me for
	seven stitches worth [Good example by the way] ;-)) the actions
	did NOT fufill the legal definition of the words.

	Now if we progress to "Was it morally wrong" we get into another
	area entirely. But even so, I think "harrassment" requires a
	"harrassed" party. And that definition is left to the recipient
	of the behavior, no?

Jim

I find some of the opinions expressed about sexual harassment in the 
workplace very disturbing.  It is not o.k. for women or men to be 
subjected to unwanted sexual advances, language or innuendoes. 

I think that there are times when 'signals' between adults can be genuinely 
misinterpreted.  There is a big difference between someone asking you if 
you'd like to have dinner some evening because that person thinks you are 
attracted to him/her and a co-worker coming up to you and saying, "I find 
you very attractive and I want to have sex with you..." and then repeating 
this request every opportunity that s/he has, even though you've told that 
person this behavior in unacceptable and must stop.

And it is mistaken to think that sexual harassment is limited to inappropriate 
behavior between people where there is a supervisory/power imbalance or 
the threat of "sleep with me or lose your job."

Ridiculing women and men by saying that they are "too sensitive" or 
attempts to rationalize that comments about other people's anatomy are 
appropriate are just another form of blaming the victim.

    
    re .232, Jim:
    
>	My wife and I discussed this at length over the weekend. She related
>	several instances where her boss(es) had made "ribald" remarks to
>	her. In all cases she did not take offense, and in fact could "give"
>	as good as she "got". I have to admit that the remarks she repeated 
>	were CLEARLY harrassment in my opinion, but since she did not, THEY
>	WERE NOT.
    
    Not every boss would take so kindly to having it "dished back out",
    appearing to challenge him, you know.  Glad it worked for your wife,
    though.
    
    Do you understand that if the comments your wife got were directed
    toward another woman the comments may very well be sexual harassment?
    
    This is the thing that *makes* it sexual harassment - when it's a man
    in a position of authority and power over a female subordinate.  He's
    not just Joe-random-Shmoe to her!  He's got salary power, promotion
    power, and dozens of subtler ways to make her job less-than-desirable.
    
    For me, it's easy to imagine myself "giving" it back better than
    "getting it", as you put it, when it comes to Joe-random-Shmoe that
    I met through friends or an activity.  But it's an entirely different
    matter to be put in this position with a person of authority and
    dealing with it similarly.  Dealing with it would be much more of a
    problem - for me, at least.
    

    No, it does not need to be any certain person in any certain position
    of power.  The law very clearly states that sexual harrassment is
    *anything* that makes an employee feel that the workplace is
    uncomfortable or hostile, due to gender issues.
    
    E Grace

re .225, Ellen,

>	>
>	>	"Here are my notes of that incident, dated dd-mmm-yyyy,
>	>	and signed by my friend J. Doe as having been read by
>	>	hir two days later."
>
>	    Do you understand, Dan, how *enormously* *difficult* this would
>	    be - for *any* woman - high-powered, or not - two days after the
>	    "Coke" incident?  You still don't seem to get it, Dan.

Yes, I think I can understand how difficult that would be.
That doesn't at all change the facts that writing everything
down is the standard advice that is given, is the best
advice that I've seen, would have helped Prof. Hill immensely,
and is the best thing that anyone here could do if faced with
the same or a similar situation in the future.

Saying that something is the best thing to do isn't the same
as saying that it will be easy.

Dan

          <<< Note 1004.240 by BLUMON::GUGEL "koatamundi whiteout" >>>

    
>    Do you understand that if the comments your wife got were directed
>    toward another woman the comments may very well be sexual harassment?
 
	Yes I do, in fact it's the whole point of my confusion in dealing
	with this issue. If I had heard the comments that he made to her
	I would have called him on it (even if she wasn't my wife). If
	someone who worked for me made the comments and I heard them
	I would take corrective action with the employee.

	BUT, my wife tells me she did not consider it harrassment, didn't
	feel harrassed, wasn't depressed, threatened or IN ANY WAY made
	to feel negative about the situation.

	So was it "harrassment"?


Jim

    	If we decide (no matter WHAT the nature of the material) that
    	harassment does not occur until the woman (or whoever) DECIDES
    	she (or he) feels harassed, then we've brought it down to the
    	level of harassment being "her (or his) fault for being offended
    	at something that most [read: reasonable] people would have been
    	able to 'handle' without being bothered."
    
    	In another conference, I saw someone write over the weekend
    	that if WOMEN (in general) can't take the heat of the workplace
    	(meaning if we can't 'HANDLE' the way men talk) - then we should
    	go back to our kitchens.
    
    	It would be much more fair if we decided that it isn't appropriate
    	for ANYONE to get into certain sexual areas of discussion at the
    	workplace (or risk being accused of harassment) - rather than say
    	"Well, it's only harassment if Mary or Louise can't 'HANDLE' it
    	and call it harassment.  Meanwhile, Paula and Shirley are 'cool'
    	because they listen to this stuff all day and it doesn't phase
    	'em."
    
    	See what I mean?

    	The talk in myy office was full of Professor Hill bashing 
    	today.  Incredible.  I am hiding out in the lab.
    		Linda

Re:     <<< Note 1004.236 by BOOTKY::MARCUS "Good Planets Are Hard To Find" >>>

>>                        Does the same hold true for you when you
>>deal with people of other races?  Would you be apt to tell someone
>>of another race or ethnic background that you had NO IDEA that you
>>"did anything wrong?"

>><Whether the "race" obfuscation is in the above question or not, the answer is
>><"yes".  If I insult Mr. Percival, without knowing it, I'll never know I insulted
>><(or harrassed or whatever) him unless I'm told about it, right?  This assumes I
>><have of course made some attempt to learn how NOT to insult Mr. Percival to
>><begin with.  In other words, "I didn't know" is an excuse if it isn't based on
>><ignorance.
>><
>><How would it work any other way?
>><

>>I am not being snide or facetious when I say that you make it YOUR
>>responsibility not to be ignorant - ESPECIALLY in the workplace.  The
>>other point in this discussion is that it is far easier - meaning,
>>frankly, that most just don't try - to plead ignorance when it comes
>>to sexual harassment than when it comes to race/ethnic/etc.  Gosh,
>>I didn't know that would upset/bother you!

I don't think we disagree that total ignorance is no excuse.

The question pivots on if someone makes an honest attempt at avoiding
harassment, but they do totally by accident and unknowingly, is "I didn't
know" an excuse?  My take is that if they take that information, which they
did not know before, and make sure they don't make that mistake again, it is.

A good example that comes to mind is how we've gone from "Physically
Handicapped" to "Physically Challenged" to "Differently Abled" in the space of
about a year, each step of the way [it seems to me] the previous term being
laden with negative connotations, such that you're very, very, wrong if you use
the "old term".

Now, you may be the most sensitive guy or gal this side of the Mississippi, but
if you're not online to personnel on a day-by-day basis, you may not know the
latest and greatest "phrase" and make a major blunder without the slightest
malice intended...

So again, if a person, who's trying not to be harassing, makes a blunder
without malice, AND this is transgression is brought to their attention, AND
they correct their actions, is "I didn't know" an excuse?

                                    Roak

    	RE: .245  Linda
    
    	> The talk in myy office was full of Professor Hill bashing 
    	> today.  Incredible.  I am hiding out in the lab.
    
    	Back when my first manager at Digital took a seminar on
    	Sexual Harassment in 1982, we joked with him that it was a
    	"How to" course.  Seems ironic to me now, somehow.
    
    	In reality, Sexual Harassment is a giant exercise in cultural
    	lip service.  Even members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
    	would rather believe that an attorney, a Professor of Law at
    	a University, is more likely to be unable to distinguish fantasy
    	from reality than be telling the truth about having been sexually
    	harassed.
    
    	What amazes me the most about this whole thing is how ANYONE can
    	question why Prof. Hill wouldn't come forward about the harassment
    	10 years ago after watching the way she is being treated NOW for
    	bringing this up (with less than 10 years to go in this century!)
    
    	It's absolutely pathetic.  And, by the way, I agree with what
    	someone said earlier about having no sympathy for Judge Thomas
    	(with all his death talk.)  If Prof. Hill had gone on and on
    	about how she'd rather have been shot with a bullet than to go
    	through all this, the Committee would have discounted her as an
    	hysterical female (and would have shoved her out the door yelling
    	for her to go get counseling as she fell down the front stairs.)
    
    	I do believe, though, that at least Judge Thomas will not be
    	confirmed in the vote tomorrow.  The vote was expected to be
    	extremely close in the first place - I believe it's likely
    	that this will be enough to keep him out.  If not, I won't be
    	terribly upset.  He'd be a permanent reminder to all of us
    	that much work remains to be done in the area of sexual
    	harassment (and his lifetime term would NOT be fun for him.)

I think a lot of people are afraid to believe Professor Hill, or are afraid 
to admit they believe her. I suppose this is because the truth about sexual 
harassment, like the truth about other forms of abuse of women, cuts too 
close to the bone. It's easier not to face it.

Dorian

    
    I understand there are three Democratic senators, one from Florida and
    two from Connecticut, who are undecided...does anyone have their names
    and phone numbers?
    
    Dorian

            <<< Note 1004.244 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    	at something that most [read: reasonable] people would have been
>    	able to 'handle' without being bothered."
 
	The example I'm using is when "reasonable people" (including myself
	I hope) would DEFINITELY call the comments sexual harrassment, but
	the "victim" does not. What then are we to do? 

>    	It would be much more fair if we decided that it isn't appropriate
>    	for ANYONE to get into certain sexual areas of discussion at the
>    	workplace (or risk being accused of harassment) 

	I agree. But then, of course, if there WERE straightforward definitions
	then we would not need this discussion. The difficulty for me, as a
	man, is knowing where the "line" is placed. And realizing that the
	line is different for individual women. Some totally innocent remark
	CAN be construed as harrassment AND some completely vulgar remarks
	may not be received as harrassment by the different women involved.

	That's the problem.

Jim

.....It is NOT o.k. just to get awareness of this situation and
say, yea but we all learned something.  We will still have 
Judge Thomas on the Supreme Court for LIFE.


.....I wish I had your faith, Suzanne.  I believe Judge Thomas
will be confirmed because the men of the Senate neither accept
nor understand sexual harassment.


And now for a wish:

	I clearly wish that any woman who believes her
	Senator voted in this confirmation without proper
	understanding of or sensitivity to sexual
	harassment votes him out of office.  THAT is the
	only message that will be understood.

Barb

    The Connecticut senators are Christoper Dodd and xxx Lieberman.
    
    I'd love their numbers, if anyone has them.
    
    It looks like he's going to get confirmed, unless the American
    public can convince the Senators that Thomas doesn't deserve it.
    
    Once again the senate is using polls to decide, rather than what they
    heard in the hearings.
    
    I heard Paul Simon speak on this issue in 1988.  He said that he
    believed it was his job to go with his conscience, and not his
    constituents wishes.  He used forcing the Japanese Americans into the
    camps in World War II as his example.  Most Americans favored that
    decision too. (Apparently his father was in politics and voted
    not to do this.) 
    
    judy

Jim,

Maybe you could help me here.  Could you give me an example of
a totally innocent remark/question that you think could be
interpretted in different ways by different women?

Barb

    I think Thomas will be confirmed and I am tremendously discouraged
    about what this says about this country.  When the Senate confirms
    someone for the Supreme Court they are giving that person a job
    for life and the responsibility to make decisions that will affect
    Americans for generations.  It is not a trial, where one is given
    the benefit of the doubt, and it is not a popularity contest where
    the 48% of the people who believe him win out over the 35% who don't.
    It is a matter of hiring the best man for the position.  When over
    a third of the country believes that Thomas lied under oath, and that
    he sexually harassed a woman when he was head of the EEOC (and
    thus responsible for protecting women against harassment), how,
    in the name of everything holy, can anyone say he is the best man 
    for the job!  I feel like screaming.
    
    Sue

    Suzanne, I hope you are right. I heard on NPR this morning that polls
    showed that support for Thomas hasn't decreased. He maybe confirmed
    after all.
    
    manisha

    sometimes people may make comments that are inappropriate.  if they
    have been told that the remarks are inappropriate and unwanted, and
    they choose to continue to make these kinds of remarks, then that is
    harassment.
    
    everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, once. they should be
    told that their behavior is unwanted and inappropriate.  most
    reasonable people will stop.  some will try it on someone else and
    continue the cycle of offending and being told the remarks are
    unwelcome and then try it on someone else.  habitual offenders are hard
    to find unless people talk about the offenses and that is unlikely to
    happen.  thus it is possible for an offender to be told by several
    different people that their remarks are unwelcome, but if they stop
    making remarks to those who mention it, then they can make remarks to
    others.
    
    also, i have been subjected to jokes and remarks that i found offensive
    but i didn't pursue it because 2 women senior to me laughed at the
    jokes.  i wouldn't have been taken seriously and could have really
    jeopardized my job.  as a single mother with a mortgage, i could hardly
    afford to "make waves".  so i took my indignation and disgust and
    walked away.  the jokes and remarks continued.
    
    sue

There is a question hanging in my mind, Thomas is presently a judge and yet he
stated that he chose not to listen to the testimony of Hill.  After not listening
to testimony he was able to deny that what she said happened.  Is this an
accepted procedure in his current job as a judge?  Will this be an acceptable
procedure if or when he becomes a supreme court judge?

I found his testimony to be delivered in a manner of someone emotionally 
distraught.  If he did nothing wrong, in his mind, why did he react the way he
did?

Martha

    Just my .02:
    
    I completely changed my mind on the AH/CT issue after watching and
    listening all weekend.  I surprised myself.
    
    I believe that "something" took place, but not to the degree that AH
    states.  I also believe that she mostly is grandstanding (lie detector
    test, etc.)
    
    I also think they are both very good lawyers and know how to "act" in
    public.
    
    If I had to vote today, it would be for Judge Thomas to be confirmed.
    
    
    Jackie
    

    I would vote for
    
    The Senate Judiciary Committee to be disbanded.  I can't make up my
    mind about anything else.
    
    ed

 re: Sue Kallas

 You believe that it is "horribly unfair" to put a man on the Supreme Court
when there is a "good percentage" of americans who believe he's a "lying
sex harasser." I believe it is horribly unfair to deny a seat as justice
on the Supreme Court to anyone based solely or mostly on an unprovable 
accusation, even if the accusation sounds credible, unless the refutations 
by the defendent do not seem credible. For to allow this opens the process to
an even greater level of politicization and bastardization than already exists.
To deep six a nomination, all that must occur is a credible accusation of
unacceptable behavior be leveled at the nominee. Guess what, with that 
criterion, no one is going to pass muster.

 A question- were you in favor of the nominee gaining confirmation before
the Hill accusations came to light or opposed?

re: Martha Walker

>I found his testimony to be delivered in a manner of someone emotionally 
>distraught.  If he did nothing wrong, in his mind, why did he react the way he
>did?

 If you were falsely accused of sexual harassment in front of the world would 
you tend to be emotionally distraught? Your reply sounds to me to directly
parallel the comments coming from pro-Thomas forces who have been accused of
"blaming the victim."

 The Doctah

        One of the supposed gender gaps is in the importance
        placed on following due process.  The people voting on
        the nomination will be Senators thinking about how they
        would want to be treated, if they were accused of
        something in an our-word-against-theirs manner.  If they
        follow the golden rule they will treat Judge Thomas as
        they would wish to be treated themselves.
        
        Dan

    
    re .261:
    
    Every day managers at Digital interview people for positions
    and if something smells "wrong" or just not completely right, 
    the candidate is not offered a job.  There's rarely any remorse.
    And we have no "requirement" to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"
    that a candidate cannot handle the job.  We go with our gut
    instincts.
    
    Why on earth should this case be any different?
    
    There's a strong case that he *may* have committed these acts.
    No, not hard proof.
    
    But we're not talking about a job where we can just "give him
    a chance" on a provisional basis!!!  We're talking about a
    LIFE appointment, people!!  Doesn't that bother you??
    

    	If Thomas were accused of murder by a witness who had no physical
    	evidence (and roughly half the Senate believed the witness,) you
    	can bet that Thomas would not be confirmed.  It wouldn't be enough
    	to say, "Well, the evidence wasn't conclusive, so we should give
    	him the benefit of the doubt."
    
    	The problem is that the accused offense is *ONLY* sexual harassment.
    
    	"Big deal - so a woman had to listen to him talk about his winky at
    	work.  If she couldn't 'handle' it, she should have gone back to
    	the kitchen.  Give the guy his lifetime job."
    
    	It really is pathetic.

Re: <<< Note 1004.264 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    	If Thomas were accused of murder by a witness who had no physical
>>    	evidence (and roughly half the Senate believed the witness,) you
>>    	can bet that Thomas would not be confirmed.  It wouldn't be enough
>>    	to say, "Well, the evidence wasn't conclusive, so we should give
>>    	him the benefit of the doubt."
    
>>    	The problem is that the accused offense is *ONLY* sexual harassment.

Suzanne, do you feel that sexual harassment should be punished by death or a
life sentence in prison?

Or can you admit that sexual harassment is not a bad as murder, despite throwing
them together to further confuse a confusing issue?

                           Roak

Ps. I think you tried this unfair comparison before, only to have Percival
refute this line of reasoning...

	I agree that there are many people (and senators) who think
    	that even if he did the things alleged, that is no reason to
    	block his nomination.  Hopefully the senators will vote based
    	on what they have seen in the hearings, rather than on public
    	opinion.  Most people have seen only a subset of the evidence.
    	I don't see how the testimony of the four people whom she told
    	about the harassment can be ignored.  It creates in my mind
    	at the very least reasonable doubt.  I'm glad that the allegations
    	were made public, as it has forced many people to examine their
    	feelings about sexual harassment.
    		Linda

    	If Thomas were accused of stealing, or child molestation, or taking
    	bribes as a judge - he wouldn't be confirmed if roughly half the
    	Senate believed a witness against him.
    
    	Now, you'll probably tell me again that sexual harassment isn't
    	as "serious" a crime as these - and that's my whole point!!!
    
    	Sexual harassment isn't regarded as a serious offense (or at least
    	not serious enough to keep someone from being confirmed for a
    	lifetime post as a Supreme Court Justice, evidently.)
    
    	Thanks for helping me make my point, Roak.

    I don't feel that the point really should be whether he sexually
    harassed someone ten years ago. If he doesn't do it *these days*, then
    his past shouldn't stop him being nominated.
    
    Alice T.

    	The point, Alice T., is that if Prof. Hill's testimony is true
    	(and I believe it is,) then Thomas LIES "these days," whether
    	he still sexually harasses anyone anymore or not.
    
    	This makes him inappropriate as a Supreme Court Justice.

     <<< Note 1004.254 by BOOTKY::MARCUS "Good Planets Are Hard To Find" >>>

>Maybe you could help me here.  Could you give me an example of
>a totally innocent remark/question that you think could be
>interpretted in different ways by different women?

Barb,	How about, "Your're all dressed up today" in response to a female
	co-worker that does not normally "dress up" for work, but on a 
	particular day has a presentation to make and so is wearing a dress, 
	etc.

	BTW, I would also make the same remark to a male co-worker that might
	be wearing a coat and tie for the same reasons.

	After all the discussion, I now feel that I can still make the
	comment to the men, but I would think twice before using the same
	words (inflection, etc.) with the women.

Jim

    re.268
    
    While it's true that the incidents in question took place [or not] 10
    years ago, Judge Thomas's position on them today has a great deal of
    bearing [in my mind anyway] upon his fitness to serve as a Justice of
    the Supreme Court of the United States.
    
    I can stand [or type] before all today and state categorically that
    there are things I did 10 years ago that I wouldn't _dream_ of doing
    today.  I'd be horrified and deeply embarrassed to have them come to
    light.  Yet, I wouldn't deny having done them.
    
    I don't know what happened between Thomas & Hill 10 years ago; but I
    find Hill believable.
    
    I just don't know.
    
      Annie

entered by request=>

EEO laws specifically prohibit employers from asking candidates if they
have been arrested or accused of crimes, because such unproven information
is prejudicial and has nothing to do with job performance.

   Small nit...

   I'm tired of hearing people say "... go back to the kitchen."  I don't
   have to put up with it in the kitchen, either.


   							Terza

    
    	RE: .273  Terza
    
    	Right on!
    

    
    re .272:
    
    In this case, I think it *does* have to do with "job performance",
    as a judge in the highest court of our land.
    
    Sure, I wouldn't care if he'd done those things if he were looking
    for a job here at DEC as an engineer (given he had the qualifications).
    Besides, he could be *fired* if he started up again at any point.
    This is a job he can *never* be fired from!
    

Re: <<< Note 1004.267 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>>    	If Thomas were accused of stealing, or child molestation, or taking
>>    	bribes as a judge - he wouldn't be confirmed if roughly half the
>>    	Senate believed a witness against him.

These are all criminal acts (as pointed out by Jim previously).  If Thomas was
accused of any of the above, he would have to appear in court.  If found guilty,
he would serve time and not be confirmed.  If not found guilty, to not confirm
him to the court would be a travesty of justice, becuase that would imply
"Guilty even when found not guilty".

>>    	Now, you'll probably tell me again that sexual harassment isn't
>>    	as "serious" a crime as these - and that's my whole point!!!

I'm trying to figure out if YOU think sexual harassment is as "serious" as
the above.  Currently SH is a civil matter, not criminal.  Should it be
criminal?  And if so, should the punishment be on par with a child molester?
And if it is as serious as child molestation, and a criminal offense, then
the accused's guilt should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is
an even more stringent requirement than exists today.  Is that what you want?

If you answer "no" to any of those three questions, even YOU don't think it's as
serious a crime.
    
>>    	Sexual harassment isn't regarded as a serious offense (or at least
>>    	not serious enough to keep someone from being confirmed for a
>>    	lifetime post as a Supreme Court Justice, evidently.)

An argument built on the conclusion that Thomas is guilty.  If you don't
subscribe to that conclusion, the argument doesn't make sense now, does it?

I assume what you're trying to say is that the accusation of SH should be enough
to block a nomination.  I don't subscribe to that.  If Hill can convice enough
senators that she is telling the truth, then Thomas should not be confirmed.  If
Thomas can convice enough senators that is was telling the truth then he should
be confirmed.  Exactly how would you change the process?
    
>>    	Thanks for helping me make my point, Roak.

What point?  Most every time I ask a question, you shift your position
slightly.  At the very least dig in and defend *a* position...

                             Roak

re .275

>    This is a job he can *never* be fired from!

	Wrong. 

			US Constitution:

			Article. III. Section. 1:

		The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, 
		shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...


	If the Judges behavior does not continue to be good, the Judge
	may be fired.

	Recall the Justice Abe Fortas was either fired, or resigned
	because he would have been fired (I don't recall which) for
	improper behavior.

					Tom_K

    RE: .276  Roak
    
    If Prof. Hill's testimony is true (and I believe it is,) then Thomas
    has lied under oath (which is most definitely a crime.)
    
    You can obfuscate all you like, but my point remains the same.
    
    It's not a matter of "innocent until proven guilty" alone that makes
    it somewhat acceptable to confirm a Supreme Court Justice who has been
    accused of sexual harassment.  The fact that his offense is ONLY sexual
    harassment makes it less serious than other offenses (even ones such as
    slander or libel.)
    
    Meanwhile, Roak, get your shoes off my back.  I'm not going to go
    through the trouble of telling you a second time that I have no
    intention of submitting myself to your cross-examinations.
    
    I'm not on trial here.

    Sexual harassment is serious because it interferes with a person
    doing their job.  It may actually prevent a person from continuing
    to hold a job that is important to them.  It impacts productivity
    in terms of the emotional stress on the victim, and getting the job 
    done if a person has to avoid their harasser and communication with
    that person is an important part of their job.  Transferring to
    another position is not a solution.  It means that your right to
    hold your job has been taken away from you.  How many people would
    take kindly to this?
    	Linda

    
    re .276:
    
>...If not found guilty, to not confirm
>him to the court would be a travesty of justice, becuase that would imply
>"Guilty even when found not guilty".
    
    No, Roak, it wouldn't be a "travesty of justice".  Read my previous
    reply.  Just because a manager can't "prove" a candidate will make
    a bad employee, doesn't mean at all they can refuse if they have any
    *doubts* about that candidate.  Is this a "travesty"?  Of course
    not - that's absurd.
    
    Bottom line for me (if I were a senator): there's reasonable
    doubt about the man's character.  Do not vote to confirm.
    

    I truly believe that any manager (male/female) who is in a position of
    power and uses that power against someone or intimidates someone for
    their own devices doesn't deserve to be:
    
    1) a manager of people
    2) in a position of power
    
    While I sympathise with Judge Thomas' family for what he is going
    through publicly, I cannot fathom why ANY woman (or man, for that
    matter) would have their good name dragged through the mud unless they
    strongly believe in what they are representing.  And by admitting to
    these allegations, Miss Hill is going against a stronger power than
    herself, allowing herself to be "raped" publicly, and held to public
    scrutiny, and is setting herself up for a lifetime of mega-problems
    as far as a career is concerned.  She must have known this going into
    it, and it still didn't deter her.  She seems like a very rational
    person, one who has a lot of trusted and believable people to back her
    up.  Mr. Thomas, on the other hand, seems like he has a very volatile
    temper and an erratic personality.  I cannot see how "racism" falls
    into the picture at all, for the accuser and the accused are from the
    same racial group.  I cannot see how "black male stereotypes" fall into
    this picture either.  Some of his comments are so stupid I can't
    believe it.
    
    I would not want a Supreme Court Judge sitting on the bench based on
    his past and based on his erratic personality.  No woman I know would
    subject themselves to what Miss Hill is going through unless they TRULY
    were sexually harrassed.  I know of one manager here at work that was
    brought to HR for alleged "sexual harrassment" and he has always been
    pleasant and professional to me.  You just never know about people ....
    
    

And whether or not Sexual Harassment in general or in abstract, Roger, is as
serious or not as child molestation or other crimes, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE,
against someone who was serving as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Agency, it is a serious accusation, in that it suggests dereliction of duty.
If the head of EEOC committs harassment, how well could he have been doing
the job of vigorously protecting victims of harassment?

DougO 

    According to CBS radio
    
    Thomas has 48 yes votes (7 democrats) and has a few more democrats
    'leaning' his way.  
    
    It looks like he will be confirmed.
    
    Hamp

    
    re .277:

>			US Constitution:
>
>			Article. III. Section. 1:
>
>		The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, 
>		shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...
    
    Oh great.  That's so vague as to be worthless!  At least I
    can't imagine how it would be enforced.  And I have no doubt
    whatsoever if he were to start sexually harassing a staff member
    it wouldn't even be considered grounds for dismissal under this
    rule.

>	If the Judges behavior does not continue to be good, the Judge
>	may be fired.
    
    Who's the authority that can do the firing?  Does this imply
    that a SCJ *does* "report" to someone or group (the senate?)

    
    
    
    
    I guess my point was that for every job in the land employers
    can take into account a potential employee's *past* - on what
    else can you reasonably base a hiring decision?  But in this case,
    many, many people are asking that we put aside all that and hire
    hire him anyway.  I don't buy this.
    

            <<< Note 1004.278 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    If Prof. Hill's testimony is true (and I believe it is,) then Thomas
>    has lied under oath (which is most definitely a crime.)
 
	This is true, stated in this way. Of course it assumes that Prof.
	Hill was telling the truth. You have come to that conclusion,
	I have come to a different conclusion.

>The fact that his offense is ONLY sexual
>    harassment makes it less serious than other offenses (even ones such as
>    slander or libel.)
 
	I don't think so. If Thomas HAD said the things that Hill accused
	him of, then I would not want to seem him confirmed. That's a given
	with most of those that I've talked with and, in fact, is what
	most of the Senators that have been interviewed have said as well.

	Now everyone, and in particular the Senators, will have to "decide"
	which of the parties they believe.

	If they believe Thomas, then their vote should not change from what
	they would have done a week ago.

	If they believe Hill then they should vote not to confirm.

	As I stated before, after listening to Hill and "her" witnesses
	AND listening to "Thomas'" witnesses I have come to the conclusion
	that Hill is not telling the truth. 

	Since I had no problem with the nomination before this all started
	(other than the fact that there ARE more qualified jurists), I have
	no problem with it now.

Jim

    
    In Thomas's opening statement he said how he has agonized over this and
    has racked his brain trying to remember what he may have said or done
    to Anita Hill that would cause her to say these things.  
    
    Then he refuses to listen or watch Hill's testimony.  He catagorically
    denies everything before even listening to her testimony.   Seems to me
    if he wanted to help jog his memory he would have watched instead of
    being briefed on her testimony.   
    
    Will he treat other cases like this?
    
    I also agree with an earlier note.   This is the equivalent of a job
    interview.   An employer with doubts doesn't have to prove guilt
    without a doubt.   
    
    Pat
    
    

re .284

>    Oh great.  That's so vague as to be worthless!

	I expect former Justice Fortas has a somewhat different opinion
	as to the worthlessness of that clause.

				Tom_K

    
    I am unable to get through to the Capital switchboard or to my
    delegation.  I'd like to send a telegram ... has anyone tried this
    approach?
    
    thanks,
    Carol

 re: 261, Mark Levesque

You asked if I were against Thomas before this. Well, I'll
confess I'm almost as much of a knee-jerk liberal as you are
a knee-jerk conservative, so I wasn't thrilled with the idea
of Thomas.  On the other hand, I figured that with Bush as
prez if it wasn't one conservative yes-man it would be another,
and I'd rather see one who was black than white, so I really wasn't
against the Thomas confirmation until Anita Hill came forward.

And, yes, I still think that if a credible person makes serious
charges against a candidate for the Supreme Court, and if that
person has corroborating testimony from four other credible people,
and if a third of the country believes them, that that nominee has
no business being on the Supreme Court.  I don't think that
is asking too much.  What would your standard be? That he not be
a convicted felon?

I don't think Thomas's refutations were all that believable. He
said he'd been tearing himself apart wondering what he could have
said to a person he thought was a friend in order for her to have
made such charges, that he'd been wracking his brain for days
wondering if there was something she'd taken the wrong way.
Then he said he hadn't bothered to watch her testimony.  

I think it takes tremendous gall for anyone who supports Thomas'
nomination to say that any good has come out of this regarding
sexual harassment.  What has it shown? That even a very
composed, articulate law professor will not be believed, will
be villified.

                                             

    For those of you who feel that Thomas should be confirmed:  can you
    honestly believe that he told us anything?  He told us *nothing*; first
    of all he denied all allegations, and then admitted he didn't watch
    Prof. Hill's testimony.  So how did he know what to deny?  The rest
    of the 'show' consisted of the teary eyed Clarence talking about
    death..
    IS he stable?
    How about the fact that the senators *know* that Thomas used
    pornography while at Yale, and yet, felt they didn't want to 'bring
    that up'.  Has it nothing to do with this issue?
    
    To quote Thomas, "this is a travesty."  Women everywhere have been
    insulted; actually both men and women.  Are men truly as naive and
    unconscious as those senators portrayed themselves?
    
    Well, it's probably too late; he'll be on the bench; hopefully, he slip
    up (which he will) and they can debench him.
    
    Maia
    

                     <<< Note 1004.290 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

>    How about the fact that the senators *know* that Thomas used
>    pornography while at Yale, 

	How does one "use" pornography? He may have "viewed" it, although
	that it not in the official record. But "used"????

Jim 

    I've agonized over this one for several days now, i.e., what would
    I do??  I want to believe Hill, but unfortunately that isn't the
    way things work.  The senators do not have to decide WHICH ONE THEY
    BELIEVE!!  Thomas does not have to prove his innocence.....Hill
    MUST prove her allegations.  Sorry, but that's the way our
    American system of law works.  It's clear to me she hasn't
    proven anything yet, thus the nod goes to Thomas, wrong as it
    may be.
    
    So who's lying?  Bush lied like hell when he nominated Thomas.
    "the best-qualified person in America" my sweet patootee!!
    Thomas lied his way through the hearings.  Senators lied about
    their positions.  Our government lies so much to us that we have
    come to expect it.  And then, along comes Hill and we really
    want to believe her...but how do we know whe isn't lying too?
    

    re. .292
    
    Lennard, this isn't a trial, the benefit of the doubt doesn't
    go to Thomas.  This is a confirmation.  The benefit of the doubt
    should go to all us poor Americans.

Titled as such because some will not see past the surface to the
message (might be a bit of agreement with you Jim on feeling it
makes it more real).

I say this will all honesty and in all sincerity.  I doubt that
sexual harassment will either be understood or accepted unless
you are female - with, of course, some notable exceptions (as
there always are).

I have worked in this industry for approximately 15 years and I
have yet to have a year go by in which I was not sexually
harassed in one form or another - truthfully, more in the verbal
terribly uncomfortable position than anything else.  What's more,
I have YET to meet a single woman that I work with who has NOT
met with a situation of sexual harassment.

This is maybe where the agreement comes in, Jim.  

Maybe you (general you, not Jim) don't "see it" or give it 
credence because you don't feel it.  Maybe you don't understand 
exactly how terrible you can make someone feel because of a 
"comment or a joke."  Maybe you just can't believe that anyone 
would take offense at that because it doesn't offend you.  Hey!  
What's the big deal?

Maybe this discussion is drawn along gender lines because the
women who listened to Professor Hill said to themselves, "Yes,
that's exactly how I felt...this rings true..." and the men 
simply couldn't relate a feeling in the pits of their stomachs
to Professor Hill's words (or perhaps a sudden burst! in blood
pressure).

And maybe, the Senate had better learn how to get in touch with
that feeling before a good deal of their contstituency figures
out how very little they know.

Barb

    .292
    
    > Hill most prove her allegations...
    
    Gee, I thought that was only in a court of law. Is that what this is?
    
    D.

re: .295

	If it was was a 'flaming liberal' being nominated and accusations
were flying from the conservative side, you can bet the liberal line would
be 'can you prove those allegations?'


						--D

    re: 296
    
    I suppose that might be true, but I don't think there are any liberals
    in the Senate who would be as big a ninny as Orrin Hatch, with all
    his foolishness about "someone like you've described would have to
    be in an insane asylum."  Where does he live? Disneyworld? 

     <<< Note 1004.294 by BOOTKY::MARCUS "Good Planets Are Hard To Find" >>>

Barb,	I think you are starting to see some of my problem with this issue.

	Please be sure that I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness
	of the offense. I'm trying to cope with adjusting behavior to
	a moving target.

	When my wife (someone I have great respect for) tells me that a certain
	word string is not harrassement, I could make the mistake of using that
	same string with a different woman and find myself out of a job. I KNOW
	that the words are not acceptable with ANY of my female colleagues, but
	my wife found them acceptable. How can this be?

	It is possible for some of my behavior to be unacceptable without my
	knowing it and given the reluctance I am told that women have in
	confronting such behavior, I can unwittingly continue to offend, even 
	though my nature is to correct any offensive behavior. How can I be
	educated?

	Advising that there me an insurmountable gender gap on this issue is
	certainly no comfort, becasue that means I'll never understand.

	Would my advice to women to "confront the behavior" be well received?
	After all, it's my belief that the vast majority of men in the work
	place are not "pigs" and would gladly change our behavior if we new it
	was offensive.

Jim

    
    re .292:
    
>    I've agonized over this one for several days now, i.e., what would
>    I do??  I want to believe Hill, but unfortunately that isn't the
>    way things work.  The senators do not have to decide WHICH ONE THEY
>    BELIEVE!!  Thomas does not have to prove his innocence.....Hill
>    MUST prove her allegations.  Sorry, but that's the way our
>    American system of law works.  It's clear to me she hasn't
>    proven anything yet, thus the nod goes to Thomas, wrong as it
>    may be.
    
    I have yet to hear anyone sincerely refute my argument that
    this is really an employment situation.  You have a grave doubt
    about a candidate - you don't hire him or her!  Nothing *needs*
    to be proven.
    
    What on earth is so "terrible" about that?
    
    

Re: <<< Note 1004.290 by BOOKS::BUEHLER >>>

>>    For those of you who feel that Thomas should be confirmed:  can you
>>    honestly believe that he told us anything?  He told us *nothing*; first
>>    of all he denied all allegations, and then admitted he didn't watch
>>    Prof. Hill's testimony.  So how did he know what to deny?

This seems to be exactly the model for an innocent man.  If truely innocent,
he could tell us nothing because nothing happened.  If nothing happened, what's
the point to listening to false allegations?  And if nothing happened, he would
of course deny all those false allegations, right?

So, Thomas is innocent, right?  I don't know.  I'm pointing out the blatently
wrong conclusion that can be drawn when your premise is "Thomas is guilty".

[the following no longer a response to Maia]

I do not have all the information in front of me that the Senate has; for that
reason I'll have to accept whatever the Senate does as "the right thing".

I'm very willing to admit that SH *is* a problem in the workplace, and there has
to be a better solution to the problem than exists today.  Why I've been so hard
on some people is that I see, hiding in the backgrounds of some responses, ideas
and suggestions that'd make Hitler cringe.

To be acceptable, a solution must be fair AND CONSISTENT!

I've heard a lot of complaining about what is going on; Ok, fair enough, the
difference between a whiner and a problem solver is that a problem solver puts
forward solutions.  What solutions do you have to offer to the confirmation
process?  What about SH in the workplace and when it spills out of the workplace
into the courts?  What should change?

And yes, if I feel that what somone is proposing is flawed, I'll argue it with
them.  You'll convice me that I'm wrong, I'll convince you that you're wrong
or we'll reach a stalemate.

If you're proposing a solution, I expect that you're willing to defend it.  When
I propose a solution, I have an emotional and logical investment in that
solution.  I assume this is the case with others.

                           Roak

Re: <<< Note 1004.299 by BLUMON::GUGEL "koatamundi whiteout" >>>
    
>>    I have yet to hear anyone sincerely refute my argument that
>>    this is really an employment situation.  You have a grave doubt
>>    about a candidate - you don't hire him or her!  Nothing *needs*
>>    to be proven.

You may have a point here; I'm turning it over in my head; something rings
inconsistent about it, but I can't put my finger on it, and in fact it
may be consistent.

(I like to think things very carefully through before I agree and take on the
responsibility of defending a belief...)

                                 Roak

    Roak,
    I don't think there is anything wrong with the system itself.
    What is wrong is a president and a senate who are more concerned
    with the maintenance of their own power than anything else.
    There were other women who came forward to say that Thomas had
    spoken in a similar fashion to them.  The senators knew that,
    the prez knew that, but they were not heard.  Bush announced
    that Thomas was obviously innocent before Hill even testified.
    Other than voting these people out - which I keep trying to do -
    I have no solution. If you think of one tell me, cause I'm
    very discouraged.
    
    

Re: <<< Note 1004.296 by ABSISG::WAYLAY::GORDON "Wanna dance the Grizzly Bear..." >>>

>>                         -< From the center, I say... >-

Careful, you can count all us "undecideds" on two or three fingers... :-)

>>	If it was was a 'flaming liberal' being nominated and accusations
>>were flying from the conservative side, you can bet the liberal line would
>>be 'can you prove those allegations?'

Speculation; holds as much water as building arguments from the "Thomas is
guilty" premise.

                                 Roak

	But Ellen, if you're going for a job, and I claim you "sleep with
small furry creatures" (to borrow a phrase from another argument in another
conference) and "spend too much time in the afternoon eating ice cream with 
your friends" to your new boss, don't you think it would be nice for your
new boss to at least check to see if there were some merit in my accusations?

	And suppose that both I, and the person who recommended you are
reasonably influential, and that either decision could have negative impact
on your boss.  (Large segments of American voters are going to be upset no
matter which way this thing goes.)  Your new boss is going to want a CYA
no matter which way he decides.  It may be he denies you the job, and tells
your sponsor that I gave him cause to think you might be a problem, or that
he gives you the job, tells me he found no evidence on the furry animals, but
you'll be warned to keep your ice cream meetings to a minimum.

	I do think you need a bit more than 'unease' in this case.  Certainly
to change your mind from being pro to being con.  You're trying to change the
majority opinion here, and neither side is beyond doing anything in their
power to press their advantage.

							--D

Disclaimer:

	I've known Ellen for a while, and we have even had ice cream in the
afternoon together, but the above sample accusations are works of fiction, and
bear no resemblence to any noter, past or present, living or dead.  OK.

>Well, I'll
>confess I'm almost as much of a knee-jerk liberal as you are
>a knee-jerk conservative, so I wasn't thrilled with the idea
>of Thomas.

 I'm not nearly the conservative demon that I am made out to be, preferring
to be on the moderate side of conservative. Except for gun rights. On that
issue I am decidedly conservative. :-)

 I sense that you would have opposed Thomas if any good reason came along,
because of his ideology. Is that a fair assessment? 

>and if that
>person has corroborating testimony from four other credible people,

 The testimony given does not equate to corroboration in each case. At least
two of the "corroborators" testified that the identity of Prof. Hill's
alleged harasser was never given to them and that they inferred it must
be Thomas. Of course, being inclined to believe the allegations, you might
not view this detail as significant.

>What would your standard be?

 Good question. It seems to me that I would be disinclined to change my position
based on these allegations even if Thomas were a liberal. On the one hand,
we have a credible witness with vile accusations, and on the other we have 
a credible nominee refuting the allegations categorically. If I play the
"what if" game, I can see that the two worst scenarios are that Clarence Thomas
is denied a seat based on this testimony when he in fact did not do what he
was accused of and that his nomination is confirmed when he did in fact do
what he is accused of doing.

 If he is denied a seat only because of what amounts to a political 
assassination of his character, then I believe a great injustice has been
perpetrated. If he manages to sleaze by, then an injustice has been perpetrated
upon Prof. Hill and all women.

 I don't believe that allegations which cannot be proved ought to prevent
a nomination from being confirmed by themselves. To allow this would unleash
the potential for even more egregious political quackery than occurs now
(which by now most americans must know is inordinate.) Think about what this
would mean- to stop any nomination one needs do nothing more than convince
a "credible" witness to make scurrilous but unprovable accusations. Talk about
government grinding to a halt.

 I watched perhaps 8-10 hours of testimony. I cannot be certain who is telling
the truth and who is lying- the Charles Stuart case taught me nothing if
not to question the obvious. Under these circumstances, particularly since the
alleged behavior is long distant, I cannot agree that the mere fact that
allegations were brought is sufficient to torpedo the nomination. If the
allegations were of behavior that occurred two years ago, if Prof. Hill had
any documentation whatsoever, if other credible witnesses came forward and
established a pattern of this type of behavior, or if there were more 
pertinent information available I'd have to seriously consider the nominee
to be unfit to serve. Each individual aspect of Prof. Hill's testimony that
is bothersome to me by itself is virtually meaningless, but in aggregate they
create enough doubt in my mind that the charges could be false that I believe
it would be an injustice to the nominee to use them as the basis for rejecting
the nomination.

 Frankly, as one who is sensitive to this issue, this is a horribly difficult
decision for me. I wish there were some way to _know_. There is no such easy
out. 

 The Doctah

    One of things I've noticed on talk radio shows - if someone calls
    in who thinks Thomas is guilty of harassing Hill, they're asked if
    they supported Thomas before the allegations. If they say no then
    they are immediately jeered and considered candidates for tar and
    feather.  So I guess you're only entitled to an opinion if you
    loved Thomas in the first place.  On the same line, one of the
    "defenses" of Anita Hill was that she was a Reagan Republican.
    God help us liberals.
    
    p.s. Roak, you don't really consider yourself "undecided", do you?
    It seems to me that you're not. 

>    I have yet to hear anyone sincerely refute my argument that
>    this is really an employment situation.  You have a grave doubt
>    about a candidate - you don't hire him or her!  Nothing *needs*
>    to be proven.

 This isn't quite the same. Judge Thomas is not just one of many applicants
trying for a cherry job. He is someone who has been appointed, for better or
worse, by the nation's foremost governmental power. The nomination is
made "with the advice and consent" of the senate. What "advice and consent"
means is a topic which could easily fill this disk and the next. What I'm 
suggesting here is that for a senator to vote to reject the nominee, s/he
ought to have a good reason to do so. Not quite the same as putting down one
resume and picking up the next.

 the Doctah

    re: .305
    
    Mark, as I said before, I feel certain that Bush's next candidate
    for the Supreme Court will be as conservative as Thomas so I wasn't
    against Thomas per se until Hill came forward.  Now that I believe
    Thomas to be a man who lied under oath, who abused his position 
    of authority in order to harass women, I don't want him on the
    court. I would prefer another Bush flunky.
    
    I don't think your comparison to the Stuart murder case is apt.
    In that case, once someone had suggested Charles Stuart murdered
    his wife, many plausible motives were suggested. Their have been
    no plausible motives suggested why Hill came forward in this
    way.  There is no evidence that she's crazy, no evidence of a
    diabolical liberal plot.
    
    To me, the Republican party has become the party of rich white men.
    I think they're cynically pushing Thomas through the system, not
    caring whether he's guilty or not.        
    

    
>	But Ellen, if you're going for a job, and I claim you "sleep with
>small furry creatures" (to borrow a phrase from another argument in another
>conference) and "spend too much time in the afternoon eating ice cream with 
>your friends" to your new boss, don't you think it would be nice for your
>new boss to at least check to see if there were some merit in my accusations?
    
    Cute, Doug.
    
    As far as I am aware, "sleeping with small furry creatures" doesn't
    have anything to do with any job of which I'm aware.  Even that of
    a Supreme Court Justice.  There are some doubts that Thomas is
    telling the truth.  I think that's an important qualification for
    most jobs.  Truthfulness.  But I'm funny like that.
    
    As far as "spending too much time in the afternoon eating ice cream
    with my friends".  Well, you've got me there.  Indeed, there may
    be a potential employer who decides not to hire me on that basis.
    I've been turned down for a job before with a lot less justification
    than that, though.
    
    Also, I find it laughable (within Digital engineering at Spitbrook,
    anyway) that anyone would try to use the "ice cream" argument
    with a potential employer about anyone.  At least I can't imagine
    doing so.
    
    As for "being nice for my new boss to at least check to see if
    there were some merit in your accusations" - I thought that's what
    the hearings over the last few days were supposed to be about.
    After hearing the testimonies, I find there's too much doubt about
    Thomas' character.
    

    .307
    
    
    'cherry job' 
    
    ???
    

Re: <<< Note 1004.306 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>
    
>>    p.s. Roak, you don't really consider yourself "undecided", do you?
>>    It seems to me that you're not. 

I really, truely am.  Why you see such venom in some of my replies is due to
some ideas presented by people that truely scare the bejibies outta me.

In the same reply that I assume sparked your question, you'll note that I argued
against someone that was more-or-less siding with Thomas.

I try to be fair and consistent.  98% of the replies in here have already
hung Thomas, so of course most of my replies take the opposite stance, because
the anti-Thomas position is all I have to work with...

                                  Roak

How do you spell Bejibies?  What are Bejibies?

    I just heard that Thomas has 54 votes for confirmation.
    
    I'll be on WEVO (NH Public Radio) tomorrow morning at 8:30 to give NH
    NOW's perspective on this.
    
    I'm angry, sad, and tired right now.
    
    The only good that I can see coming from this experience is that it may
    get more women involved in a political forum.  It certainly has not
    seemed to enlighten anyone on sexual harrassment, like I hoped it would
    a week ago.
    
    judy

    RE: .300  Roak
    
    > Why I've been so hard on some people is that I see, hiding in the
    > backgrounds of some responses, ideas and suggestions that'd make
    > Hitler cringe.
    
    You're chasing after a pre-judgment you've made about some/many of
    us (based on your own prejudices.)
    
    Your pre-judgment is quite mistaken.

    'cherry job' :== easy job with great compensation, a job everybody
                     wants which doesn't require much effort, a "cushy" job.

                     <<< Note 1004.312 by PROSE::BLACHEK >>>

>It certainly has not
>    seemed to enlighten anyone on sexual harrassment, like I hoped it would
>    a week ago.
 
judy,	I don't think this is true. I know it's not true in my case. I am
	certainly giving it a lot more thought (just see my exchanges with
	Barb). I don't claim to understand it, but I am working toward that
	goal.

	I have no problem with those that opposed Thomas before, opposing
	him now. I do have a problem (not a big one) with those that say
	"He did it!" based on the evidence that we've heard so far. I just
	don't believe that there was "enough" to convince me of that. I admit
	that I worry about people that say "Well, there's some doubt" so don't
	confirm him based on the doubt. NOW opposed Thomas for what they
	considered legitimate reasons before, and THOSE reason still exist.

	If Prof. Hill had totally repudiated her statement during questioning
	in front of the Committee, NOW wowuld STILL not have supported Thomas.
	Would they?

Jim	

    
    He's in: 52 for, 48 against.  Closest vote in this century.
    
    Cq

    
    	There will be hell to pay for this.
    

Suzanne:

> There will be hell to pay for this.
    
  No there won't.  No matter how much apathy I've learned to expect
  from the American liberal Left, they never fail to amaze me by ex-
  ceeding my expectations, and I'm sure they'll do it again.

  In addition, no matter how cynically I view the Right's actions,
  *THEY* never fail to amaze me by exceeding my expectations either.
  Willie Horton, Quotas, *AND NOW* Anita Hill!  Wow!  I wonder how
  many more times they can run that play before people catch on?
  Probably no more than one or two dozen more times...

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Here's a really cynical prediction:

    "A verdict that overturns Roe v. Wade will be issued sometime
     between December 1992 and the end of that Supreme Court session
     in July."

  Rationale:  There's no way that the Right will let a verdict be
  announced before the '82 presidential elexction, when lots and
  lots of folks, women and men, white and Hispanic, will re-elect
  George Herbert Walker Bush for the outstanding job he's done of,
  among other things:

    o Proving his manhood by snuffing Iraqis and restoring freedom
      to women all over the Arab Middle East,

    o Bringing America out of that Nasty recession that Jimmy Carter
      caused,

    o Ensuring that all Americans pay their equitable share of
      taxes,

    o Cleaning up Boston harbor,

    o Raising our educational standards to the highest in the world,
      and, last but positively not least,

    o Keeping women, minorities, homosexuals, Democrats, etc. in
      their place so we white men can maintain our positions of
      privilege and power.

                                   Atlant

    	Would someone please post the list of Senators who voted to
    	confirm Thomas (when you get the chance?)
    
    	Thanks.
    

re: .321

>    o Raising our educational standards to the highest in the world,
    
    
    huh?  with all the cuts in spending on education I doubt it.
    
    raising our standards while reducing the education level of the average
    american and not enabling assistance to be available to
    college-desiring and college-qualified financially "challenged"
    students.....maybe
    
    
    -Jody

    
    Speaking of ratholes, I had to laugh when I heard some senator say 
    what a fine man Clarence Thomas was and then, to illustrate this, said
    something about how when Thomas was "so poor" he sold his car to keep
    his son in college.  I immediately wondered if Thomas had any daughters
    and then I thought about how much I'd get for my car if I had to sell 
    it for the money -- it might keep someone in one of the Massachusetts
    state colleges, but not for long!  I bet Clarence's son wasn't going 
    to a cheap school, and Thomas probably had something a bit better than
    a used Toyota with 138,000 miles on it to sell.
    
    Cq 

    I've just heard that Thomas has been nominated by 52 votes to 48.
    Too ruddy close for my liking. I just hope that some good rather
    than bad comes out of all this. Namely that women will still come
    forward and report harassment cases, hopefully be more inclined to, 
    and also that the numbers of cases of harassment actually drop in 
    real terms (ie not just a drop in reported cases but a drop in any
    harassment - reported or not). I fear that the reverse will be the
    case.
    
    
    Jerome.                    

  Voting to Confirm:

  DEMOCRATS: (11)

    Boren (OK)
    Breaux (LA)
    DeConcini (AZ)
    Dixon (IL)
    Exon (NE)
    Fowler (GA)
    Hollings (SC)
    Johnston (LA)
    Nunn (GA)
    Robb (VA)
    Shelby (AL)


  REPUBLICANS: (41)

    Bond (MO)
    Brown (CO)
    Burns (MT)
    Chafee (RI)
    Coats (IN)
    Cochran (MS)
    Cohen (ME)
    Craig (ID)
    D'Amato (NY)
    Danforth (MO)
    Dole (KS)
    Domenici (NM)
    Durenberger (MN)
    Garn (UT)
    Gorton (WA)
    Gramm (TX)
    Grassley (IA)
    Hatch (UT)
    Hatfield (OR)
    Helms (NC)
    Kassebaum (KS) (Woman)
    Kasten (WI)
    Lott (MS)
    Lugar (IN)
    Mack (FL)
    McCain (AZ)
    McConnell (KY)
    Murkowski (AR)
    Nickles (OK)
    Pressler (SD)
    Roth (DE)
    Rudman (NH)
    Seymour (CA)
    Simpson (WY)
    Smith (NH)
    Specter (PA)
    Stevens (AK)
    Symms (ID)
    Thurmond (SC)
    Wallop (WY)
    Warner (VA)

  Voting not to Confirm:

  REPUBLICANS: (2)

    Jeffords (VT)
    Packwood (OR)


  DEMOCRATS: (46)

    Adams (WA)
    Alaka (HI)
    Baucus (MT)
    Bentsen (TX)
    Biden (DE)
    Bingaman (NM)
    Bradley (NJ)
    Bryan (NV)
    Bumpers (AR)
    Burdick (ND)
    Byrd (WV)
    Conrad (ND)
    Cranston (CA)
    Daschle (SD)
    Dodd (CT)
    Ford (KY)
    Glenn (OH)
    Gore (TN)
    Graham (FL)
    Harkin (IA)
    Heflin (AL)
    Inouye (HI)
    Kennedey (MA)
    Kerrey (NE)
    Kerry (MA)
    Kohl (WI)
    Lautenberg (NJ)
    Leahy (VT)
    Levin (MI)
    Lieberman (CT)
    Metzenbaum (OH)
    Mikulski (MD) (Woman)
    Mitchell (ME)
    Moynihan (NY)
    Pell (RI)
    Pryor (AR)
    Reid (NV)
    Reigle (MI)
    Rockefeller (WV)
    Sanford (NC)
    Sarbanes (MD)
    Sasser (TN)
    Simon (IL)
    Wellstone (MN)
    Wirth (CO)
    Wofford (PA)

 I think that anybody who claims to "know" the truth of Thomas and Hill's
interactions is fooling hirself. You are free to believe what you want to 
believe, but making definitive statements is intellectually bankrupt in
my opinion. 

 I saw Prof. Hill's statement yesterday, and I wondered if she were telling
the truth. I felt bad for her, for having gone through a torturous process
with essentially nothing to show for it. (Except for the receipts from the
inevitable book.) In many ways, I wanted both of them to "win." Unfortunately,
it was a zero sum game.

 I will always wonder whether the correct decision was made. Of one thing
I am certain- this process has changed Clarence Thomas irrevocably. And
I believe for the better. 

 I will disagree with Judy that the nation has not had its collective 
consciousness raised regarding sexual harassment. I believe it has. It
had been a hidden issue, one that most men casually dismissed as being
unimportant. Some will contionue to do so, but many of us only now are
beginning to realize the pervasiveness and outrageous nature of the so
called "working" relationships that women frequently must endure to be
a part of the working class. It is my hope that men will pressure other
men who engage in such behavior to stop, because I believe that men that
do engage in this behavior won't react simply due to the fact that women
tell them to stop- they need to be discouraged by the male power structure
and the law. How to make it easier to halt sexual harassment while 
preserving the rights of the accused is a difficult problem. But it must
be overcome.

 The Doctah

    .314
    
    Yes I know what "cherry" connotes.  But do you?
    
    

    
    
    I feel as if the good ole boys just told all of us ladies to "go take
    a Valium."
    
    sigh.
    
    Maia
    

    I'm glad to hear that two of you think that people are being educated
    about sexual harassment.  I guess I've heard a few too many times:
    "What does she mean she was harassed?  He didn't touch her, or
    anything."   AARRRRRGGHHHH!
    
    One thing that people can do is pressure their legislators to pass a
    civil rights bill that is fair to victims of sexual harassment.  The
    current bill (which is on Bush's desk, btw) limits the compensation to
    victims of sexual harassment.  It doesn't limit the compensation for
    any other victim of a civil rights case, and is clearly sexist.  
    
    judy
    
    

>       -< ...and we have several decades in which to voice objections. >-
>
>    
>    	There will be hell to pay for this.


	Yes. The American people spoke, and what they said was that the
	allegations were not proven, that Clarance Thomas should be confirmed.
	The 48 Senators who defied the will of the American people will be 
	called to account for their actions.

					Tom_K    

    	I really doubt that Professor Hill is the type of person to
    	write a book about this experience.  Time will tell.  While
    	the hearings were going on I thought that the allegations were
    	having a positive effect because everyone was realizing that there
    	was a threat of repurcussions.  Since that time I think the
    	impact has changed to one of sexual harassment is not an important
    	issue.  Some quotes I have heard (from women and men):
    		"She needs to lighten up."
    		"Even if he did do it, that's no reason not to confirm
    		 him."
    		"She got what she deserved."
    	If I ever were going to try to make a sexual harassment case
    	against someone I would run out and buy one of those voice 
    	activated tape recorders.  But what if it involved touching?
    	There is no way to prove that unless there are witnesses and
    	of course there never are, unless the person doing the harassing
    	is ignorant.
    
    	I am not much more pleased with the senators who voted not
    	to confirm than with the others.  I feel like an opportunity
    	was missed to know the truth in that the democratic senators
    	rolled over and played dead.  I don't think they tried very
    	hard to find out the truth.  It is a sad week.
    
    		Linda

        To veer from this a bit, and perhaps it's worthy of it's own
    note, in response to voting Bush out of office to change the country
    into a more positive place:  Up until this time, no Democrat had
    entered the political ring for the nomination who seemed to have any
    chance of winning.  Well, Jerry Brown of California has entered the
    ring.  I like Jerry Brown.  I liked him when he was governor here.
    Lots and lots of conservatives disliked him and they and their cronies
    came up with lots of derogatory names for him, mocking him, casting
    doubts in minds that otherwise had no other information.  He is 
    not a panacea, but then neither is any other man.  What he *is*,
    however, is a man of high principles, lots of character, and lots
    of integrity.  I strongly urge any and all of you who would like to
    see the Bush circus end to consider backing this man of substance.
    No other person, male or female, is likely to be able to unseat
    Bush.  Brown probably wouldn't, either, unless some of the grass-roots
    necessary to sway minds begins to engage itself.  This is where you
    come in.  Dismissing him will find us without any other viable
    opponent to Bush.  For those who fear another potential Bush nomination
    to the Supreme Court in the next five years, this is *an*
    opportunity to work to derail that.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    	RE: .335 Tom_K
    
    	There are more "American people" than the only ones who usually
    	matter when it comes to political issues...
    

   re: .331 Mark Levesque
    
    I haven't seen anyone claiming they "know" what went on between
    Hill and Thomas.  After listening to both testify, and listening to
    their supporters testify, a reasonable person could form an
    opinion of went on.  If that opinion cast serious doubts on Clarence
    Thomas' character, a reasonable person could object to Thomas
    being appointed to the Supreme Court.  I think you miss the point
    that I and others have tried to make - there does not have to be
    incontrovertible evidence that a nominee is a criminal; strong
    suspicions that a man is a liar and a sex harasser should be
    enough to keep him off the court. 

    I'm curious what will happen now to Arlen Specter's claims that
    Anita Hill perjured herself.  My bet is that nothing will happen
    because the Republicans fear that closer inquiry into the issue 
    would only provide more evidence that Hill was telling the truth.
    
    I read today that a man at the law firm Hill worked at prior to
    going to work for Thomas had provided an affidavit saying that
    he fired Hill from that firm because her work was poor.  The
    heads of that firm say that they have no idea why he would say
    such a thing.  He only worked there briefly and was never in a
    position to fire Hill; they say that she left the firm on good
    terms.  I wonder why this man would say such a thing.

> After listening to both testify, and listening to
>    their supporters testify, a reasonable person could form an
>    opinion of went on. 

 Absolutely. But a reasonable person might also allow for the potential
that one's opinion may not necessarily correlate to the facts. When I
see people stating that Prof. Hill _is_ a liar or that now Justice Thomas
_is_ a sex harasser, I believe those people have concluded that they _know_
what happened because they are speaking definitively.

>I think you miss the point
>    that I and others have tried to make - there does not have to be
>    incontrovertible evidence that a nominee is a criminal; strong
>    suspicions that a man is a liar and a sex harasser should be
>    enough to keep him off the court. 

 I didn't miss that point, Sue. Really. Various people may come to
different levels of suspicion that Thomas was guilty of wrongdoing,
and indeed different opinions on what the actual wrongdoing may have
been. I was not convinced that there was a sufficient level of proof
that wrongdoing occurred, moreover, that the wrongdoing (if any) occurred
was not sufficient to prevent the nomination in and of itself. [I might
take this opportunity to state that if I believed Thomas did indeed
behave in the manner that Prof. Hill described, particularly given his less 
than outstanding judicial credentials, I would have opposed his confirmation.]

 the Doctah

re .338

	I was referring to the polls which indicated that both men and
	women believed both the Thomas should be confirmed, and that the 
	allegations against him were not proven.

					Tom_K

    	RE: .341  The Doctah
    
    	What's the matter, Doctah - did someone forget to offer copious
    	disclaimers to make sure you knew beyond all reasonable doubt
    	that an opinion was being expressed?
    

    
    	RE: .342  Tom_K
    
    	A majority of people believed that the charges were not proved
    	and that Thomas should be confirmed (which he was.)
    
    	Do you really think these people will hunt down and "kill" (in
    	a political sense) the Senators that kept the confirmation from
    	being unanimous?  I didn't see any polls indicating that these
    	people were demanding a unanimous confirmation, did you?
    

>  I will always wonder whether the correct decision was made. Of one thing
> I am certain- this process has changed Clarence Thomas irrevocably. And
> I believe for the better. 
    
    Yeah, there's nothing like lying and getting away with it for
    strengthening a personality.
    
    Ray

    	In an interview with Judge Thomas tonight, he said he hopes the
    	country will put all this behind us now (and "heal")...
    
    	I thought, "Yeah, I *bet* you hope we'll all forget it."
    
    	Prof. Hill was interviewed as well - she said she is glad she
    	came forward to tell the truth and hopes her experiences won't
    	prevent other women from coming forward.
    
    	One of the very next stories on CNN Headline News was a lengthy
    	feature about sexual harassment on Wall Street (past and present.)
    	They put great emphasis on the fact that most women refuse to
    	report it for fear of jeopardizing their careers.
    
    	The "healing" Judge Thomas asks for will come to us in the form
    	of ever-increasing awareness that what I believe he did to 
    	Prof. Hill is far more common than most people realized.

   Unfortunately I have been away on business, and missed all this writing
  about the hearings.  Well maybe thats fortunate!


   I glanced over quite a few of the notes so far, ... I wonder if anyone
  cares about his qualifications? 

   Judge Thomas was only appointed to an appeals court six months ago.
  Six months of experience ... doesn't anyone think that someone appointed
  to the supreme court should have a little more experience than that.
 
   There are so many judges out there who are so much more qualified than
  Judge Thomas .. who are legal experts on constitutional law, who are
  not even considered for nomination because they do not fit the "agenda"
  set by the president.  (anti abortion, anti ERA, ...)

   No, I'm not a lawyer, just related to a couple who brought up this point. 
  They were commenting on why not nominate the most qualified people - ones
  who write the text books on constitutional law, with years and years of
  experience on a court of appeals?  ...  Naawwww, that makes too much sense.

   paul

                     <<< Note 1004.339 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

>After listening to both testify, and listening to
>    their supporters testify, a reasonable person could form an
>    opinion of went on.  

	This is most certainly true.

>If that opinion cast serious doubts on Clarence
>    Thomas' character, a reasonable person could object to Thomas
>    being appointed to the Supreme Court.  

	This is also most certainly true.

>strong
>    suspicions that a man is a liar and a sex harasser should be
>    enough to keep him off the court. 

	We get into a bit more of a grey area here. I guess it boils down to
	what the term "stong suspicions" means. A single accuser with four
	non-direact witnesses opposed by a single accused supported by 17
	witnesses that new/worked with both parties does not lead me to
	the same "reasonable" conclusion as it did you. I'd have to say
	that I have suspicions that we have not heard the whole story,
	but I do not have stong suspicions that Justice Designate Thomas
	actually said the things Prof. Hill accused him of saying.

	Of course reasonable people can come to different conclusions in 
	this matter.


Jim

    I think any senator who believed Anita Hill might be telling the
    truth, even if he wasn't completely convinced, but went ahead
    and put Thomas on the Supreme Court for the next 30-40 years
    anyway, behaved in a cynical, immoral way.    So what else is new?
    
    

  <<< Note 1004.346 by NODEMO::DITOMMASO "I cant get use to this lifestyle" >>>

>I wonder if anyone
>  cares about his qualifications? 

	There is no doubt that Thomas was not the most qualified jurist
	in the country for this appointment (I've said so in several
	replies). But the question is not "Is he the MOST qualified?".
	The question before the Senate was "Is he qualified?".

	The last time a truly qualified nominee was proposed, someone
	who HAD written seriously on Constitutional law, he was soundly
	rejected becasue of his interpretations. Bush learned from this
	experience and began appointing judicial non-entities to the 
	Court.

	It is very curious to me that the (pardon the label) Liberals
	that worked so hard to reject Bork becasue of his views, NOT
	his "qualifications", now cry that Thomas and Souter are not
	the "best" candidates for the positions and that more qualified
	candidates should be found. 


Jim

	re .344

	First, as I certainly am not the first to note, the big winner
	in this is the concept of term limitations for politicians.
	Second, I expect that the supporters of Anita Hill will likely
	try to replace the current set of incompetent liberal Senators 
	with folks who at least know how to run a proper railroad.
	I further expect that the people who's Senators vote was at
	variance with their desires will take that into account at election 
	time.

					Tom_K

    Two doting parents are interviewing candidates for the job
    of live-in nanny for their baby.  They have a likely candidate.
    They check her many references.  Most of them are glowing and
    are from her friends.  But one reference, Anita, says that the candidate
    is a child abuser.  You check further and find out that Anita is
    a credible responsible person with no apparent motive to lie.  Four
    other people call you and tell you that Anita told them about the
    child abuse years ago when it happened.   Do the doting parents
    go ahead and hire the candidate for nanny?  Probably not.  Because
    their child's welfare is paramount to all else, they can't
    afford to take the chance.
    
    

    Well, as far as I can gather, it isn't one accuser and four confirmers
    against one defendant and seventeen confirmers, it is two accusers,
    etc.  The sworn testimony of Angela Wright was entered into the
    record of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of the Sunday/
    Monday session.  Her complaints are alleged to be similar to those
    of Anita Hill.  (She certainly has the same type of face as Anita
    Hill, and I can well imagine a man who found one attractive finding
    the other one attractive as well.)  Yes, her testimony had to have
    been sworn; the Committee could not have entered it if it were unsworn.
    
    						Ann B.

    	Somewhat on a tangent..., but does anyone besides me
    	think the actual confirmation process needs some
    	revamping?
    
    	I think it would be better, initially, for the President
    	(and his advisors) and the de facto "leader" of the
    	other party to hammer out some viable nominees before
    	the actual confirmation process begins.
    
    	For example, instead of President Bush just nominating
    	Clarence Thomas, Bush and a recognized Democratic "leader"
    	would come up with a list of possible nominees for the
    	position. Then, we could assume that both parties could
    	"live" with all the nominees.
    
    	I don't think any President should have the absolute
    	authority in this process. If both parties could hammer
    	out a list of possible nominees, the process might be
    	less of a circus. And, the nominees might be more qualified.
    
    	Am I off base, or is this something that could improve
    	the process?
    
    	Scott
    	

    In case anyone wants to send a letter of support to Professor Hill:
    
    Professor Anita Hill
    University of Oklahoma
    300 Timberdell Road
    Norman, OK 72019
    
    I can well imagine that she has gotten, and will continue to get a pile
    of poison pen letters.

                     <<< Note 1004.353 by LJOHUB::CRITZ >>>

>    	I think it would be better, initially, for the President
>    	(and his advisors) and the de facto "leader" of the
>    	other party to hammer out some viable nominees before
>    	the actual confirmation process begins.
 
	I think this is exactly what the Framers of the Constitution
	had in mind when they used the words "with the advice and consent
	of the Senate".

	But in pratical terms the process has become SO political that
	I doubt that compromise list could be worked out.

>    	I don't think any President should have the absolute
>    	authority in this process. 

	He doesn't. Hence the purpose of yesterday's vote.

Jim

    
    .354
    
    Thanks very much!
    

                     <<< Note 1004.351 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

	Folks, this is getting a little old. We have been treated to 
	comparisons of this episode as wife beating, robbery, murder
	and now child abuse.

	Your analogy is extremely flawed. The 17 witnesses that testified
	in favor of Thomas were not just "friends" they we co-workers to
	BOTH he and Hill.

	Given your scenario, they would be the equivalent of 17 parents
	that had left their children with the "nanny" over a long period
	of time. "Anita" in your scenario would have been 1 parent that
	claimed abuse.

	And then of course the issue of "Why didn't you brings charges?"
	would of course be FAR more serious in your scenario than in the
	present case.

	And as long as we're on the subject. Does anyone recall the family
	that ran the day-care center in California and was railroaded on
	just such unsubstatiated charges?


Jim

Re: <<< Note 1004.334 by PROSE::BLACHEK >>>
    
>>    One thing that people can do is pressure their legislators to pass a
>>    civil rights bill that is fair to victims of sexual harassment.  The
>>    current bill (which is on Bush's desk, btw) limits the compensation to
>>    victims of sexual harassment.  It doesn't limit the compensation for
>>    any other victim of a civil rights case, and is clearly sexist.

Does the bill itself refer only to female victims of sexual harassment?  If not,
and you're accusing it of being sexist, then it's you that's being sexist,
right?

                                     Roak

 re: Mardy

>	Bush rails about the special interest groups which he says control
>	Congress, while at the same time he is controlled by the NRA and he

 It might be helpful if you actually knew what you were talking about. Bush
has sold out the NRA. So there. :-P  (He's planning on doing it again.)

    	RE: .355
    
    	Jim,
    
    	When I said the President should not have absolute
    	authority in this process, I meant in choosing the
    	nominee. The reason, of course, is because the
    	process is so political (as you mentioned).
    
    	I think the process would be miles ahead if both
    	parties came up with a list of potential nominees.
    
    	Scott

        <<< Note 1004.352 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
>                                   -< Datum >-

	I was VERY disappointed that Ms. Wright decided not to testify
	in front of the Committee. What was entered into the record
	was a result of her questioning by "staffers" (both Repub and
	Dem).

	If she HAD testified, I might have come to a very different
	conclusiuon in this matter.

	As to whether what was entered was "sworn" was not made clear.
	What it contained was even less clear. I do have a suspicion
	that if it backed up Prof. Hill's tesitimony to the degree that
	you imply, there is no way the Democrats would have allowed her
	to NOT testify.

Jim

    
    re .359:
    
>	Your analogy is extremely flawed. The 17 witnesses that testified
>	in favor of Thomas were not just "friends" they we co-workers to
>	BOTH he and Hill.

>	Given your scenario, they would be the equivalent of 17 parents
>	that had left their children with the "nanny" over a long period
>	of time. "Anita" in your scenario would have been 1 parent that
>	claimed abuse.
    
    That's very flawed logic, Jim.  Just because he didn't harass
    17 coworkers, it *does not* follow that he didn't harass Hill.
    
    If I were a parent, one charge would be all it would take.
    That may be unfair, but as a parent, no one can make me choose
    one nanny over another just because no one can "prove beyond a
    reasonable doubt" that she/he *didn't* do it.

                     <<< Note 1004.362 by LJOHUB::CRITZ >>>

>    	I think the process would be miles ahead if both
>    	parties came up with a list of potential nominees.
    
Scott,	Without a doubt. 

	Re: .357

	Let's remember that the first REAL attempt to politicize the
	Court was made by FDR. If he had succeeded we would have 13
	Justices in stead of 9.

Jim

          <<< Note 1004.364 by BLUMON::GUGEL "koatamundi whiteout" >>>

>    That's very flawed logic, Jim.  Just because he didn't harass
>    17 coworkers, it *does not* follow that he didn't harass Hill.
 
	As people may have noticed I have an extreme problem with this
	back door approach to Thomas' supposed "guilt".
   
>    If I were a parent, one charge would be all it would take.

	And those same feelings ruined the lives of an entire innocent
	family in California.

	Sorry, you and I do not share the same value system. We may as
	well leave it at that. 

Jim

  <<< Note 1004.366 by RAVEN1::AAGESEN "kindofanupstart-butigotawarmheart" >>>

>    i believe that sexual harassment involves a position of power.
 
	Does this mean that a person cannot be "sexually harrassed"
	by a subordinate? An equal? Someone you don't even know?

Jim

    
    	RE: .350  Tom_K
    
    	Your definition of "hell to pay" is significantly different
    	from mine.  Perhaps you should have checked with me to see
    	what mine was before you countered my statement with your
    	own (and pulled us into this meaningless rathole.)
    
    	Unless, of course, you consider countering me too much fun
    	to resist.  :-)  (Just kidding.)

    Jim,
    
    Arguing over analogies can get tedious. Let me just say that I can
    think of as many good reasons why a parent wouldn't want to put
    their child in court testifying about abuse as I can why a woman
    wouldn't want to go to court about sex harassment.
    
    Angela Wright's testimony was sworn to and is part of the Senate
    hearings.  I hope it soon becomes available to the public.  And
    she was not the only woman who said she'd experienced what Hill
    described.  A third woman, Suleika something-or-other, said that
    she'd experienced the same thing and had transferred to another
    job as a result.  Suleika's testimony, unlike Angela Wright's,
    did not go into the Senate record. I don't know why the
    Democrats didn't insist on Angela Wright testifying publically -
    from what I heard she was willing to - I think they wimped out
    under Republican pressure, keeping their own individual jobs
    was more important to them than really getting at the truth.
    

    Re: .360
    
    No, the bill doesn't only refer to female victims of sexual harassment. 
    However, since probably 99% of sexual harassment cases involve women, I
    think it safe to say it is sexist to put a compensation cap on those
    cases.
    
    judy

    Jim,
    
    Yes, her testimony was sworn.  I repeat, "the Committee could not have
    entered it if it were unsworn."                         ^^^^^
    
    Committee members are not allowed to enter unsworn statements into
    the record.  Witnesses can.
    
    I gather that at least one of the reasons Angela Wright did not
    testify was that everyone was tired and cranky and wanted to go home.
    A dark, cynical suspicion of another reason is that her testimony
    would have been so clear and compelling that it would have made the
    Committee look very, very bad, which was more important than anything
    else in the whole world.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: -1
    It's also sexist that the statute of limitation is so short - 
    six months, I think.  Specter and Hatch continually talked about
    how the statute of limitation on this was short because it's so
    hard to remember/prove etc.   I kept thinking how stupid do they
    think we are? are we supposed to believe it has nothing to do with
    the fact that the laws are written by men?
    
    Sue
    [Standard disclaimer:  I like men. Especially liberal men. ]

    re Jim:
    
>>    That's very flawed logic, Jim.  Just because he didn't harass
>>    17 coworkers, it *does not* follow that he didn't harass Hill.
 
>	As people may have noticed I have an extreme problem with this
>	back door approach to Thomas' supposed "guilt".
    
    So you believe that because 17 coworkers testified that they
    were not harassed - that proves that Hill was not?  That *is*
    flawed logic, Jim!  You don't have to pass 7th grade algebra to
    figure that out.  And yes, I've noticed you have a problem with
    this particular case and that's clouded your ability to reason
    properly and apply 7th grade logic.
   
>    If I were a parent, one charge would be all it would take.

	And those same feelings ruined the lives of an entire innocent
	family in California.

>	Sorry, you and I do not share the same value system. We may as
>	well leave it at that. 
    
    I agree that that is unfortunate, but as a parent (I'm not, but if
    I were), I would take *every* precaution within reason, to care
    for a child - including ruling out people even accused of child
    abuse.  Do you have a child Jim?  Wouldn't you take the same
    precaution with him or her?  Isn't your daughter or son worth more
    to you than giving someone a job?
    

Re: <<< Note 1004.372 by PROSE::BLACHEK >>>

>>    No, the bill doesn't only refer to female victims of sexual harassment. 
>>    However, since probably 99% of sexual harassment cases involve women, I
>>    think it safe to say it is sexist to put a compensation cap on those
>>    cases.

Yup, I have to agree.  My apologies.

                             Roak

    The third woman who came forward, Sulieka something (I'll have to
    check her name when I go home, it was in the paper yesterday), said
    that it was well known at the EEOC that Thomas treated young attractive
    black women differently from the other women (she said, among
    other things, that she felt they were all being evaluated sexually.)
    The EEOC workers who testified for Thomas were male, white, or (IMO)
    not particularly attractive - unlike Anita Hill and Angela Wright,
    who are both beautiful women.

          <<< Note 1004.375 by BLUMON::GUGEL "koatamundi whiteout" >>>


>    So you believe that because 17 coworkers testified that they
>    were not harassed - that proves that Hill was not?  

	Nope, not what I said. I came to the conclusion the Prof. Hill
	was lying based on all the tesitmony that I heard, not simply
	the fact that 13 women could be found that he did not harrass.

	But the implication of "Well he didn't harrass them, but that
	doesn't mean he didn't harrass Hill, therefore he must have
	done it" is a leap of "logic" that I'm unwilling to make.

>    I agree that that is unfortunate, 

	"Unfortunate"? I WAS right, we do not share the same values.

>I would take *every* precaution within reason, 

	As would I. But I'm afraid that "within reason" means something
	different to you and I.

>Do you have a child Jim?  

	Yes, a daughter (she'll be 12 in November).

>Isn't your daughter or son worth more
>    to you than giving someone a job?
 
	A somewhat loaded question, given the wording ( a good debating
	tactic). 

	"OF COURSE!" is the answer (to the question as asked).

	Now ask me if I would refuse to give someone a job based on 
	unsubstatianted charges and given the fact that the other 17 
	parents have given GLOWING recommendations covering YEARS of
	service.

	And of course it would be impolitic of me to ask the one parent
	why she kept her child with this person and in fact followed this
	abuser to a new location, wouldn't it?

Jim
   

                     <<< Note 1004.377 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

>    The EEOC workers who testified for Thomas were male, white, or (IMO)
>    not particularly attractive - unlike Anita Hill and Angela Wright,
>    who are both beautiful women.

	I think it's time for the Hill supporters to conceed this debate.

	If the above represents the quality of your arguments you have, indeed, 
	lost.

	I will admit that today I've learned a new definition of "sexist"

Jim

    Jim-
    sheesh, I wish I'd never made that analogy the way you keep
    going on with it. 
    My take on why Hill followed Thomas to the EEOC: 
    it was a good career move and the harassment had temporarily
    ceased;  she is a bright ambitious person who thought she could
    put up with some abuse in order to get ahead.  It really did
    bother her, enough to put her in the hospital for stress for
    a week, but not enough to make her throw away her career.     
    

   re:  Percival:
    
    You've mentioned several times you were influenced by the
    17 people who testified for Thomas.  I thought they were
    a particularly unimpressive lot (except for Doggett, who
    was so amazing he ought to have his own show) and I think
    it was worth pointing out that Thomas is alleged to have
    a pattern of singling out young attractive black women
    for sexual harassment. 
    

                     <<< Note 1004.380 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

>    Jim-
>    sheesh, I wish I'd never made that analogy the way you keep
>    going on with it. 
 
	Me too.

Jim

>	I think it's time for the Hill supporters to conceed this debate.
    
    Oh, Jim, you're too funny.  "Conceed this debate"?  In =womannotes?
    Don't make me laugh.  It might be nice to "kid" yourself that
    you've "won" some sort of debate, but on this issue on your side
    in womannotes, it'll never happen.
    
    Dream on.
    

    Why should I concede the debate, Jim, when I am now more afraid than
    ever?  Many of us believe Professor Hill, and are very very frightened
    by this whole fiasco.
    
    E Grace

Re: gender-free sexual harassment laws

Several men have already brought complaints of sexual harassment under the 
present laws.

Re: Lots of other people saying Thomas didn't harass them.

It doesn't matter how many people he did *not* harass. It's the fact that at
least one person was claiming harassment. 

How many times do you read in the paper that somebody is arrested for something,
and friends and next door neighbors all say they never would have suspected this
person could do a thing like that?

Or, if you're stopped for speeding, do you say, "Officer, I can't be speeding
now, because no other state troopers has ever stopped me before."

Re: Thomas' qualifications

Lots of other people have said it. He has minimal experience as a judge or 
judicial scholar. There are *many* people who are more qualified to be a 
Supreme Court justice, including numerous women, blacks, and black women.

Re: Thomas' moral fiber (or lack thereof)

I am convinced he lied when he said he has never discussed and has no opinion
on Roe v. Wade. That is a ridiculous statement for a man in his position to
make. Every person in the United States over the age of 15 who has an IQ more
than 50 has discussed or has an opinion on Roe v. Wade. 


This has been a sad chapter for the entire country. If there is anything 
positive that can come out of all this, I can hope that the country, 
particularly men, have become more sensitized to problems of sexual harassment,
that women will be more apt to come forward with cases of sexual harassment 
(doubtful -- probably the opposite), that the method we use to choose a 
Supreme Court judge will be overhauled, that Anita Hill will have a lonng and
succesful career, and maybe become a judge, and that several
Senators who have been exposed as slime bags won't get re-elected.

In my more pessimistic (and more probable) mood, I feel like the only good that
will come out of it all is that I no longer have to look "harassment" up in
the dictionary to remember that it's spelled with one "r.' Oh well -- back
to L.A. Law and Monday night football.

Bruce

                     <<< Note 1004.381 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

>I think
>    it was worth pointing out that Thomas is alleged to have
>    a pattern of singling out young attractive black women
>    for sexual harassment. 
 
	That is NOT what .377 said. My comments stand.

Jim   

    re: Jim Percival
    
    was this a debate? I had no idea.
    I already knew Hill supporters had lost, thank you. I knew that
    on Sunday night when Biden said that Angela Wright's sworn
    testimony (you must've been getting a snack at that point)
    would become part of the hearings but that she wouldn't
    testify.  So, I readily concede.  Thomas is now
    on the Supreme Court.  Congratulations.
    

    RE: .378  Jim
    
    > I came to the conclusion the Prof. Hill was lying based on all the
    > testimony that I heard, not simply the fact that 13 women could be
    > found that he did not harrass.
    
    Aside from the testimony from some women he did not harass, what was
    so conclusive to you about "He harassed me" versus "I did not" that
    convinced you that Prof. Hill was actually lying (which is a much
    more decisive stance than merely saying "She was unable to prove her
    charges")?
    
    > But the implication of "Well he didn't harrass them, but that doesn't
    > mean he didn't harrass Hill, therefore he must have done it" is a leap
    > of "logic" that I'm unwilling to make.
    
    NO one has suggested this (explicitly or implicitly,) Jim.
    
    By the way...
    
    One of the witnesses who testified FOR Thomas said (under oath) that
    she knew for a fact that Thomas did not harass Prof. Hill.  Where are
    all the calls for this witness to be charged with purgery???  No one
    who wasn't surgically attached to Prof. Hill or Judge Thomas could
    possibly testify under oath that they KNOW the harassment didn't
    happen.
    
    Obviously, it's unlikely that Thomas harassed every woman he's ever
    worked with over the years, so testimony from the people he did NOT
    harass is meaningless when it comes down to assessing the charges 
    that he did harass the women who came forward.
    
    What else (other than these witnesses) brought you to the "conclusion"
    that Prof. Hill's charges were outright lies?  I'd like to know.
    
    If you think she lied, what was her motive?

                     <<< Note 1004.387 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

>    was this a debate? I had no idea.

	;-) 

>    on Sunday night when Biden said that Angela Wright's sworn
>    testimony (you must've been getting a snack at that point)
>    would become part of the hearings but that she wouldn't
>    testify.  

	Nope, I saw it. And as I said I was very dissapointed. Her
	testimony would have clinched Thomas' defeat. Why didn't
	she testify. If her direct testimony would have had this effect
	then the Democrats would have REQUIRED her to show up, if
	her statement to the staffers (if sworn it was an affidavit,
	not testimony) was as damaging as you imply, the the Republicans
	would NOT have allowed it to be entered without the chance to
	cross-examine.

	Sorry I don't think it's a bad for Thomas as some people say	
	(although I certainly WOULD like to get my hands on a copy).

	BTW, she must have been "awfully eager" if it requried a
	supeona.

Jim

This whole thing really is depressing. Especially because it's been
such an effective reminder that women are just not in the picture in this
"government by representation." There were the orchestrations our
President and his Merry Men staged as they managed their candidate through
this. There was the Senate judiciary committee sitting there scared to death
to say anything for fear of alienating their voting consitituency in this
highly charged issue (and several of them were probably very scared that
they might draw forward some stories about things they themselves have said
and done).  There was the drone of the roll call last night for
confirmation votes (Mr. ____, Mr. ____, ..... Mr._____). 

Obviously, we've aiming too high with the Take Back the Night marches.
It's time for a Take Back the Day demonstration.

But it's *especially* time to vote in a President and a Congress that
are representative of the citizens of this nation. 

Kathy

            <<< Note 1004.388 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    Aside from the testimony from some women he did not harass, what was
>    so conclusive to you about "He harassed me" versus "I did not" that
>    convinced you that Prof. Hill was actually lying (which is a much
>    more decisive stance than merely saying "She was unable to prove her
>    charges")?
 
	Hill's embellished testimony vs. what she had originally alleged
	in either her statement OR to the follow up investigation by the
	FBI. (BTW the FBI did, obviously, interview her. Someone in this
	string stated rather flatly that they did not)

	Her statement that she feared for her job, when she new perfectly
	well that as a Schedule A Federal employee her job was secure.

	Her statement that she did not know Phyllis Berry and that Phyllis
	Berry did not know her, when in fact they worked together for
	at least 4 years.

	The testimony of the Former law school Dean regarding Hill's 
	behavior prior to driving Thomas to the airport.

	The continued "social" phone calls to Thomas by Hill, that stopped
	rather suddenly when she learned that he had just married.

	The lack of a second witness (I really DO wish that Ms. Wright
	had testified).

	All of these and other things have brought me to this conclusion.

>Where are
>    all the calls for this witness to be charged with purgery???  

	For what? A rather forceful statement of an opinion?

>    If you think she lied, what was her motive?

	I've no idea. And I'm already on record as saying that I think
	that those trying to assess motives to Prof. Hill are wrong
	to do so. They (and I) can very easily fall into the trap
	of speculation. It is very easy to speculate, but it is much
	harder to prove (as many have found out).

Jim

    Jim,
    
    Would you be eager to make truthful statements, while knowing
    from what you saw, live, on television (not to mention from here
    and there throughout your life) that you would be called a
    "fantasist" and a "schizophrenic" for doing so?
    
    If not, would you mind if throughout the future of Womannotes,
    anyone who disagrees with you is entitled to call you a
    fantasist or schizophrenic for making your views known?
    
    						Ann B.

        <<< Note 1004.392 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>

>    Would you be eager to make truthful statements, while knowing
>    from what you saw, live, on television (not to mention from here
>    and there throughout your life) that you would be called a
>    "fantasist" and a "schizophrenic" for doing so?
 
	Nope, not one bit. 

	Very early in this string I said that a second witness against
	Thomas would seal his fate. When it was reported that this
	second woman had come forward and would testify I stated very
	clearly "He's toast".

	When that witness did NOT testify and when neither side demanded
	that she do so, I was forced to re-evalute the contents of her
	"statement".

	Just the facts. As I see them of course.

Jim

    re: .391
    
    The Republicans made much of what they said were varying accounts
    by Hill.  What she said happened: the FBI spoke to her, asked
    her to give them a general account of the harassment, and said
    that she could include further specifics at a later date.  When
    she did this, she was accused of making up different versions
    when it was all the same story, some with more details than
    others.
    
    The people who are saying that she could have stayed at the
    dept. of Ed. are friends of Thomas and workers for the current
    administration. I'm not sure their testimony is unbiased.  She
    says Thomas told her at the time her job was not secure without
    him there. 
    
    When she said she didn't know Phyllis Berry it was in response
    to a reporter saying that Berry has said you were sexually
    interested in Thomas.  She was using the word "know" in the
    sense of being on close terms.  I work with a lot
    of people every day but I don't know many of them well enough
    to say anything about who they are sexually attracted to.
    
    An affidavit the Republicans presented from a man who said
    he fired Hill from a previous job has already been proven
    untrue by the partners of that firm.  I think that the
    current administration is willing to pull any dirty trick
    it can to get what it wants. 
    
    

    Re: .390, .394
    
> > But it's *especially* time to vote in a President and a Congress that
> > are representative of the citizens of this nation. 
    
> I agree. But in all seriousness, who have you got in mind?
    
    Well, for starters, I think we need to see a Bush/Quayle
    ticket in '92...
    
    That's Barbara Bush and Marilyn Quayle, that is 8-)  They seem to be
    the ones with the brains in their respective families 8-) 8-) 8-)
    
    --jim [NOT a Republican, BTW]
    

    A. Wright did not come forward because she would have been torn apart.
    She was fired because she call a male co-worker a FA**OT. Nice lady,
    worthy of this community's support.

    Just a nit. Would this community be as outraged if the charges were
    brought against a female supervisor by a male employee without proof
    that it happened?? Somehow I don't think so. 

    Just remember men can say those magic words also. What is good for the
    goose is good for the gander. I do hope I did not make anyone
    uncomfortable.


    		Have a nice day

    
    	Magic words????  I must chuckle here.
    
    	The words used when coming forward to complain about sexual
    	harassment are most often used against the one who delivers
    	them.
    
    	If men started complaining about sexual harassment in large
    	numbers, it would probably HELP the situation more than
    	anything (since the line of reasoning would change to "Gee, 
    	even MEN are complaining about this now, so it MUST be real.")

> But it's *especially* time to vote in a President and a Congress that
> are representative of the citizens of this nation. 
    
    What scares me is that I think they are.  They decide who's telling the
    truth based on how they handle TV, and they think even if Hill's
    telling the truth that it's not that big a deal.  That's exactly what
    I've been hearing from many citizens of this nation; it just gets a
    little icing of hypocrisy in public Senate hearings.
    
    Ray

                     <<< Note 1004.395 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

>What she said happened: the FBI spoke to her, asked
>    her to give them a general account of the harassment, and said
>    that she could include further specifics at a later date.  

	Yes, that is what she said. What one of the Senators said
	was that "the FBI agents asked you to be as specific as 
	possible" and he, of course, was reading the FBI report.

	The "be general" instruction does not "hang true". An FBI
	agent is not going to interview a person and not ask them
	to be specific. This is one of those "other things" I mentioned.

>She
>    says Thomas told her at the time her job was not secure without
>    him there. 
 
	Her civil service rating is an established fact. Not subject
	to interpretation by either side. The law regarding her rating
	and the rating itself are matters of public record. This was not
	a poorly educated person that might wrongly believe that civil
	service would not protect her, but a very sharp law school
	graduate. Of all her statements, this one is probably the easiest
	to prove as a falsehood.

>She was using the word "know" in the
>    sense of being on close terms.  

	Reminds me of a bibilical quote, but never mind.

>I think that the
>    current administration is willing to pull any dirty trick
>    it can to get what it wants. 
 
	The Republicans do not have the "corner" on sleaze tactics,	
	I'm not saying that they don't use them, but they are certainly
	NOT alone.

Jim   

    Well, Wayne, can you guess who charged Angela Wright -- but not
    under oath and not with all those caveats Some People have been
    demanding of Anita Hill -- with using that term?
    
    That's right:  Clarence Thomas.
    
    Thank you for one other thing:  You have demonstrated, clearly and
    viciously, that *any* woman who so much as speaks of harassment
    by any man must be pure as new arctic snow before the likes of you
    will even begin to consider that she just might, possibly, be telling
    the truth.
    
    						Ann B.

Replace the Prez and the Vice Prez with women. Replace all the men
in the House and Senate with women. Replace all the men on the Supreme
Court with women. Replace all the male governors, mayors, police commissioners,
and members of state legislators with women.

Inconceivable, right? Absurd, right? And hardly representative of our
citizenry, which does, after all, consist of roughly 50% men. But the
exercise of reversing the sexes does point out the complete absurdity
of having one sex making all the decisions and laws and policies for
both sexes.

And that's just the tip of the iceburg, 'cause that exercise doesn't
address the complete under-representation of racial and ethnic groups.

As it is now, we have the same old politicians protecting their jobs
with their same old lies and their same old cronies. Overlooking the
realities of what, maybe 3/4's of our population?

And I'll bet you that half the time they don't even *think about* how
completely underrepresented and underinvestigated other viewpoints are,
because these people in power are so homogeneous that it doesn't even
OCCUR to them that there are entire chunks of our society that don't think
and live by the values, background, privileges, and cultural norms that
they live by. The fact that the judicial committee didn't deem Anita
Hill's claims of sexual harrassment to be important enough for serious
inquiry is a blatent example of the bungling that is bound to happen when
the ruling and investigating and decision making is done by virtual clones.

"They just don't get it" is an understatement.

And then we're supposed to get excited when they toss us a Clarence Thomas:
one conservative black man is supposed to balance the scales. Shut up the
"special interest groups." If I hear Bush complain about the special interest
groups one more time, I think I'll puke.

Kathy

             <<< Note 1004.403 by LJOHUB::MAXHAM "Kathy Maxham" >>>

>The fact that the judicial committee didn't deem Anita
>Hill's claims of sexual harrassment to be important enough for serious
>inquiry 

Kathy, 	What should they have done? Remember Hill first spoke only on the
	condition that her identity would not be revealed.

Jim

    re. .401

    It's a matter of record. Deny it if you will but it's still true. She
    is not and was not a credible witness ( A. Wright ).


    		Have a nice day

    I am posting this for a noter who wishes to remain anonymous
    
    -Jody
    
_______________________________________________________________________
    
    I would like to put a different slant to the debate that has literally 
    raged in this string.

    A child is incested by his/her father.  The child does not tell, but 
    represses the memory of what happened.  The child reaches adulthood and 
    somewhere in his/her 30's the memories come back and the now adult
    begins  to tell the story.  There is nothing written down, the bruises
    from the  molestation have long since faded.  Where is the proof?  How
    does the  adult prove that an adult sexually molested them as a child? 
    All we  have to go on is the memories.  The adult begins to tell and
    hopefully,  somewhere, someone will hear the adults childhood pain and
    believe them.

    Granted, the Thomas/Hill scenario is not as severe as the above.  But 
    the principal is the same.  Anita Hill did not document what happened. 
    She did tell others what happened.  She has the memories.  She has the 
    emotional scarring.

    Sadly, for many people who are victims of ANY kind of sexual abuse, our 
    government has sent a very loud message.  And that message is that the 
    good 'ole boy network is still going strong.  Sexual abuse victims are 
    still doubted, disbelieved and called names.  Their integrity and 
    dignity are still questioned.  We will continue to be shrouded in 
    secrecy.  This incest and rape victim has re-experienced all of the 
    pain, doubting and anger of my sexual abuse.  After this do I dare talk 
    about it?  For I have no documented proof.
    

    Anita Hill was not sexually abused nor was she a child. She was a 25
    year old lawyer at the Office of Education an the EEOC.
    
    
    		Have a noce day -) 

    
    
    
    
    
    re .410
    Stop and look at the analogy that is being made between the abuses. 
    Anita Hill did not document the alleged sexual harassment.  Based on
    that fact alone, many, many people don't believe her.
    
    What it sounds like the anonymous noter is trying to say is that in this
    case he or she has no documented proof of his/her abuse.  Does this
    mean the he or she will be treated the same as Anita Hill in the
    future?  Will the story be discounted because there isn't any
    documented proof of the harassment/abuse?
    
    Just to rathole a little bit, after reading your note I looked up both 
    harassment and abuse in the dictionary.
    
    Abuse - 1. To use wrongly or improperly  2. To trick or deceive  3. To
    injure by maltreatment  4.  To assail with abusive words  5. Improper
    use or handling  6. A corrupt pracitice or handling  7.  Physical
    maltreatment  8.  Course or insulting language.
    
    Harass - 1. To annoy or torment repeatedly and persistently  2. To wear
    out  3.  To impede by repeated attacks or raids. 
    
    Hmmmm, not much of a difference is there?

    	RE: .408  Wayne
    
    	Ok, show us the record (where someone verified your claim
    	while under oath.)
    
    	If it was Thomas, then forget it (whether he was under oath
    	or not.)  He has told what I am convinced are lies under
    	oath, so he is not a credible witness in any situation now,
    	as far as I'm concerned.
    
    	As for Angela Wright, folks - if a Professor of Law can be
    	described by the Senate Judiciary Committee as not being
    	able to distinguish fantasy from reality, then women of
    	less stature than Prof. Hill's have little chance of being 
    	regarded as credible (unless they are the wives or children 
    	of a man with credibility.)

    Suzzanne,

    	It is apparent you did not watch all of the hearings. The situation
    concerning her dismissal was put in the record and Judge Thomas
    confirmed it. It is becoming apparent some people in this notesfile do
    not want to deal with facts only emotional hysteria.


    		have a nice day -)-) 

    	You must not have read my entire note, Wayne.
    
    	As I *mentioned*, if Thomas is the one who confirmed it, then
    	it doesn't count (since he has zero credibility as a witness, 
    	even under oath, as far as I'm concerned.)
    
    	> It is becoming apparent some people in this notesfile do
        > not want to deal with facts only emotional hysteria.
    
    	Show us some facts, Wayne.  If all you have to offer is the 
    	testimony of someone whom we believe has lied under oath, 
    	then you have none to offer. 
    
    	Meanwhile, spare us the emotional outbursts.

    
    Would it be safe to assume that most people in this notesfile think
    that false accusations are so rare, that accusors should always be
    believed and that the accused must prove their innocence?
    How can this be done when there is no evidence except one word against
    another?
    
    If Judge Thomas is innocent, I'll bet the reason that he didn't watch
    the testimony from Professor Hill is that it would have been too painful.
    
    Guy
    

    RE: .415  Guy
    
    > Would it be safe to assume that most people in this notesfile think
    > that false accusations are so rare, that accusors should always be
    > believed and that the accused must prove their innocence?
    
    No, it's not a valid assumption at all. 
    
    > How can this be done when there is no evidence except one word against
    > another?
    
    Would you rather we allow all cases of sexual harassment to be
    dismissed unless the perp is dumb enough to do it to so many people,
    and in front of so many witnesses each time, that it can't be denied?
    
    > If Judge Thomas is innocent, I'll bet the reason that he didn't watch
    > the testimony from Professor Hill is that it would have been too painful.
    
    If you were being accused of something you didn't do, wouldn't you WANT
    to know the extent of the accusations?
    
    How about this for a guess instead:  He didn't bother to listen because 
    he remembered what he'd said to Prof. Hill ONLY TOO WELL.

    Suzzanne,

    	You are blowing smoke and not good smoke at that. As far as A.
    Wright is concerned her personnel record is at the EEOC. You are
    obviously not informed as to some of the maneuvering that went on. 
    Your mind is made up but I would caution that in one of your notes 
    you state that Judge Thomas is a sex harasser, be careful, slander 
    can be serious.



    		Have a nice day
    

        1004.267

>    	If Thomas were accused of stealing, or child molestation, or taking
>    	bribes as a judge - he wouldn't be confirmed if roughly half the
>    	Senate believed a witness against him.
    
	The term sexual harassment can be anything from an unwanted
	compliment offerred without innuendo, to groping and molestation.

	When the term becomes so diluted as to encompass all these events,
	how can anyone expect the words "sexual harassment" to be taken
	seriously at face value?

    	In murky waters as these, if the victim is the one who draws the
	line, then the victim must take some responsibility to communicate
	when the line has been crossed.

    	Now in the case of Thomas, did Hill ever once tell him to stop,	
        that his advances were not welcome, if he did make advances?  I 
    	believe that had she told him to stop, and had he not, the outcome
    	of this charge would have been different.
    
    --  Judy

    RE: .417  Wayne
    
    > Your mind is made up but I would caution that in one of your notes 
    > you state that Judge Thomas is a sex harasser, be careful, slander 
    > can be serious.
    
    I already reposted one of my notes to include the words "I believe"
    (in case anyone else had trouble reading my words without the proper
    disclaimers) - I guess I missed one.
    
    I'll go back to change it now.  Thanks for the reminder.

    	Well, I'm not as cynical as you are, Atlandt, and I admit it.
    
    	One good thing about all this is that we won't be subjected to
    	the term of the person Bush would have chosen to punish us all
    	if Thomas had been denied his position on the Supreme Court.
    
    	There is no doubt at all in my mind that we'd up against someone
    	far worse than the liar and sexual harasser I believe we have as 
    	of today.
    
    	The Liberal Left may not do much about this, but I know a rather
    	large group of quiet voters who may be more moved than any of us
    	yet realize over this.
    
    	Thurgood Marshall knew what he was doing to retire right before
    	a major year of election campaigns.

    RE: .418  Judy
    
    > Now in the case of Thomas, did Hill ever once tell him to stop,	
    > that his advances were not welcome, if he did make advances?  
    
    Do you really think that the head of EEOC was unaware that verbal
    descriptions of pornography and the, er, dimensions of one's sexual
    organ constitute harassment?  
    
    > I believe that had she told him to stop, and had he not, the outcome
    > of this charge would have been different.
    
    The thing is - when you tell someone "I regard this as sexual harassment,
    so please stop now," it's tantamount to saying, "OR, I may have to bring
    charges against you" (which would have amounted to ALMOST the degree of
    career suicide for her that CHARGING him would have been at the time.)
    
    Even if she'd just said "Please stop," Thomas was head of the EEOC and
    *knew* that this was a preliminary step to (possibly) charging someone.
    
    So Prof. Hill ignored it and hoped it would go away (and it DID go away
    for a time.)  It's precisely what most women do in this situation, for
    reasons of self-preservation.
    
    She should have documented what happened, but I've not personally seen 
    cases showing personal notes being any more believable than a woman's 
    word (since they are, in effect, a woman's word in written form about 
    what happened.)  If someone has any info about a "word-against-word"
    sexual harassment case being successful based on the woman's personal
    documentation without witnesses, I'd love to see it.
    
    Prof. Hill took the only course she felt was left to her - she came
    forward and told the truth, even if most of the Senate was unprepared
    to believe her.  I admire her for that.

re: .413

>    confirmed it. It is becoming apparent some people in this notesfile do
>    not want to deal with facts only emotional hysteria.

>    		have a nice day -)-) 
    
    It is apparent to me that many women here have probably been in Prof.
    Hill's shoes, either having been harassed and kept silent, or perhaps
    even having been harassed and tried to stop it and had that fail, or
    perhaps even brought it to the attention of officials and suffered the
    same miscarriage of justice.
    
    Apparently you do not want to deal with facts, you want to deal with
    your own one-sided view.  Just because a thousand people say it did not
    happen, does not mean it did not happen.
    
    Why do you sign your notes "have a nice day" after you complete a full
    rotation of the verbal knife twist in your notes?  I find it offensive.
    
    -Jody

    -Jody
    
    in re the 'have a nice day' I agree that in the context of the note
    content that response felt abrasive to me also. It hit me like
    a printed 'raspberry'.
    
    Bonnie

re: 1004.418

Judy,

Anita Hill testified that, on the *very*first* occasion that Clarence Thomas
asked her for a date, she said no, and she explained why (she felt it
was inappropriate for her to be dating her boss, etc.).  Were I in her
shoes, continued requests for dates would be perceived by me to be,
at the least, a blatant disregard of my inability to make professional
decisions, and, at worst, especially when coupled with talk of pornography,
harassment.

Further, she said that on some occasions of the pornography talk, she
asked him (sometimes more than once) to stop.  Failing that, she changed
the subject.  If her statements are to be believed (and I personally
see no reason to doubt them), during at least one of these occasions,
Thomas said, "all right."  Now, this is notes, so I can't convey the tone
of voice that Hill used when she recounted this, but the tone of "all right"
conveyed an acknowledgement that she was uncomfortable with the conversation.

Yet he continued to do this on other occasions.

Now Judy, you may not choose to believe her.  But that's what she said, so
lets get past the "well, she didn't say anything at the time."

re: everything else.

I have been in the workforce for 20 years now, have personally been
sexually harassed only once (and got it to stop -- but at a price), 
and have counseled numerous women of various colors about dealing with 
their own cases of sexual harassment. Anita Hill's reactions, actions, 
and demeanor, are *completely* consistent with the responses of those women 
I worked with of similar backgrounds, at the time period we're talking about.

I will spare the detractors the guesswork:  I was against Clarence Thomas
before these charges were made public.  While I greatly respect his
accomplishments, I believe he is at best a mediocrity.  Perhaps in
10 years he would have become a great judge, but we'll never know.  I believe
he was lying wrt Roe v. Wade, so it is easy to see that I can believe he was 
lying about this matter as well.  I would have had *tons* more respect for him
if he had 'fessed up, and apologized.

Bobbi "thanks to Bush, Spector, Simpson, and Hatch, the deadline against
sexual harassment has been pushed back by 20 years" Fox

        <<< Note 1004.409 by GNUVAX::BOBBITT "on the wings of maybe" >>>


>    Granted, the Thomas/Hill scenario is not as severe as the above.  But 
>    the principal is the same.  

Anon,	You want to compare a Yale Law School graduate AND an attorney
	that was specializing in civil rights law with a child?

	You REALLY do?

	Sorry, the "principle" is not the same and the actions expected
	of a child and an adult are certainly not the same.


Jim

    The Associated Press released an article (10/14/91)
    about a former aide of Thomas.  The aide, Sukari Hardnett, does not 
    specifically allege that Thomas harassed her but says there was an 
    unpleasant sexual atmosphere in Thomas' office because of his behavior
    toward some black women.
    
    Among other things, Hardnett said, "If you were young, black, female
    and reasonably attractive, you knew full well you were being inspected
    and auditioned as a female."
    
    Hardnett, a graduate of Antioch Law School, said that she became 
    uncomfortable with the situation and requested a transfer out of
    the chairman's office and was moved to the general counsel's office.
    
    She also said, "women know when there are sexual dimensions to the
    attention they are receiving, and there was never any doubt about
    that dimension in Clarence Thomas' office."
    
    Angela Wright's testimony has more specific charges, similar to
    those made by Anita Hill.  Among other things, Wright says Thomas,
    while he was head of EEOC, asked her the size of her breasts, 
    and showed up uninvited at her apartment.   Ms. Holt, Thomas's
    secretary at the EEOC, said under oath that Wright was let go
    from the EEOC because Wright, a law school grad, did not pass the
    bar exam in the time alloted for EEOC aides.  The only person
    who said that Wright was fired for calling someone a faggot is
    Clarence Thomas, who has good reason for seeking to discredit her.
    
    By the way, I wouldn't be real worried about Thomas sueing anyone
    for slander.  I think women could climb the Washington Monument
    with a megaphone and announce to the world that Thomas harassed
    them and they would not be sued.  He doesn't want the closer inquiry
    into this matter that s suit for slander would create.
    
    Sue
      

    re. Wayne
    
    You are saying that Angela Wright is not creditable because she was
    dismissed for making a slur on a co-worker?  If I concede that she was
    rightfully dismissed for doing so, I still do not see why that
    discredits her.
    
    If I make a habit of breaking into other peoples' homes that does not
    make it any less a crime if someone breaks into mine.
    
    Indeed, few people, were they to know of my habits, would have the
    least bit of sympathy for me.  But it wouldn't change the fact that I
    was also a victim of a crime.
    
     Annie

    Annie,
    
    Wayne's mistake is even more egregious than your example, because he
    is claiming that someone (well, a woman, anyhow) who is cabable of
    insulting someone cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
    
    						Ann B.

    This is a quote from the Boston Herald for 10/17
    
    "In Oklahoma City, Monday, as Anita Hill arrived back home, Republican
     state Rep. Leonard E. Sullivan said he was ready to lead a
    fund-raising effort to remove Hill from her tenured job for the crime
    of accusing Clarence Thomas.
    
    " 'We must get this left-wing extremist influence off the campus',
    Sullivan said. 'We can't afford to havea high-profile professor on
    campus that millions of Americans...believe is a fantasizing liar.'"

    ...and some are so amazed that a woman would fear coming forward.

>    You are saying that Angela Wright is not creditable because she was
>    dismissed for making a slur on a co-worker?  If I concede that she was
>    rightfully dismissed for doing so, I still do not see why that
>    discredits her.

	My read was that the dismissal of Wright by Thomas would give
	Wright a strong reason to discredit Thomas.

	If you fired someone, do you believe that person would testify for
	you, or against you, in a court? Would you have reason to believe
	that the person you fired might even lie under oath?

				Tom_K

    
    re .408:
    
    That's *your* opinion, buddy.  Not *fact*.
    Not everyone agrees.
    

    
    Freud virtually founded psychoanalysis on his view that all those women
    patients of his who told him they were the victims of various forms of
    sexual abuse, were fantasizing - they only wished it to happen. Freud
    just couldn't bring himself to believe that so many fine upstanding
    male pillars of communities were doing such things. This view is something 
    it's taken feminists the past 10-12 years to undo. Now, as I understand it,
    when you tell someone about this sort of abuse, you're generally taken
    seriously.       
    
    That is, until the other day...
    
    Dorian 
    

================================================================================
Note 1004.421          Thomas nomination to Supreme Court             421 of 425
GNUVAX::BOBBITT "on the wings of maybe"              21 lines  17-OCT-1991 08:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>  Apparently you do not want to deal with facts, you want to deal with
>>  your own one-sided view.  Just because a thousand people say it did not
>>  happen, does not mean it did not happen.
    
>>   -Jody
============================================================================

Well the reverse is also true...but I am sure you know that. In case you
don't here it is:

Just because a thousand people say it happened, does not mean it happened.

    
    
    re: 354
    
    rumor has it that the zip code for this address is 73109.
    
    re: .428 
    
    if anyone is interested in contacting some of prof hill's employers
    to show suport against this type of backlash,  david swank, the dean of 
    U.Ok law school can be reached at the same address as the one listed in
    .354.
    
    also, the president of U.Ok, richard van horn, can be reached at
    660 parrington oval
    rm 110
    norman, ok  73109
    [ph# 405-325-3910]
    
    i think i will write and/or call.  mostly because i believe that those
    who support the diatribe that exists in .428 will be doing what ever
    they can to displace this wmn.
    
    ~robin

Re: <<< Note 1004.428 by WMOIS::REINKE_B "all I need is the air...." >>>

>>    "In Oklahoma City, Monday, as Anita Hill arrived back home, Republican
>>     state Rep. Leonard E. Sullivan said he was ready to lead a
>>    fund-raising effort to remove Hill from her tenured job for the crime
>>    of accusing Clarence Thomas.
    
>>    " 'We must get this left-wing extremist influence off the campus',
>>    Sullivan said. 'We can't afford to havea high-profile professor on
>>    campus that millions of Americans...believe is a fantasizing liar.'"

Time to start a recall drive on Sillivan, methinks.

                            Roak

    re .431

    	Let us start with the fact that my name is not BUDDY. Let us end
    with "try showing some respect for me" after all isn't that what this
    community is all about. Or is only about respect for women. 

    	I see very little respect for Judge Thomas. The fact of the matter
    is this is a she said he said. Neither one can prove their claim, it's
    a wash people. If the principles were switched I'm sure the loud voices
    in this community would be silent. By not being objective some people
    here blow their credibility. 

    	I my self just plain don't know who is telling the truth. I do know
    a crime was not proven to have taken place. A WASH....


    	Have a nice day -)-)

    Wayne
    
    You've already been told, twice, that people take your 'have a nice'
    day' tag on the end of the note as being hostile. It is not surprising
    that when you act, first, in a fashion that is percieved as hostile
    that a person may respond in kind, cf calling you 'buddy'. This
    community is 'about' topics of interest to women. Those who
    earn/deserve respect here get it. Those who appear to be deliberately
    being sarcastic and rude will find that some *individuals* will 
    respond in kind. 
    
    We moderators feel that the members of this file are adults and don't
    go around telling women to 'make nice' and be 'good girls' when
    they are arguing/discussing with other members. We do prefer that
    people use 'I' messages, and we request that people do not call
    names or insult other people. However, a certain amount of sarcasm,
    irony, etc. is an acceptable response.
    
    Bonnie

    Fortunately *I* cannot be hung for saying:



    		Have a nice day

    Wayne
    
    NO ONE is hanging you for it.. however, when you add it to the end
    of an otherwise sarcastic note, don't be surprised when people assume
    (as Jody and I did) that you didn't really mean it. If you did,
    then may I suggest that you leave such a reply off a note that is
    other wise arguementative etc. or you are apt to be misunderstood.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    ref .437
    
    You're joking right? You find "have a nice day offensive and rude"?
    
    I take it as the noter has presented his opinion and closes his note
    with an underlying "nothing personal, these are my opinions, see ya
    later".  
    
    Have a nice day????????  hum.
    lets see. How 'bout 
    
    over and out.
    or
    adios
    or
    later dude
    or
    put a sock in it (one of my personal favorites from previous notes)
    
    :-)  <--- no offense intended.
    

    in re .440
    
    Did you see both Jody and my earlier notes reacting to his 'have
    a nice day'? 
    
    *OF COURSE* I don't find 'have a nice day' offensive and rude.
    
    HOWEVER, if a person writes a note that is basically negative and
    sarcastic, and ends it with 'have a nice day' it is not unreasonable
    for someone else as I did, as Jody did, and apparently as Ellen did,
    to assume that the person is being snide or sarcastic with the
    reply as well. I was attempting to point out to Mr Linville that
    he may well have contributed to Ellen's calling him 'buddy'.
    
    Okay?
    
    Bonnie

    	People ask sometimes - "Why didn't s/he just ASK the other
    	person to STOP the offending behavior???"
    
    	Well, we now have a real live demo on why some people are hesitant
    	to tell others that some words or behavior bothers them (and
    	that they find it offensive in some way.)
    
    	It's not always the case that the person committing the behavior
    	will say, "Oh, I'll stop then.  I didn't mean to offend you."
    
    	Instead, the reaction could be hostile and/or sarcastic.
    
    	It's no wonder so many women respond to instances of actual sexual
    	harassment by being silent.

    Hey, look, I'll have any kind of day I want, thank you.
    
    

    Have we finally come to the point that "have a nice day" is harassment.
    God help us from the thought police. I have given my opinions in this
    string only to be attacked and berated. I have been accused and now
    must defend myself. I have harassed no one, I have insulted no one, yet
    I am being accused of said behavior. No one will control my mind or my
    thoughts with innuendo.



    		Please do have a nice day because I will

    Wayne
    
    May I suggest reading comprehension? I have not said, or implied,
    or intended to imply, that saying 'have a nice day' is harassment.
    
    What I said was that *in the context* of your notes, it appeared to
    be sarcastic. Do you understand the difference?
    
    Suzanne,
    
    Good point, perhaps, instead, we should be thanking Mr Linville 
    for an object lesson.
    
    Bonnie

Its pretty clear Wayne, that no one is trying to control your thoughts
nor behaviour, nor would they likely suceed.  But the point you seem to
be missing is that people a) percieved your notes as insulting and b) took
your "Have a nice day" accordingly as sarcasm.  Perhaps you didn't mean to
insult people, therefore you don't understand why people react negatively
to your sarcasm.  But Suzanne's point is the more telling, I think: two
people told you about it, and you have reacted as though you did nothing
wrong and the people who saw your words as insulting are trying to control
your thoughts!  Shades of Judge Thomas, indeed.  Perhaps he didn't mean to
harass Anita Hill.  So she told him not to...and he probably failed to 
comprehend it...just as you have similarly failed to comprehend what was
requested of you.  Thought police?  No.  Niceness patrol.

Or are you far too perfect a communicator to have ever given someone the
wrong impression?  They couldn't possibly have been insulted because you
didn't *mean* to insult them, is that it?  Ego patrol.

Sorry, dude, take your pick, but you're busted by one or the other.

DougO

      <<< Note 1004.441 by WMOIS::REINKE_B "all I need is the air...." >>>

>    he may well have contributed to Ellen's calling him 'buddy'.
 
	Does anyone else find it ironic that the "He was asking for it"
	defense is being used by members of this conference?

Jim 

    re .446

    	I think not. I will continue to present my opinions and be polite
    when signing off. Please adjust your sensitivities to reality.


    		have a nice day -)

    Jim
    
    Oh for screaming heavens sake! I was not saying that 'he was asking for
    it'. I was saying that when a person is perceived as being sarcastic
    people may be sarcastic in return. If people don't want to generate
    sarcastic replies they should be careful of their communications style.
    
    Bonnie

I dunno, I find "have a nice day" obnoxious even when there's no hint of
sarcasm, simply because it brings to mind those mindless smiley faces
(which is one reason I never use the "smiley" text icons - the whole thing
is just aggravating).

I wouldn't try to accuse everybody who uses a (can I bring myself to type one
in? ... aargh) ":-)" symbol with textual harrassment, though. I just suffer...

    fine, Wayne fine, but understand that you own the problem as much
    as other people. we are not mind readers, and reacting to apparent
    sarcasm with sarcasm or by objecting to how it sounds is not a case
    of being 'overly sensitive'.
    
    that is btw a fairly typical male tactic... do something that a female
    person gets up set with, continually refuse to listen to her reasons
    why she is upset, eventually accuse her of being unreasonable and
    tell her she's too sensitive and refuse to change in any fashion..
    
    it is interesting to see it played out so very neatly here in the file.
    
    I'm kind of ashamed of my self that I let myself get sucked into it..
    
    Bonnie

re: .448

>    	I think not. I will continue to present my opinions and be polite
>    when signing off. Please adjust your sensitivities to reality.
    
    My sensitivities are perfectly adjusted to my reality.
    You refuse to acknowledge my reality.
    I acknowledge you can have yours, but have indicated mine exists.
    
    I will continue to present my opinions and say whatever I feel like
    saying when signing off.  
    
    Oh no, I'm not playing nice.
    
    Does this mean I'm not a lady?
    
    8-P
    
    -Jody
    

Does anybody else find Jim's thinking an accusation of sarcasm and its defense
significantly heinous to be compared to (what is typically) the accusation of
a rape victim, that "she asked for it", to be more than ironic?  Like, downright
insulting?  Jim, you oughta know better.  Sometimes, like with Wayne, people DO
ask for it.

DougO

    Let's drop this "Have a nice day" rathole, ok?
    
    We've made Wayne's day nice enough already.  :)
    

    
    re .403
    
    >replace the prez and vice prez and all state senators with women.
    
    
    It might work.
    There would be no debate, because we would only allow ONE opinion.
    There would be no hearings, because we could just as easily find all
    men immediatly guilty and save the tax payers money.
    There would be no special minorities, only an US and an 'everybody
    else'. 
    
    
    If the roles had been reversed and Judge Thomas had been accusing
    some potential supreme court justice (female) of sexual harrassment,
    opinions would have been differant.
    
    
    But then again, it has never been proven who said what or did what. 
    Still comes down to Her word against HIS word.  I think that it would
    be very prejudicle(?) to assume guilt on either side. Think back on
    any number of notes in this or any other conference. People are very
    quick to warn against making a judgement until guilt or innocence
    is proven. Why are we so quick to assume Judge Thomas 's guilt?
    Perhaps because this is a men vs women issue. 
    Perhaps because he does not follow the standard liberal path.
    Perhaps because he represents what most people in this conference
    despise, that is he is a ..(ghast...) CONSERVATIVE.
    
    If one of YOU were called down to personnel and told that one of your
    co workers had accused you of sexual harrassment, I would expect you
    (male or female) to fight for the truth as you believed it. And when
    your coworkers started calling you a pervert and demanding that you
    be fired, even before your guilt had been proven, maybe then you'd
    appreciate the "innocent until proven guilty" theory. 
    
    Give this man the same respect.
     

    Please don't be to impressed with yourselves because I will ( without
    sarcasm ):


    		Have a nice day

    RE: .444  Wayne
    
    Your reading comprehension level is getting worse, Wayne, as Bonnie
    indicated.
        
    My note used the words "cases of actual sexual harassment" to help
    differentiate between the "demo" I described and what happens during 
    harassment.  I would apologize for not SCREAMING it to you in all caps 
    so that you couldn't possibly mistake my meaning, but I doubt it would 
    have helped.
    
    Some folks did you the courtesy of telling you they found your parting
    salutation sarcastic - and you responded by being more determined than
    ever to use it, which is certainly your choice.
    
    If you meant to show that the greeting is written to be deliberately
    offensive, then your point has been made.  I'm certainly willing to
    adjust to a new meaning of the phrase (and I do agree it is easier
    on the eyes than the usual four-letter expletives that convey similar
    meanings.) :)
    
    Have a nice day, yourself, Wayne. 

    >It might work.
    >There would be no debate, because we would only allow ONE opinion.
    >There would be no hearings, because we could just as easily find all
    >men immediatly guilty and save the tax payers money.
    >There would be no special minorities, only an US and an 'everybody
    >else'.
    
    Huh? Cathy from where did you get all this? What you've just said
    completely contradicts my experiences with women.
    
    manisha 
    

      <<< Note 1004.449 by WMOIS::REINKE_B "all I need is the air...." >>>
    
>    Oh for screaming heavens sake! I was not saying that 'he was asking for
>    it'. 

	No, you were "simply pointing out"....."how he might have contributed"
	to the offense. Can you explain how this differs from saying, "you asked
	for it"?

	I've gone back (not very far) and looked for notes by Mr. Linville.
	It seems that "Have a Nice Day" is his NORMAL notes "signoff". Many
	noters tend toward this affectation. It's the same as "Jim" or
	"Bonnie" in our notes.

>I was saying that when a person is perceived as being sarcastic
>    people may be sarcastic in return. 

	Most certainly, sarcasm can be a byproduct of spirited discussion
	in a Notes forum.

	But "Listen Buddy" is NOT sarcasm. It's a demeaning personal reference.

	If I begin a note with "Listen Girlie" can I claim the defense of
	"sarcasm" at some time in the future?
Jim

          <<< Note 1004.454 by FMNIST::olson "friend of the family" >>>

DougO,	We are not dealing with the issue of sarcasm or it's defense.
	We are dealing with the use of a persoanlly derogatory term used
	in reference to a fellow noter. As such, it violates the policies
	of virtually every Notes conference that I'm aware of.

	The defense of the use of the term was somehow Mr Linville
	"contributed" to the use of the term.

	I found that ironic, particularly because this defense has been
	so severly derided (and justifiably so) in this particular file.

Jim

    RE: .459  Jim
    
    Heavens, Jim - you're using an analogy - do you honestly mean to equate
    the experience of receiving sarcasm with the experience of being raped
    (and/or do you mean to equate the act of being sarcastic with the act
    of raping someone???)
    
    Care to retract?  :)

    re .440
    
    actually, I _do_ find "have a nice day" offensive.  not the sentiments
    involved, just those four little syllables written, spoken, graphically
    expressed [by the yellow smiley face].
    
    they make my teeth itch.  I'm not joking _at_all_.
    
    this is a rathole dealing with my personal preferences and
    proclivities.  if I asked someone not to say these four little
    syllables _to_me_, I would expect the favour of compliance.  I would
    never seek to broaden my dislike to a general case for being irritating
    in the extreme -- because I sincerely doubt that people in general have
    the same aversion.
    
    hence, if Wayne said "have a nice day" to me and I asked him not to, it
    would be very rude of him to continue -- which isn't to say that I'm
    not weird.  If he says "have a nice day" to someone _else_ and I ask
    him not to do so, then I've stepped over some line -- no matter how
    much it makes my teeth itch.
    
      Annie

re: .457
    >    Please don't be to impressed with yourselves because I will ( without
    >sarcasm ):
>		Have a nice day
    
    
    I'm so glad.  Have one for me too, will you sweetheart?
    
    -Jody

    
    	RE: .464  Jody
    
    	:-)
    

            <<< Note 1004.463 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

    
>    Hold the phone - is "BUDDY" now an insulting, harassing term?????
 
	Use it on me and it is. In the context as was used here it
	was obviously meant as a personally derogatory term.
   
>Wayne, yet he's repeated his New_harassing_phrase "Have a nice day"
>    several times ...)
 
	As I pointed out, this seems to be his "signoff". Much like others
	use D!, or The Doctah, etc.

	If this phrase was so annoying why was it not pointed out before?
	Actually, I don't like it much, but it IS his right to concoct
	a "signoff" message of his choice.

Jim

    RE: .466  Jim
    
    >> Hold the phone - is "BUDDY" now an insulting, harassing term?????
    
    > Use it on me and it is.  In the context as was used here it
    > was obviously meant as a personally derogatory term.
    
    Oh, I see.  You can label it as such, but no one else here can label
    Wayne's "Have a nice day" as sarcastic.  I see how it works now. :)
    
    By the way, can I call you "precious"?  :)
    
    > As I pointed out, this seems to be his "signoff".  Much like others
    > use D!, or The Doctah, etc.
    
    It isn't his name, Jim.  It's his sarcastic epithet (quite obviously
    meant as a derogatory parting shot.)
    
    Now tell me why you can label "Buddy" as insulting and no one else
    here can describe "Have a nice day" as sarcastic.
    
    This, I've *got* to hear.  :)

    re. .463

    Suzzanne,

    	You have made an accusation of harassment. Now either prove it
    according to the Orange Book or apologize!


    		This could ruin both our days

    
    
    "BUDDY"  harassing, insulting - give me a break.
    
    Now is someone said BUTTY - yea that could be considered deragatory.
    
    
    Pat

    
    RE: .460  Jim
    
    Hold the phone - is "BUDDY" now an insulting, harassing term?????
    
    If it is, notice please that no one else has used this in a greeting
    to Wayne, yet he's repeated [what he *himself* has termed as a 
    New_harassing_phrase, or whatever] "Have a nice day" several times ...
    
    Interesting, eh? :)

            <<< Note 1004.467 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    > Use it on me and it is.  In the context as was used here it
>    > was obviously meant as a personally derogatory term.
    
>    Oh, I see.  You can label it as such, but no one else here can label
>    Wayne's "Have a nice day" as sarcastic.  I see how it works now. :)
 
	No one objected to "Have a Nice Day" when it was used in .397,
	how come? The term is a general, if annoying, method of saying
	"Goodbye", "See you later", or much worse (in the retail environment)
	"Come again".

	"Listen Buddy" is not used in any of these polite contexts (unless
	of course your accepted nickname happens to be "Buddy"). Not the
	case here.
   
>    By the way, can I call you "precious"?  :)
 
	Not unless you personally want to find out how the sexual harrassment 
	policy is applied by the Corporation.

>    This, I've *got* to hear.  :)

	You've heard (at least read) it. Now are you telling me that it is
	acceptable, in this conference, to start notes off with "Listen 
	Buddy"? 

	This I'VE got to hear (read) ;-)

Jim

    	RE: .468  Wayne

    	You are the only one who has accused YOU of harassment.  Once
    	again, I forgot your problems with reading comprehension, so
    	I found it necessary to spell it out to you by editing my note
    	(and retaining a copy of the original, by the way, which I will
    	store in a bank vault after having it hermetically sealed.) :-)

    	I notice that you seem as aware as I am that the "magic words"
    	are far more dangerous to the person who says them than they
    	are to the one on the receiving end (so much so that you are
    	visibly ANXIOUS for someone to make the dreaded mistake of
    	accusing you of harassment.)

    	Precisely the point many of us here have been trying to make.

    	Thanks!

>	We are not dealing with the issue of sarcasm or it's defense.

Depends on which side gets to do the labeling, no?  But even if we're talking
about "the use of a persoanlly [sic] derogatory term" I'm still incredulous
that you compare a defense against a charge of, essentially, name-calling, to
the defense against the charge of a violent crime.  Get real!  I'm sure that
if Wayne considers himself personally degraded by the sarcastic greeting
"buddy" he'll be just as damaged by being told he brought it on himself as
a rape victim is damaged when told the same thing.  Yeah.  Right.  Get real.

DougO

	Just for the record, would one of the moderators please answer
	my question as posed in the last paragraph of 1004.459?

Thanks,

Jim

from off the net - 
    
    from the New York Times,  10/16/91  p.A21:
    
    "Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of
    Oklahoma City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her
    tenured position. In a letter to University president, Richard Van
    Horn, Sullivan said, "We must get left wing  extremist influence off
    the campus before it spreads further.  We can't afford to have a high
    profile professor on campus that millions of Americans, according to
    polls and national talk shows, believe is a fantasizing liar." 
    
    
If you wish, you can write to President Van Horn at: 
                                University of Oklahoma
                                660 Parrington Oval, Rm 110
                                Norman, OK 73019
                               (phone 405-325-3910)
    
If you wish, you can write to David Swank, Dean of the Law School at:
                                University of Oklahoma
                                300 Timberdell Rd
                                Norman, OK  73019

If you wish, you can write to Anita Hill at:  
                         University of Oklahoma
                         300 Timberdell Rd
                         Norman, OK  73019

    RE: .471  Jim
    
    > No one objected to "Have a Nice Day" when it was used in .397,
    > how come?
    
    Yes, someone did!!  It was mentioned in a general way to include all
    the various times Wayne used the phrase after a sarcastic reply.
    
    What makes you assume that this particular reply was excluded from
    the general remarks made in this topic?  It wasn't!
    
    > "Listen Buddy" is not used in any of these polite contexts (unless
    > of course your accepted nickname happens to be "Buddy").  Not the
    > case here.
    
    It is ALSO "NOT THE CASE" that someone said "Listen Buddy" to Wayne
    in this topic!  YOU wrote it this way - this is NOT how it was written
    in the original note.  Your use of the word is inaccurate - do you care?
    
    >> By the way, can I call you "precious"?  :)
    
    > Not unless you personally want to find out how the sexual harassment
    > policy is applied by the Corporation.
    
    It's interesting how I seem to be almost begged to USE the so-called
    "magic words" by Wayne, yet you seem to be daring me to say something
    that will allow YOU to use the "magic words" against me.
    
    "Magic words," indeed.  Well, don't worry, Jim.  I'll be very careful
    to heed your warning.  I won't use the word repeatedly (as Wayne has done)
    in fond HOPES that you'll accuse me of harassment.  We all know the truth
    about the "magic words" by now.
    
    > You've heard (at least read) it.  Now are you telling me that it is
    > acceptable, in this conference, to start notes off with "Listen
    > Buddy"?
    
    Well, I've never seen someone do this - so if someone ever HAS done
    this, no one else complained about it.  If you intended to threaten
    harassment charges against me (or anyone else here) - message 
    received, Jim!  (It is Jim, isn't it?)  Just checking.  :)
    
    Meanwhile, I'll just keep dodging Wayne's charges that I/we have
    accused him of harassment (while dodging your threats to accuse
    some or one of US of harassment.)  
    
    Every demonstration of the real truth behind the so-called "magic words"
    is helpful to prove what some of us have been trying to point out all
    along about the way women are treated in these cases.
    
    Thanks again!

    I can see why Wayne found being called buddy offensive. Ellen called
    him buddy [only] once. He told her not to do so. Now if Ellen insists
    on calling him buddy, it will be extremely rude on her part. But she
    hasn't and as far as I'm concerned the matter is over. So can we end
    this rathole and get back to the topic?
    
    Jim, to answer your question in .459 (?) - the term 'girlie' is in no
    way  equivalent to the term 'buddy'.
    
    manisha

    This has become a rathole. I propose a truce. This string has shown
    that the word harassment used improperly can be dangerous and damaging.
    I truly do not want to hurt anyone but at the same time I will not be
    the focal point of anyones prejudice. Reasonable people can disagree.
    I am a reasonable person and wish no one harm.


    		Have a nice day -)

    re.473
    
    For the record:
    
    I envision the same sort of 'fire-fight' as we've had over 'Buddy'.
    
    Also, given that an overwhelming number of women here have voiced a
    distaste for hearing women called "girls" or "girlie," I think a fair
    case could be made that it was intentionally offensive -- especially if
    the woman so-addressed was a one who had previously gone record as
    having such an aversion -- and I would look askance at any claims of
    sarcasm made after the fact.
    
    If someone here has been called "Buddy" after asking that he not be
    so-addressed, I missed it.  If I missed it, I apologise and ask to be
    re-directed to it.
    
    Regards,
      Ann Johnston
      =wn= comod

re: .477
>    I truly do not want to hurt anyone but at the same time I will not be
>    the focal point of anyones prejudice. Reasonable people can disagree.
>    I am a reasonable person and wish no one harm.
    
    Oh, well that makes it all better then, doesn't it?
    
    set_tone=seriously
    
    You have caused me discomfort, and your attitude causes me to feel
    hopeless about how many men who have had no exposure to the experience
    of harassment will treat the charge.  You have caused me anger this
    afternoon, as well as frustration.  I'm developing enough of a thick
    skin not to be hurt. 
    
    Do you really mean truce?  
    Do you concede anything?  
    Or do you tire of the discussion and you think this is the
    	easiest way out?  
    Have you heard *anything* we have said?  
    Does it hurt us if you haven't?  probably not now, but later perhaps.
    
    Are you listening?  probably not now, but later....I pray you might.
    
    Harassment is REAL.  Harassment HAPPENS.  It has happened to ME.  It
    could perceivably happen to YOU.  What will you do when nobody listens
    and tells you to have a nice day?
    
    -Jody

    RE: .477  Wayne
    
    > This has become a rathole.  I propose a truce.
    
    Sounds good - we can all agree not to call you "Buddy" again if you
    agree to stop the "Have a Nice Day" closings (since people have told
    you how sarcastic they sound and you've already repeated the phrase
    enough times to last a lifetime.)  Deal?
    
    > This string has shown the word harassment used improperly can be
    > dangerous and damaging.
    
    This string has shown that the word is *most* damaging to women (whether
    we are accused of USING the word, or ARE ACCUSED OF harassment ourselves.)
    This was the point many of us have been trying to make.
    
    > I truly do not want to hurt anyone but at the same time I will not be
    > the focal point of anyones prejudice.
    
    We will not have our words "labeled" prejudice as a way to keep us from
    expressing our opinions about a big political issue that affects ALL of
    us in this country.
    
    > Reasonable people can disagree.
    
    Yes, we can!  So we should be able to express our anger at the way
    Prof. Hill has been treated without being insulted for it.  Ok?
    
    > I am a reasonable person and wish no one harm.
    
    We are all reasonable people here and wish no one harm, either. 
    I wish you would realize that.
    
    > Have a nice day -)
    
    *sigh*

              <<< Note 1004.478 by MEMIT::JOHNSTON "bean sidhe" >>>

Ann,	Please note reply .436

Thanks,

Jim

    re .481
    
    	Ok....
    
    		Toodle loo

    I meant .480
    
    see ya later

  <<< Note 1004.476 by CADSE::KHER "Live simply, so others may simply live" >>>

>    Jim, to answer your question in .459 (?) - the term 'girlie' is in no
>    way  equivalent to the term 'buddy'.
 
   
manisha,	

	I considered it to precisely the same. When I got home this evening
	I related this discussion to my wife and asked her thoughts.

	She accepted thge "girlie" term as an equivalent. She also suggested
	Hon, Honey, Sweetie and Sweetthing as viable equivalents.

	Folks, either this is fair for both genders or it's not. I do not care
	how you feel about the Hill/Thomas issue, I do not care how you feel
	about sexual harrasssment, but I DO care about fairness. And I will
	fight for it. And I will not let it drop without an official statement
	of policy from the moderators.

Jim	

          <<< Note 1004.472 by FMNIST::olson "friend of the family" >>>
>                       -< He *did* bring it on himself. >-

>if Wayne considers himself personally degraded by the sarcastic greeting
>"buddy" he'll be just as damaged by being told he brought it on himself as
>a rape victim is damaged when told the same thing.  Yeah.  Right.  Get real.

DougO,	So now we get BOTH arguments."He asked for it" AND "He wasn't harrassed
	THAT much".

	Better and Better.

Jim

P.S.	Wayne, I'm sorry this goes beyond your wishes. But a fairly important
	principle is at stake (IMHO) and I will continue this contest, on my
	behalf, not yours.

>    Do you really mean truce?  

	Yes I do.

>    Do you concede anything?  

	What am I to concede. All I did was take a position that nothing
    was proven by the circus that we watched on TV.

>    Or do you tire of the discussion and you think this is the
>    	easiest way out?  

	I do tire of the attacks and counter attacks. Not very productive.

>    Have you heard *anything* we have said?  

	Of course.

>    Does it hurt us if you haven't?  probably not now, but later perhaps.

	I don't know.
        
>    Are you listening?  probably not now, but later....I pray you might.

	Yes I am. But you must understand it is from my prospective ( I am
    only being honest ).    

>    Harassment is REAL.  Harassment HAPPENS.  It has happened to ME.  It
>    could perceivably happen to YOU.  What will you do when nobody listens
>    and tells you to have a nice day?

	It has also happened to me and someone very close to me. But I can
    not stomach unsupported and unproven allegations against anyone. That
    to me is just plain wrong. I am not going to insult anyone here but I
    have been insulted. Some of the people her should not be casting
    stones.

    		Hollis Wayne Linville
    		NSU/ULTRIX team
    		CX03/02-I13
    		DTN 592-5548
    		Toodle loo
    		
    
    

    yes, Jim,
    
    I _know_ that Wayne asked not to be called "Buddy."  Can you point me to
    an instance where someone addressed him as "Buddy" after his request?
    
      Ann Johnston
      =wn=comod

            <<< Note 1004.475 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    It is ALSO "NOT THE CASE" that someone said "Listen Buddy" to Wayne
>    in this topic!  

To the moderators:

	I stand corrected.

	I ammend my question to the parse, ",girlie".

Jim

Suzanne,

>    It's interesting how I seem to be almost begged to USE the so-called
>    "magic words" by Wayne, yet you seem to be daring me to say something
>    that will allow YOU to use the "magic words" against me.
    
	I do not "dare" anything. I stated a simple fact.

	Test me. (Now THAT'S a "dare")

>If you intended to threaten
>    harassment charges against me (or anyone else here) - message 
>    received, Jim!  (It is Jim, isn't it?)  Just checking.  :)
 
	Yes, It's Jim, or James Michael, or Mr. Percival. I will answer to
	those. 

>    Every demonstration of the real truth behind the so-called "magic words"
>    is helpful to prove what some of us have been trying to point out all
>    along about the way women are treated in these cases.
 
	As is the defense offered of the term ",buddy" (did I get it right
	this time?) by the men in this Conference.

>    Thanks again!

	You are quite welcome, THANK YOU!

James (Jim) Michael Percival

    Let me see if I have this straight.
    
    You are asking if the term "buddy" and "girlie" are equivalent.  I
    would not have thought so previously, but it seems there is sufficient
    evidence of dander and hurt herein to change my perceptions somewhat.
    
    You say your interest is in fairness. This is wonderful, because
    fairness is a big priority with me as well. I'm completely serious.
    
    Wayne [and by extension] the noting community has been asked not to
    sign off "have a nice day."  Many people have expressed a distaste for
    the specific belittling terms you've called out as examples.  Now we've
    all been put on notice that 'buddy' is distasteful and offensive.
     
    Fair is fair.  An impartial, if draconian, hand would summarily delete
    all occurences of the offending phrases once the offense was made
    known.
    
    Is this the action you are urging upon us?
    
    Ann Johnston
    =wn=comod

    re.488
    
    it's a nit.
    
    after re-parsing, my answer still stands.
    
    I've gone on record as saying I find "girlie" [and the others that your
    wife equated to same] offensive.
    
      Ann Johnston
      =wn= comod
    

              <<< Note 1004.487 by MEMIT::JOHNSTON "bean sidhe" >>>

>    I _know_ that Wayne asked not to be called "Buddy."  Can you point me to
>    an instance where someone addressed him as "Buddy" after his request?
    
>      Ann Johnston
>      =wn=comod


Ann,	No I cannot. But is an offensive term to be allowed for a single
	reply? I did not join this argument concerning the term itself,
	but as a  reponse to the "defense" offered by one of your comods
	(Wayne had already responded with his displeasure at the remark).

	Is "men-bashing" to be allowed simply because this file in named
	"Womennotes"?

	I do not engage in this discussion to simply be contentious. I want
	to know the "rules" under which it is to be played.

	As I have said, fair is fair. What is allowed for some, must be allowed
	for all. If the ",buddy" comment is allowed to stand then the FIRST
	occurence of other offesive terms must be allowed until such time as
	someone objects to MY using them in a PARTICULAR context in a SPECIFIC
	reply.

	Let be be honest, I'm not out for "blood" here. But I do see an 
	injustice that should, no MUST, be rectified. It is not "OK" for
	women to "bash" men because of past injustices (IMHO). The phrase
	"two wrongs don't make a right" has value here.

	As you may have guessed, I feel strongly about this issue. Strongly
	enough to pursue it to it's conclusion.

Not trying to make your mod duties more difficult,

Jim

re: .486
    
    Thank you.
    
    Sincerely, thank you for responding from the gut, honestly.
    
    I appreciate it.
    
    -Jody
    

    	RE: .491  James Michael Percival
    
    	In the interest of fairness, it would seem that you are ALSO
    	suggesting that every single reply Wayne wrote in this topic
    	with the signoff "Have a Nice Day" should be deleted (including
    	the first instance.)  Is this true?
    
    	Or do you still contend that you should be allowed to find
    	serious offense at the nickname 'buddy' (even though NO ONE
    	has used the term since it was called offensive,) but that
    	we should NOT be allowed to call Wayne's use of "Have a 
    	Nice Day" offensive (even though he continued to use it over
    	and over and over and over after it was pointed out to him)?
    
    	If you hold that the 'buddy' note should be addressed by the
    	mods, then you must also hold that every single one of the
    	"Have a Nice Day" notes be addressed in the same way.
    
    	Do you believe in fairness or not?

              <<< Note 1004.489 by MEMIT::JOHNSTON "bean sidhe" >>>

>    Wayne [and by extension] the noting community has been asked not to
>    sign off "have a nice day."  Many people have expressed a distaste for
>    the specific belittling terms you've called out as examples.  Now we've
>    all been put on notice that 'buddy' is distasteful and offensive.
     
>    Fair is fair.  An impartial, if draconian, hand would summarily delete
>    all occurences of the offending phrases once the offense was made
>    known.
    
>    Is this the action you are urging upon us?
 
	As an issue of "fairness", I would agree to that action. Of course
	I could reply that I find the signoff 

			    Ann Johnston
 			    =wn=comod
	
   	offensive and ask that the same action be taken.

	Ann, a sarcastic remark (even if it was intended as such) is surely
	not the same as using the term "buddy" (or "girlie for that matter).

	As I said, I'm not in this for the fight, but I AM in this for the
	principle involved.

	I just want to know how this will "play out".    

Jim

    	By the way, James Michael Percival - does your threat of charging
    	me with sexual harassment if I call you "precious" extend to any
    	and all nicknames anyone chooses to call you here (such as "friend,"
    	or "pal"?)  Just checking so we'll all know where you stand.
    
    	Doesn't it strike you as odd that Prof. Hill's charges (about
    	Thomas's descriptions of pornography, sexual prowess claims, etc.)
    	were not enough to keep him from being confirmed for the Supreme
    	Court - YET YOU SEEM TO FEEL THAT YOU COULD MAKE A SOLID CASE
    	OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST A WOMAN AT DIGITAL IF SHE WERE TO
    	CALL YOU "PRECIOUS"?
    
    	Doesn't that tell you that even YOU are aware of how badly women
    	are treated in these cases (no matter which side we find ourselves
    	on?)  

    Hey people,

    	Is this discussion about a simple phase "have a nice day"
    worthy of adult professionals. I think not. Some may not like the
    phrase but it does not insult anyone. I will not use it anymore in this
    string but I will not promise not to use it again. I AM NOT INSULTING
    ANYONE. Please don't lose your sense of humor, life is hard enough.
    I'll send you all flowers, ( heck send me flowers ) if we can just
    laugh a little. Let's argue about important things not "have a nice
    day".


    		w!a!y!n!e! bang bang

            <<< Note 1004.495 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    	Doesn't it strike you as odd that Prof. Hill's charges (about
>    	Thomas's descriptions of pornography, sexual prowess claims, etc.)
>    	were not enough to keep him from being confirmed for the Supreme
>    	Court - YET YOU SEEM TO FEEL THAT YOU COULD MAKE A SOLID CASE
>    	OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST A WOMAN AT DIGITAL IF SHE WERE TO
>    	CALL YOU "PRECIOUS"?
 
>    	Doesn't that tell you that even YOU are aware of how badly women
>    	are treated in these cases (no matter which side we find ourselves
>    	on?)  

	No, frankly it does not. I listened to the testimony. I made a judgement
	on which person was more believeable (IMHO). I stated quite clearly
	that if Thomas made the remarks attributed to him that he should NOT
	be confirmed. There is no oddity here. I simply came to a different
	conclusion that you did on whom to believe. Have differing opinions
	now become "odd"?

Jim

    RE: .494  James Michael Percival
    
    > As an issue of "fairness", I would agree to that action. Of course
    > I could reply that I find the signoff 

    >			    Ann Johnston
    >			    =wn=comod
	
    >	offensive and ask that the same action be taken.

    So, "fairness" is not your goal, then.  I see.
    
    > Ann, a sarcastic remark (even if it was intended as such) is surely
    > not the same as using the term "buddy" (or "girlie for that matter).
    
    So, you're still trying to suggest that you should be allowed to define
    the word "buddy" as harassing and offensive, while you still fight
    against our descriptions of "Have a Nice Day" as being sarcastic (and
    offensive to us in this context.)
    
    "Fairness" really *isn't* your goal in this, is it?
    
    > As I said, I'm not in this for the fight, but I AM in this for the
    > principle involved.

    Well, "fairness" isn't your principle (as you've indicated,) so what
    is it? 
    
    > I just want to know how this will "play out".    
    
    Oh.  I think I just realized what your "principle" is.

            <<< Note 1004.498 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

Suzanne,	

	I'll make a suggestion.

	I've extracted this string.

	You send me E-mail using the appelation "Precious", I'll send you
	mail with the closing "Have a nice Day".

	We'll let Personnel decide.

	Up for it?

Jim

    
    	RE: .496  Wayne
    
    	The discussion is now about how Jim Percival wants to "play
    	it out to the end" that someone called you "buddy" in this
    	conference (and whether or not it is against conference policy
    	and/or Digital's Corporate Policy.)
    
    	Talk to him about his sense of humor.  I'm getting a wonderful
    	chuckle out of all this myself.
    

    Suzzanne,
    
    	Why is it you do not seem to have a middle ground. I am very
    serious about this question. I don't know how I or any man who differs
    with you can discuss anything. You will not allow a middle ground for
    understanding. I have known you for over five years yet I don't know
    you. To argue and discuss and laugh is fun, to argue and argue and
    argue is, well, for me sad.
    
    
    		One clown down

    RE: .501  Wayne
    
    > I don't know how I or any man who differs with you can discuss
    > anything.
    
    You *don't* know, Wayne.  I do, though.  It's easy.
    
    > You will not allow a middle ground for understanding.
    
    The middle ground has to be somewhere on the planet, that's all.  :-)
    
    > To argue and discuss and laugh is fun, to argue and argue and
    > argue is, well, for me sad.
    
    Lighten up, Wayne.  It ain't all that tragic.  (As I mentioned in my
    last note to you, I've found a great deal to chuckle about during all
    this.  I just have to remember not to call that other fella "prec...")
    
    Never mind.  :)

    This is escalating far beyond what is healthy. The ears are shut and
    the mouths they are agape. Can some moderate voices out there help here
    please. 



                  What the h*ll have a whatever

    RE: .499  James Michael Percival
    
    > You send me E-mail using the appelation "Precious", I'll send you
    > mail with the closing "Have a nice Day".

    > We'll let Personnel decide.

    > Up for it?
    
    Are you serious?  My whole POINT is that you and I both KNOW that
    you're far likelier to be successful at a sexual harassment charge
    against a woman for calling you "precious" than a woman would be if
    she came forward about receiving sexual propositions, descriptions
    of pornography and improper TOUCHING at the workplace!!
    
    Your suggestion only verifies what *I've* been trying to tell you!
    
    (By the way, NO ONE here claimed that "have a nice day" was any form
    of sexual harassment.  I need to mention this to keep dodging both
    the accusations that I/we accused him of sexual harassment along with
    your persistent overt and implied threats of charging me with it if
    I ever dare to call you "precious.")
    
    The whole "precious" thing was a joke anyway - I was trying to see if
    you liked it better than being called "buddy"...  (I guess not.)

    >It might work.
    >There would be no debate, because we would only allow ONE opinion.
    
    Say what?  You have clearly never been involved with a group of women
    making decisions.  There is *always* debate.  If you want to be
    insulting to women, at least stick to the stereotype, which isn't that
    there is no debate but that there is so *much* processing and debate
    that nothing gets done.
    
    D!

    All this stuff about whether or not the word "buddy" can be defined
    as against Corporate Policy because Jim Percival says he is offended
    by it - it's a useless rathole.
    
    If someone decided that the word "book" were offensive, the Corporation 
    would NOT back the person up in his/her quest to get everyone at DEC to 
    stop using the word.  It would NOT be enough for the individual to tell
    everyone that using the word "book" is offensive and that they would all
    be guilty of harassment if they insist on using it.
    
    This is NOT what sexual harassment is about!!!  It is NOT a power given
    to women to define anything and everything we so choose as harassment
    by simply waving a wand and saying some "magic words."
    
    I do realize that this mistaken impression is one reason some people
    are so hostile and vicious to women when sexual harassment topics come up.  
    
    Sexual harassment isn't power for women.  It's a trap.  It leaves
    a harassed person with a bunch of really LOUSY choices:
    
    	1.  Put up with the harassment (even though it makes the work
    		environment hostile and miserable)
    
    	2.  Tell the perp to "stop" (which involves the risk of being
    		branded as humorless or "not one of the guys")
    
    	3.  Quit the job (which means an unplanned career move that
    		could destroy years of work, and/or appearing "unstable"
    		to a new employer by the sudden resignation)
    
    	4.  Charge sexual harassment (which is almost totally unprovable
    		unless the perp has harassed so many people in front of
    		so many witnesses that it's gone beyond being deniable.
    		If the charges are presented but not proven, the harassed
    		person can kiss a career goodbye at this company, and
    		may have trouble getting work anywhere else.  If harassed
    		again, forget EVER complaining about it - there's now a 
    		"history" of complaining, which makes it even harder than 
    		it was before to ever make such a charge stick.)
    
    In other words, there are NO pleasant choices when this happens.
    All the choices stink!!
    
    Sexual harassment laws and policies are supposed to be something that
    gives women POWER????  It is to laugh.
    
    The only thing these laws really do for any of us is to provide us all
    with the awareness of how wrong and unnecessary (and pathetic) it is
    to treat someone this way at work.  Companies like Digital know doggone
    well it's bad for business to allow employees to create hostile work
    environments for other employees based on their sex, creed, etc.
    
    I won't participate in any more of these "Can we define the word 'buddy'
    as offensive and harassing."  If a woman went to an employer and tried to
    charge sexual harassment for being called 'buddy' or even 'precious,'
    she wouldn't have a *ghost* of a chance of being taken seriously.
    
    It's trivializing and downright insulting to treat these words as being
    in any way comparable to sexual harassment (and especially, as suggested
    earlier, that calling someone 'buddy' in a sarcastic way is comparable
    to raping someone.)
    
    If these people want to talk about fairness in this topic, equating the
    word 'buddy' with rape isn't it!  
    
    Let's move past this nonsense.

    I don't get this.  "Buddy" is a term meaning "friend".  "Girlie" is a
    term meaning, at best, little girl, and usually "cheap, sleazy,
    sideshow stripper".  How are these two term similar?

    At best, the parallel term for "girlie" would be "boy", or "little
    boy".

    E Grace

    RE:  last 40 or 50.....or so
    
                  *GOOD LORD!*  :-)
    
    
    
         BTW.... *I'm* going to have a "nice day"...ya'll can have whatever
    you want.  So....whatever you want for yourself today in the way of
    wishes.....I send them!  
    
    
    Dave

  I think one way to look at the last (seems like thousands) of notes
  is to take them as a wonderful demonstration of how a few loud mouths
  can derail discussion from the substantive issues to the trivial is-
  sues, assuring that the substantive issues never get addressed.

  And when those voices stand for maintenance of the status quo,
  and they succesfully employ these tactics, they win.

                                   Atlant

  Way back in .390, Kathy Maxham suggested what may be *THE* solution,
  but if it's not, it's certainly the next step along the *PEACEFUL*
  path to the solution:

     Vote for people who will represent you.  Elect women and
     minorities so we have a truly representative government
     instead of an over-privileged boys club.

                                   Atlant

>    At best, the parallel term for "girlie" would be "boy", or "little
>    boy".

	Funny how there's no diminutive for "boy", eh?



	*A*

    Jim,
    
    buddy vs girlie. 
    
    Buddy means a friend. Check your dictionary if you don't believe me.
    There is nothing derogatory about the word itself. It is the context
    that makes it derogatory.
    
    Girlie on the other hand, is derogatory even when used for a small
    girl. I wouldn't have liked it when I was eight and certainly wouldn't
    like it when I'm no longer a girl.
    
    I'm surprised that I have to spell out this difference
    
    manisha
    a noter

    
    re .484:
    
>	I considered it to precisely the same. When I got home this evening
>	I related this discussion to my wife and asked her thoughts.
>
>	She accepted thge "girlie" term as an equivalent. She also suggested
>	Hon, Honey, Sweetie and Sweetthing as viable equivalents.
    
    Oh, I get it.  Your wife has the final say on what is and is not
    harassment (a previous reply of yours) and on what's derogatory and
    not, but all other women's feelings and opinions aren't worth shit.

>	Folks, either this is fair for both genders or it's not. I do not care
>	how you feel about the Hill/Thomas issue, I do not care how you feel
>	about sexual harrasssment, but I DO care about fairness
    
    Bullshit, Jim.  If you didn't care how we felt about the Hill/Thomas
    affair, then why did you enter over a dozen replies arguing with those
    who registered an opposite opinion over the case.  It doesn't wash, Jim.
    You *do* (or at least did) care.
    
    Fairness?  Jim, if you *really* cared about fairness, and I say
    this with dead seriousness, then you should damn well be able to
    see that women have been treated FAR less fairly than men for
    thousands of years!!  Why not fight against that unfairness since
    it is so much worse?!  Methinks you only care about fairness when
    *yours* is at stake, even though it's only 1/1000 of what women
    have experienced.  And, no, Jim, I'm not taking your *wife's* word
    for it.

    re .485:

>P.S.	Wayne, I'm sorry this goes beyond your wishes. But a fairly important
>	principle is at stake (IMHO) and I will continue this contest, on my
>	behalf, not yours.

    "Contest"?  So you wish to keep on with this "macho" display of yours,
    Jim?  It might work in other files, but we see it for what it is in
    this one, and call you on it.  Isn't honesty refreshing?
    
    re .491:

>	Is "men-bashing" to be allowed simply because this file in named
>	"Womennotes"?
    
    HAHAHAHHAHA!!  We go around in circles.  Jim, I've been in this file
    for 5 years and you won't be the first *man* to accuse the file of
    this.  It's been tried dozens of times before.  Most of those guys
    are long gone.  *I'm* still here.  In fact, one man even went as far
    as personnel a year ago.  You know what?  Personnel didn't care!  They
    saw nothing wrong with what went down in this file.  And I can tell
    you, the file sure hasn't changed much since then.

>	As I have said, fair is fair.
    
    re your diatribe about fairness - it falls on deaf ears.  Why?
    I *guarantee* you that every woman in here has been treated less
    fairly than *you*, Jim Percival, in her life.  You experience a
    1/1000th of what we've experienced and you start to cry and whine
    about it.  Come up with a real life unfairness that's been
    perpetrated on you and we might listen.
    

    And now for something completely flippant: See HYDRA::DAVE_BARRY note
    703 on "The Hearings". [Hint: He doesn't comment on either the
    candidate or the star witness - which is a relief, considering how many
    other people do - but has a lot of fun with the committee.]
    
    -b

    Boy am I glad I no longer have a terminal at home ...
    
    

    Thank you -b. I need that.
    
    BTW, I don't want to banish either the term 'buddy' or the phrase 'have
    a nice day' from Notes. They are cheerful and nice in my world. But I
    do find it offensive when someone says have a nice day in a nasty note.
    I also find it offensive when people write nasty replies and put
    smileys at the bottom. It appears very hypocritical to me.
    
    manisha

	As with so many things, it sometimes isn't so much what you say, but
	how it is you said. Without the cues derived from body language,
	or from voice tone, the interpretation of the written word is 
	at the mercy of the reader, not the writer. The smiley faces
	are a poor substitute for even the slightest of inflections 
	of the voice.  It is the responsibility of the writer to 
	communicate with sufficient precision to ensure that the point
	to be made is made in such a way that minimizes the possibility
	of being misunderstood. This is difficult, and not always 
	accomplished. Remember that your reader may not only have a 
	different outlook, but may be in a different frame of mind than 
	what you may have in mind when you write. When you are misunderstood
	in written communications, it is your fault for writing imprecisely!

	I forget all of this as much, possibly more, than anyone,
	but it does bear reminding (if only for myself) from time to time.

						Tom_K

                   <<< Note 1004.504 by CSC32::W_LINVILLE >>>
    >> This is escalating far beyond what is healthy. The ears are shut and
    >> the mouths they are agape. Can some moderate voices out there help here
    >> please. 
    
    I like to think, on better days, that I can be a moderating voice.  And
    I have find your notes to be rude, sarcastic, and not really worth the
    effort it takes to hit next-unseen.
    
    Of course, this might not be one of my better days ;^)...

          <<< Note 1004.514 by BLUMON::GUGEL "koatamundi whiteout" >>>

    
>    Oh, I get it.  Your wife has the final say on what is and is not
>    harassment (a previous reply of yours) and on what's derogatory and
>    not, but all other women's feelings and opinions aren't worth shit.

	Since I am a man I recognize that my upbringing and experiences
	to date may have colored my reactions and feelings when it comes
	to women's issues. I often asked my wife's opinion in matters of
	this type because she is a woman for whom I have a great deal of
	respect and admiration. She has been sexually harrassed and in
	fact was fired from a position becasue she would not sleep with
	the "boss".

>    Bullshit, Jim.  If you didn't care how we felt about the Hill/Thomas
>    affair, then why did you enter over a dozen replies arguing with those
>    who registered an opposite opinion over the case.  It doesn't wash, Jim.
>    You *do* (or at least did) care.
 
	If the discussion was still about the Hill/Thomas issue, you would
	have a point. Since it is not, you do not.

>    this with dead seriousness, then you should damn well be able to
>    see that women have been treated FAR less fairly than men for
>    thousands of years!!  

	So then it is your opinion that a little "get even" is called
	for? And more importantly, justified?

>Why not fight against that unfairness since
>    it is so much worse?!  Methinks you only care about fairness when
>    *yours* is at stake, even though it's only 1/1000 of what women
>    have experienced.  And, no, Jim, I'm not taking your *wife's* word
>    for it.

	I have fought for "women's issues" in the past and I expect that
	I will do so in the future. But those issues were only coincidently
	"women's issues". In other words I didn't fight for them becasue
	they were about "women", I fought for them because they were about
	unequal treatment. Exactly the same issue that we have here.

>    HAHAHAHHAHA!!  We go around in circles.  Jim, I've been in this file
>    for 5 years and you won't be the first *man* to accuse the file of
>    this.  It's been tried dozens of times before.  Most of those guys
>    are long gone.  *I'm* still here.  

	If I were the first to make such an accusation, then maybe it could
	be dismissed. But when "dozens" make the accusation maybe it's time
	to re-examine as to whether they are true.

Jim

    	If Jim wants to think he has been treated unfairly here because
    	the file didn't drop to its knees and beg forgiveness after a
    	woman calling a man "buddy" once was defined by Jim as offensive 
    	- then so what.
    
    	The kind of "fairness" he seeks here is for us to grant him the
    	distorted perception he has of sexual harassment laws and policies.
    
    	Oh well.  Maybe he'll catch on in the 21st Century.

    
    re .518: that's good advice for all of us to remember, Tom.
    Thanks.
    

    Please, please, please, folks, this is getting out of hand.  It seems
    we are really arguing over nothing, and creating an issue where there
    is none.
    
    The Thomas/Hill issue is a volatile one, and a lot of people have a lot
    of emotion vested in it.  Tempers are on edge; let's please try to
    remember that, and discuss issues rather than personalities.  I think
    this discussion can go *back* to being productive if we all just take a
    little extra care not to step on people's toes and to not respond with
    a knee-jerk to other people's pushing *our* buttons.
    
    Thanks in advance for being well-mannered and relevent.
    
    D!, =wn= co-moderator

    I consider the term "lady" to be equivalent to "buddy", (E.g.,
    "Hey, lady!" and "Hey, buddy!".) and certainly far closer to it
    than "girlie".  We have, many times, let the term "ladies", generally
    in the phrase "you ladies", stand in this conference.
    
    So, I could argue that, to be fair, if a man objects to the term
    "buddy", then women are entitled to object to the term "lady", and
    to claim that notes containing it should be stricken from this
    conference.  However, I will not so argue, because I don't believe
    it.  Thus, if Jim wishes to be fair, he should (perhaps after
    consulting his wife and getting her stamp of approval on his
    opinion that "buddy" and "lady" are even more similar than "buddy"
    and "girlie") cease arguing that uses of "buddy" should be stricken.
    
    Naturally, since I try to be fair, I must point out that Jim is under
    no such obligation.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I couldn't help but notice that Wayne's closing salutation is
    *not* present in his initial entry in this string, and that this
    undermines Jim's claim of customary-ness, made on Wayne's behalf.

   What a truly unbelievable and sad string of notes.  I sat here and read
   them all with my mouth hanging open.  

   A little tolerance and the commitment to explore and resolve
   miscommunications and misunderstandings might go a long way here.

   I can definitely see why Wayne's "Have a Nice Day" *could* be interpreted
   as a sarcastic ending to a sarcastic reply.  I can also definitely see
   how he might not have meant *anything* by signing off that way,
   especially when it has been shown that he generally signs off that way.

   I can also see how "buddy" might be construed as insulting.  Equally so
   for "girlie."  I can see how it was intended as insulting in the
   particular case it was used in this string.  

   I do not see how this tit-for-tat can be compared with the serious of
   sexual harrassment.  It doesn't make any sense and I have to wonder about
   expending so much energy on oneupmanship.

   I cannot see requiring a person to remove a signoff phrase simply because
   some people find it insulting.  I can see telling that person how you
   feel about it, how it affects you.  If that person chooses to change the
   signoff, or *compromise* on some middle territory, we could consider that
   person understanding, and willing to work for "us," for "our
   communications," but I certainly could not consider it "my victory, my
   score."  I would consider it "our victory" and a step forward in "our"
   communications -- our commitment to each other.  If that person made no
   change whatsoever, I would consider it "our" loss, because we were not
   able to reach an agreement.  

   We always scream for equal consideration.  Let's give it its due.

   { I can understand why something I do or say may hurt you or you may }
   { find offensive.  I can examine that behavior or saying and either  }
   { modify it in general or specifically for you, or, I can            }
   ( acknowledge that *you* don't like it and continue it and *realize* }
   { that we may not become or remain friends.  But you cannot and may  }
   { not *restrict* my behavior and statements.  You can hope that I    }
   { might some day see your point.  I can hope that someday you might  }
   { understand mine.                                                   }

   Does this make sense?


   							Terza

    
    
    
    repply .506  (D!)
    
    speaking FROM experience, I disagree. 
    
    
    
    Have a day (or not)  ;-)

	The question that I posed has been answered by one of the comods.

	I want to publicly thank her for the time invested over this
	issue. 

	Thanks, Ann

	I will accept the admonition from those with cooler heads that this
	particular string has gone far (if not too far) enough.


	On to other things.

Jim

We have this "Thomas" string and we have a "when does it begin..." string that
started out with a scenerio.

I'd like to know in general if we can define harassment, and specifically,
what people would like changed in the current legal system (if anything) to
deal with harassment.

However, the immediate question is does that belong in this note, in the "when
does it begin" note or does it belong in its own string, perhaps two (defining
harassment and legal changes to deal with harassment).

What do you think we should do?

                       Roak

    isn't it interesting how seriously Jim Percival's objections are being
    taken in this file, relative to how women's objections to phrases
    women find objectionable are taken in most forums?
    
    just an observation.
    
    cheryl

            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1004.519          Thomas nomination to Supreme Court             519 of 529
CFSCTC::MACKIN "Jim Mackin, OO-R-US"                 10 lines  18-OCT-1991 10:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   <<< Note 1004.504 by CSC32::W_LINVILLE >>>
    >> This is escalating far beyond what is healthy. The ears are shut and
    >> the mouths they are agape. Can some moderate voices out there help here
    >> please. 
    
*    I like to think, on better days, that I can be a moderating voice.  And
*    I have find your notes to be rude, sarcastic, and not really worth the
*    effort it takes to hit next-unseen.
    
*    Of course, this might not be one of my better days ;^)...

    Maybe you would prefer me to be touchy feely. That is to bad. I have
    opinions and perceptions and I will express them whether you like it or
    not. I have that right. What I do not have a right to do is insult and
    or slander or harass an individual or group. If someone is
    uncomfortable with my words we can talk. But, that does not mean I will
    change them, I may or I may not. I WILL NOT BE ANYONES GOOD LITTLE BOY.
    If some of the noters out there have trouble dealing with an
    opinionated adult I suggest you take up gardening. I am a reasonable
    person but don't try subtle harassment on me I am not stupid.

Terza,

*   I cannot see requiring a person to remove a signoff phrase simply because
*   some people find it insulting.  I can see telling that person how you
*   feel about it, how it affects you.  If that person chooses to change the
*   signoff, or *compromise* on some middle territory, we could consider that
*   person understanding, and willing to work for "us," for "our
*   communications," but I certainly could not consider it "my victory, my
*   score."  I would consider it "our victory" and a step forward in "our"
*   communications -- our commitment to each other.  If that person made no
*   change whatsoever, I would consider it "our" loss, because we were not
*   able to reach an agreement.  

 	I said I would not sign off this way in this string but I don't
    hear anyone recognizing or admitting that I was understanding. All I have
    seen is posturing. It really seems that if a man has honey dripping all
    over his tongue he is welcome here but if he takes a different view the
    canons come out. I have no patience for the honey drippers or the
    people who use Gestapo tactics. I wish only fairness for all of us.


    		Follow the yellow brick road

    RE: .528  Roak

    > I'd like to know in general if we can define harassment, and
    > specifically, what people would like changed in the current
    > legal system (if anything) to deal with harassment.

    The whole concept of how much a person can be damaged by the sworn
    testimony of ONE sole accuser (with no physical evidence or witnesses
    to the harassment) is a tough issue.  As much as it bothers me to see
    most harassment cases unprovable, I'm not sure what changes in the
    legal system would improve this without infringing on someone's rights.

    One thing I would definitely like to see changed, though, is the way
    women are accused of "insanity" (or "not being able to distinguish
    fantasy from reality" the way the Senate Judiciary Comm. characterized
    Prof. Hill in the hearings) as an accepted part of the legal process
    in harassment cases.  It smacks of "Well, she's a woman, so we have
    to take it into consideration that she's somewhat naturally NUTTY."

    In Prof. Hill's case, accusing her of "fantasizing" was the only 
    effective way they could attempt to discredit her.  It was a cheap
    and shoddy ploy (and overtly sexist.)  Imagine the furor if Democrats
    had tried to discredit Thomas on some aspect of his race, OR had tried
    to imply that he was insane for not remembering the incidents (or that
    HE had fantasized his innocence.)
    
    If I had only ONE WISH about all this - I would wish the harassment
    of women at the work place would just stop!  It isn't just sexual
    harassment that is a problem for many women - SH is only the most
    shocking example of how some/many work environments are mildly or
    seriously hostile towards women (in one way or another.)
    
    Not ALL work environments have these other hostility problems - my
    own present group is a wonderful example of a great bunch of people
    who treat women as equals, even though hardware engineers who happen
    to be women are *vastly* outnumbered by the hardware engineers who 
    happen to be men in our group.  I'm lucky to be part of this group.
    
    I've seen other work environments that made work life HELL for the
    women there (in ways that were so numerous and subtle that it would
    take YEARS to explain it or to attempt to address it.) 
    
    It's all so doggone unnecessary (and such a waste of company resources
    and time.)  I hope that all the recent exposure of harassment will open
    some eyes in the business community (enough to take some real steps 
    towards making work environments better for everyone.)

    
    	By the way, some of the hostility directed towards women in
    	this string is an example of the attitudes that contribute
    	to the hostile work environments that some/many women face
    	in the workplace.
    
    	It may not erupt into overt screaming at women at work the 
    	way it's done to women here in the file, but some real life 
    	situations convey many of these same attitudes without the 
    	volume.
    

    IN response to the query "What needs to change in the legal system"?
    
    I'm not sure that more/new/different *laws* are the real need.  Taking
    issues of this sort to court is usually (still) a counter-productive
    way of dealing with discomforting behavior.  For egregious cases, the
    law we have seems adequate.
    
    What does seem to be needed is improvement in willingness to treat all
    people as competent, able individuals who deserve to have their work
    life be as hassle-free as is consistent with the *work* content of what
    needs to be accomplished.  A corollary of this need is for those who
    are the targets of harassing behavior to be taken seriously when they
    report it.  Some folks *are* more sensitive than others.  Some folks
    *do* have a lower threshold for teasing.  Some folks are less assertive
    in letting people know when they are hurt.  But those folks deserve to
    have the opportunity to do their best work just as much as those who
    have the hide of a rhinocerous or the self-image/esteem that enables
    them to be directly confrontive.  :-)  In a lot of ways, it is another
    difference which deserves to be recognized, valued, and merged into the
    work place.
    
    Alison   

            <<< Note 1004.531 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    In Prof. Hill's case, accusing her of "fantasizing" was the only 
>    effective way they could attempt to discredit her.  

	I don't agree that it was the only effective method that could
	have been employed. There were others but they would have been
	FAR worse in attacking Prof. Hill directly. The Senators took
	an "easy" (compared to other methods) way out (look at MY suprise).

>It was a cheap
>    and shoddy ploy (and overtly sexist.)  

	We actually agree on something.

>treat women as equals, 

	This IS the goal, after all.

Jim

    Today Clarence Thomas was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the
    Supreme Court of the United States.  The news-bite I heard went on to
    say that he couldn't join the other Justices in hearing cases until
    he'd taken a 'second judicial oath' possibly as soon as next week.
    
    Does anyone have information on this two-phase process?  Is there a
    reason that both oaths can't be administered at once?
    
    Not that I'm in a hurry to have him sitting in and contributing ... I'm
    just curious about this wrinkle.
    
      Annie

    RE: .534  Jim
    
    >> treat women as equals, 

    > This IS the goal, after all.
    
    Of course!  This is why I'm so lucky to be in my present group
    (as I stated.)
    
    It will be wonderful when the rest of our culture catches up to
    this standard.
    

    updating .535 [two oaths]
    
    OK, the Constitutional Oath is what Justice Thomas took yesterday.
    
    The Judicial Oath is scheduled for 1-November.
    
    The reason for the delay is that Chief Justice Rehnquist's wife died
    and he won't be available for several days.
    
    Annie

            <<< Note 1004.536 by CSC32::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
>        -< Much work remains to reach this goal on a cultural level... >-

	No doubt. 

Jim

    Reuter's polled judges around the nation to get their opinions
    on Thomas/Hill.  The majority (almost 60%) believed Hill and thought
    that Thomas was guilty (approx. 20% believed Thomas, 20% couldn't say.)

    I have waited.
    I still have 200+ replies in this string to go over before I get to
    the end.  Please forgive me if any of this is redundant.  I will
    retract/rewrite it if I find redundacies within the next 200 replies.
    
    I have a few perspectives that I do not think have been mentioned here.
    It was pointed out elswhere that some of these factors were PAINFULLY
    missing from the majority discussion.
    
    1- Within some cultures, it is in STRONGLY bad form to discuss
    improprieties performed by members of that culture.  It is even more
    TABU than oridinary reports.  To do so is oftimes considered a
    betrayal, not just of the man, but of the RACE. Hill was not just
    risking her professional standing, her entire social, and racial
    standing was on the line. The stigma associated with it has been
    enough to keep some women quiet for generations. Ten years is a drop
    in the hat relative to that.
    
    2- Now that the fate is decided, I have a question that I am hoping
    will not be TABU for me within this form.  There are individuals that
    claim that Anita Hill's testimony is not sufficent illustration of
    Lance's possibly disturbing views towards women and SH.  I will grant,
    that if you were to base your opinions on that alone, you could, out
    of ignorance, still hold strong faith in him.
    
    However, I am at a loss to understand how ANYONE could ignore segments
    of testimony given by CT on friday night.  CT allowed a man to remain
    employed for 11months AFTER it had been proven that the man MASTURBATED
    in front of up to 12 female employees at the work place.  When
    questioned why he allowed the man to stay for almost a year to retire
    with benefits, Thomas only remarked that he thought the guy was a
    veteran.
    
    Apparently for him, veteran over-rides playing with oneself at the work
    place.
    
    When asked if he thought that might have made the environment difficult
    for the female employees there, he just said that there were other
    factors involved.  The man was the head of the EEOC, but could only
    point lamely to some mystery "other factors" that kept him, with all
    of his power, from removing a proven offender.  
    
    Did no one else see this as a potentially lax attitude towards SH?
    
    3.- One only writes down what has happened, or is happening, IMO,
    once one has officially decided that they will go OUTSIDE of the
    immediate individual to try to rectify the problem.  If one has not
    decided to do that, there is no real purpose for a log. You and
    the concerned party KNOW what has transpired.  Only a third party
    would need a log to show the happenings.  If Hill did not decide
    to go over his head if she had to (and there was not much room there
    I might add) she would have, subsequently, no reason to log it.
    
    4.- Why call him after the fact? She had already paid the price
    of silence.  She traded her job prospects and racial harmony for having 
    to deal with the garbage he doled out. An occasional call can be 
    a residual for those job prospects.  Also, the semblance of civility
    can prevent one from appearing bitter or hatefully.  Life can be
    hell in the workplace for a woman considered to be bitter or
    hatefull.
    
    Cindi   

>CT allowed a man to remain
>    employed for 11months AFTER it had been proven that the man MASTURBATED
>    in front of up to 12 female employees at the work place.  When
>    questioned why he allowed the man to stay for almost a year to retire
>    with benefits, Thomas only remarked that he thought the guy was a
>    veteran.

 That is not my recollection of that testimony at all. At least, that is
not what I would consider to be an unbiased representation of the testimony
(at this point a transcript would be very useful for sorting out differences
in recollection.) 

 As I recall, Thomas could not summarily fire the man because he was entitled
to additional safeguards against dismissal due to the fact that he was a
veteran. In all actuality, Clarence Thomas did not have the authority to
dismiss the man. I think it is unfair to berate him for somehting he could not
legally do. Now the question remains whether he could have initiated the
long string of proceedings necessary to dismiss the man- and I don't recall
why this did not happen. There is potentially some interesting stuff in there.

 The Doctah

    As part of my recollection.
    
    THOMAS INITIATED that string with a letter to the man's supervisor
    REQUESTING THAT HE BE FIRED.  He was the HEAD of the organization.
    It was 11 months AFTER that letter that the man was finally let go.
    Although he was the HEAD of the organization, he claims that there
    were "complications" but did not bother to share those complications
    with us.  Any "complications" that could prevent the head of the
    organization from removing an open house putz puller for almost a
    year, I would think should at least have been shared IN DEPTH with
    us. He did not, however, deign to.
    
    It was Lance's JOB.  If I left a customer down for 11 months after
    I determined he was down, they would not make me head of Customer
    Support. Thomas did, what to me, is at least the equivalent for
    his job and they made him SCJ.
    
    I am quite shocked at the number of people that ignored this.
    
    Cindi 

    Cindi, my recollection matches yours (perhaps we're both fantasizing,
    you know how women are).  
    
    Sue

         <<< Note 1004.542 by NECSC::BARBER_MINGO "Funky Sensation" >>>
    
>    THOMAS INITIATED that string with a letter to the man's supervisor
>    REQUESTING THAT HE BE FIRED.  He was the HEAD of the organization.
>    It was 11 months AFTER that letter that the man was finally let go.
>    Although he was the HEAD of the organization, he claims that there
>    were "complications" but did not bother to share those complications
>    with us.  Any "complications" that could prevent the head of the
>    organization from removing an open house putz puller for almost a
>    year, I would think should at least have been shared IN DEPTH with
>    us. He did not, however, deign to.
 
	You must remember that Thomas was not "sharing" with us (the general
	public) he was answering questions for the Committee. Given the
	terribly convoluted process of firing someone with a civil service
	rating, I'm not suprised that it would take nearly a year to terminate
	the jerk. I would guess that Thomas did not elaborate because the
	Senators were quite familiar with the problem of civil service
	protections AND terminations (even for cause). The fact that they
	did not ask him to clarify also seems to point in this direction.

Jim

    There were discrepancies in Thomas' testimony that I wish he had been
    questioned on.  He said that several times he drove Anita Hill home
    and then went into her apartment to continue their discussion and
    to have a coke (he certainly has a thing for coke); he said that it was
    perfectly proper because her roommate was present.  Her roommate says
    that these visits never happened, that Thomas was only in their
    apartment once, shortly after Hill was hired, that the visit was brief,
    uncomfortable and never repeated.  They had people who barely knew
    Anita Hill, like the Amazing Doggett, testifying about their opinions
    of her emotional stability but they didn't bother to bring in Hill's
    roommate who could contradict Thomas.
    
    Also, Thomas said he made a point of keeping his personal and
    professional lives separate (this doesn't jive with his saying
    he liked to drink coke in Hill's kitchen with her and her roommate,
    but, hey! ).  However, at least two of the women who worked for
    Thomas and testified in support said that they had close personal
    friendships with Thomas, that he discussed with them the pain of his 
    divorce, his son, the women he was dating. 
    
    Anita Hill's testimony was said to be inconsistent because she gave
    more details to the Senate then she gave to the FBI, yet Thomas was
    never questioned about inconsistencies.  Why were there two standards
    used?
    
    Sue
      

    re: .544
    
    The fact that the Senate did not ask Thomas to clarify doesn't
    point to the complexity of the matter as much as it points
    to how soft they were questioning him. 
    
    Sue

    
    	The Senate Judiciary Committee was *very* soft on Thomas - and
    	who could blame them after Thomas reminded them he's black and
    	called the proceeding a "high-tech lynching."
    
    	I thought Thomas was conservative and very critical of the idea
    	of making race "an issue."  Perhaps he only thinks it's proper
    	when HE does it.
    
    	Prof. Hill didn't tell the Senate Judiciary Committee they were
    	"raping" her, or anything.  She didn't make her race OR sex an
    	issue.
    
    	It's a sad episode, all in all.

    Re .544-
    
    On the other hand, a woman who called a fellow co-worker a faggot
    was released with haste. It did not take 11 months to get rid of her.
    
    He seems to have had no problems with those "well known civil service"
    difficulties in her case.
    
    So, is it the fact that she was a woman that made it easier to get
    around those lengthy pieces of civil service red tape? 
    Had she been a veteran, would she have gotten to stay until
    retirement?
    ... or, is calling a man a faggot, in the opinions and actions
    of our fine man CT, a more motivating offense that wanking off
    in the work place?
    
    These questions all come up for me. You had a good defense there,
    if it hadn't been for two things. They DID ask him why it took
    him so long, a couple of times, but just like with many other things,
    he just didn't ANSWER them.  The second thing is there is a discrepency 
    in his treatment of the situations and actions between men and women, 
    that for me, made him HIGHLY suspect (to be kind).

    Yet another thing that I found bizarre about the hearings:  Orrin
    Hatch kept going on and on about how hideous Hill's charges were, 
    how the actions she alleged were beyond comprehension by any sane
    person, how anyone who had said such things belonged in a "mental
    hospital."  Obviously, the life experience of a male senator
    is very different from my own.  Since I was twelve years
    old, I've heard men yelling similar things from their cars, from
    construction sites.  Surely, they weren't all escapees from
    institutions?
    
    And then Thomas, who friends have reported sometimes relaxes
    by watching porno movies, agreed with ol' Orrin that such
    things were truly horrifying, that a man would have to be an insane
    pervert to behave in such a way.    BOING! BOGGLE!  
    
    The thing of it is, I don't think what Thomas is alleged to have
    done and said is all that unusual or disgusting.  If someone I
    knew casually said such things I would think he was a crass boor
    but I wouldn't think he was crazy.  What was wrong about the behavior
    Hill alleged was that it was done by someone with power to a
    woman who depended on him for her job.   
    
    Sue

    	Orrin Hatch's logic was amazing - 
    
    		A man would have to be insane to say such things...
    		No one is accusing Clarence Thomas of being insane
    		  (and we all know he isn't insane...)
    		Someone *is* accusing Prof. Hill of fantasizing...
    
    		Therefore, Thomas could *not possibly* have said
    		  these things...
    		Prof. Hill must have just fantasized them...
    
    	His argument was pretty hideous in itself.

    From what I've read, most of the public support for Thomas has
    come from the blue collar class, not the professional class.  
    Consistent with this, I heard a report that Thomas has very little 
    support among college-educated blacks.  Why would this be?  
    
    Sue  

                     <<< Note 1004.546 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

>    The fact that the Senate did not ask Thomas to clarify doesn't
>    point to the complexity of the matter as much as it points
>    to how soft they were questioning him. 
 
	I wasn't refering to the complexity of the process, just the 
	Senator's familiarity with civil service regulations.

Jim

   
    Sue

    
    	A recent survey of Judges indicates that 60% or so believed
    	Prof. Hill's testimony - so Thomas doesn't have widespread
    	support among people in his own "profession" either.
    

         <<< Note 1004.548 by NECSC::BARBER_MINGO "Funky Sensation" >>>

>    On the other hand, a woman who called a fellow co-worker a faggot
>    was released with haste. It did not take 11 months to get rid of her.
 
	How long did it take? Was she civil service? Please note that
	Anita Hill's civil service rating would have made her very
	difficult (if not impossible) to fire. So it might have more
	to do with the job someone has rather than their gender.

Jim 

    re: .553
    
    well, one would think the Senate was also familiar with the
    status of level A employees within the civil service yet that
    didn't stop them from going on and on about that.   Could it
    be that the level A thing helped Thomas and the not firing the
    masturbator hurt him?  could that possibly be why it wasn't gone
    into?  but no, shame on me for suggesting such a thing, we all
    know how the Senate was only motivated be a desire for truth,
    justice and the American way, and weren't into shoddy things like
    making sure Bush's choice got on the Supreme Court no matter what.
    
    Sue
    

>    THOMAS INITIATED that string with a letter to the man's supervisor
>    REQUESTING THAT HE BE FIRED. 

 Yes, I remember now. How is it you find fault with Clarence Thomas for this 
action? Requesting that someone be fired from their job for pulling out their
penis is coddling, right? How come he didn't take it upon himself to cut
it off?

>    It was 11 months AFTER that letter that the man was finally let go.

 This is clearly Thomas' fault, right? he should have been shown the door
before he even had a chance to put it away, and civil service protections be 
damned, right?

>    On the other hand, a woman who called a fellow co-worker a faggot
>    was released with haste. It did not take 11 months to get rid of her.
    
>    He seems to have had no problems with those "well known civil service"
>    difficulties in her case.

 She was not the same classification of employee and did not have the same 
type of protections afforded her. He had the power to summarily fire her. But
as Ann said, he only fired her for not putting out. Or maybe it was that
she wasn't good enough. Or maybe she didn't share the appropriate perversions.
The sky's the limit, right?

 You seem to be ignoring facts that are not helpful to your case. 

 Nothing like some good old fashioned dehumanizing demonization...

    There is no record that Angela Wright was fired for calling
    someone a faggot.  According to Thomas' secretary, Wright was let
    go because she did not pass her bar exam in the time given her.
    The only one who said Wright called someone a faggot was Clarence
    Thomas, who had good reason for discrediting her.  
    
    Sue

>but no, shame on me for suggesting such a thing, we all
>    know how the Senate was only motivated be a desire for truth,
>    justice and the American way, and weren't into shoddy things like
>    making sure Bush's choice got on the Supreme Court no matter what.

 Biden's, Kennedy's, Metzenbaum's, and Heflin's vested interest in getting
Thomas confirmed was painfully obvious, wasn't it?

    re: .559
    
    not to me.  Biden's et al vested interest in keeping their jobs was.

    As chairman of the committee, Biden was the one responsible for
    not bringing the Hill charges to light earlier.  I think the rest
    of the hearings were a mad scrambling by Biden to make himself
    look good.  Kennedy was obviously hampered by his and his family's
    reputation as womanizers.  Howell has a large black constituency
    he didn't want to alienate.  And Metzenbaum's almost as old as
    Strom Thurmond.  I thought the Hill defense was virtually non-existent.

    Some columnist said that the Democrats acted like judges, the
    Republicans like prosecuters.  
    
    Which left Hill with no defense.

>    not to me.  Biden's et al vested interest in keeping their jobs was.

 How so? How would bringing Thomas down cost the democrats their jobs?

>    As chairman of the committee, Biden was the one responsible for
>    not bringing the Hill charges to light earlier.

 I have asked this question at least a half-dozen times and have yet to receive
an answer. [No implication that I asked Sue this question a half dozen times]

 In light of the fact that Hill's testimony was predicated on her anonymity,
what should Biden have done to "bring the charges to light"?

                     <<< Note 1004.556 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

>    well, one would think the Senate was also familiar with the
>    status of level A employees within the civil service yet that
>    didn't stop them from going on and on about that.   Could it
>    be that the level A thing helped Thomas and the not firing the
>    masturbator hurt him?  

Sue,	The level A "thing" most certainly helped Thomas, but only because
	Hill claimed that she feared she would be fired if she charged
	Thomas openly with harrassment. Her status as a Level A civil
	service employee made this virtually impossible, so she was
	either an incompetent lawyer or she lied about her motivations
	and I noticed that none of the witnesses (on either side) ever 
	questioned her ability as an attorney.

	I merely submitted that the masturbator may have also been in 
	a civil service protected job and that this, not some dark plot
	to protect those that practiced SH, was the reason for the length
	of the process.

Jim

    I find fault with Thomas for stopping at the letter.
    If there exist codes that allow veteran status to take precedence
    over personal exposure, I believe, as EEOC honcho that he was, he 
    should have taken it to task.  He could have, at the hearing, also
    expounded on how INTENSELY he took it to task. I wanted him to explain
    how he STRUGGLED for 11 whole months to get a true pervert out of
    the office.  However, when initially brought up, he claimed he didn't
    even really remember the guy, or the situation.  It didn't sound
    like he was working very hard to take care of it, or modify the policy
    while he was the man in charge of doing so. That is what I find fault
    with.  He wrote the letter, and let the same old mill keep the
    guy in place for a year.  Then he didn't remember that it happened.
    I guess it just wasn't very important to him.
    
    So far, I haven't seen any comparison of the sicko's status.  There
    was no indication from Thomas whatsoever as to what that status was.
    There was also no mention of how his status differed from that of
    Wright.  You have stated that I have ignored these facts.  As far
    as I saw. THOMAS DID NOT PRESENT THESE FACTS!  If he had, it may
    have served as some mitigating factor in my considerations.  I would
    be very interested in seeing where YOU got these "facts" from also.
    It is obvious that you appear to believe it, however, I personally
    did not see it in the testimony.  Is there some news paper article
    that you might point me too?... or are you quoting a known personelle
    policy that protects sexual offenders if they are veterans?
    
    Cindi
    
    P.S.- Re: Why didn't he cut it off himself? I don't know.  He could
    have at least slammed it in a desk drawer or file cabinet.  However,
    it is probable that the guy didn't play with it where Thomas could
    reach it. Thomas probably wasn't alluring enough.

>You have stated that I have ignored these facts.  As far
>    as I saw. THOMAS DID NOT PRESENT THESE FACTS! 

 Do you have the transcripts from the friday night testimony? Me neither, but
I remember clearly that Thomas testified that the reason for the length of
the process was due to the perpetrator's civil service classification (which
afforded him a significant level of protection) coupled with his veteran's 
status (which gave him additional protections against dismissal.)

 Now you can take this with a grain of salt since I forgot that Thomas had 
indeed initiated proceedings to get the guy dismissed, or you can accept it,
but perhaps the most compelling thing to do would be to obtain a copy of
the transcripts or find someone who had the foresight to tape the testimony.

 Frankly, the continual bellyaching at what is a done deal is really getting
on my nerves.

    RE: .566  The Doctah
    
    > Frankly, the continual bellyaching at what is a done deal is really 
    > getting on my nerves.
    
    Clarence Thomas would love it, too, if we'd all just forget the whole
    thing.
    
    No way.
    

    
    	By the way, I can't remember if anyone has mentioned this before...
    	(or if I did, even.)
    
    	One real clue into how Thomas views women was when he was asked
    	to describe Prof. Hill's behavior when he worked with her, and
    	he said she often had "temper tantrums" that had to be smoothed
    	over.
    
    	I was shocked that he would use that phrase in a serious way about
    	an adult and that the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't call him
    	on it.
    
    	Then again, he was talking about a woman (and they knew it) rather
    	than a "real" adult.
    
    	Sickening!

    Also, 
    it is not a done deal, as you have put it.
    
    The remnants of this fiasco will be around to plague our offspring.
    
    For any sons, it may not be so bad.
    
    However, we can start moaning now for the plight of our daughters.
    They will have to bear the brunt of the rulings and opinions
    handed down by this man.
    
    Cindi
    

    Re .566-
    As is my nature, I shall return to the libraries of BU, and Harvard
    to see if transcripts are possible.  
    
    My husband was telling me that one of the people that was sitting
    behind Hill is a professor at the law school.  I guess we could
    ask him.
    
    Should I retrieve anything, I will inform you ASAP.
    
    Cindi
    

    Re - File cabinet for offending member.
    
    Can you see how that complaint might go?
    "Well I was sitting at my desk pulling my pud when this black
    guy just walked over and closed the drawer on it!  I wanted to
    complain. That is such an awful thing to do. .. Especially with
    me being a veteran and all! So I went to complain. But they
    sent me to the head of the EEOC. .. and HE WAS THE GUY.  Imagine
    him assaulting a veteran that way!"
    
    Who would he give this complaint to?
    
    The president I guess.
    
    Can you see it?
    
    Cindi

    re: .572
    
    loved it! :-) :-)

    I'm still cracking up picturing this guy making his complaint
    to Reagan the Senile.   "Um, now what was it that he mashed
    in the drawer?"  

    No doubt the senate lost their, ahem, e*******s, once Clarence used
    the l-word (lynch).  This showed us what kind of man he is; he who
    doesn't want anyone else to benefit from AA, doesn't mind bringing
    out the dirty words to benefit himself.  The senate really failed Hill;
    they could have quickly put the matter back on track; that is, this
    is sexual harrassment folks, not racism.  But they didn't.  So in
    essence, we women are lynched.  Or at least, sent back to our kitchens,
    back alleys, and typewriters.
    
    I also wonder just how ethical it was of Bush to be standing there on
    the golf course and breaking in every few hours, to assure the world,
    that  he is on Clarence's side.  Perhaps he could have at least
    listened to both sides before  he made his decision?  But then again,
    since when does ethics or honesty or fairness come into consideration
    when we're dealing with this administration.
    
    Maia
    

    re: .564
    
    Jim,
    I think the level A employee status was discussed at the point some 
    senators were trying to prove that Hill could have stayed at the
    dept. of Education if she chose, not as a reason why Hill could have 
    filed harassment charges against Thomas and not feel threatened.  
    
    The level A status for civil service people, as I understand it, 
    means that ultimately you work for the civil service, 
    not for the person who hired you. This distinguishes them from 
    political appointments.  However, level A civil service people can 
    still be fired for various reasons, including not performing their 
    jobs well.  Hill said she feared that if she were more vocal about 
    Thomas that she might be fired for not doing her job well; that was 
    why she kept a record of her work.
    
    As for Hill filing charges of harassment against Thomas, there are
    several reasons why this would have been difficult.  One reason is
    that in the early '80's the rules about what constituted harassment
    were narrow, it had to involve physical contact not solely verbal
    abuse.  Another reason is that as head of the EEOC the only people
    above Thomas who could be complained to were the president and a
    senate committee responsible for the EEOC.
    
   re: .563
    
    Mark,
    I think that Biden could have investigated the allegation
    thoroughly even if Hill asked for anonymity.  If his investigations
    warranted, he could have asked Hill to appear in a private session
    before the committee.
    
    Sue
    

                     <<< Note 1004.576 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

    
>    The level A status for civil service people, as I understand it, 
>    means that ultimately you work for the civil service, 
>    not for the person who hired you. 

	Yes, and civil service personnel can be fired, but it is 
	not a quick nor easy process.

>One reason is
>    that in the early '80's the rules about what constituted harassment
>    were narrow, it had to involve physical contact not solely verbal
>    abuse.  

	Does this mean, that under the law, what Thomas was accused of
	was NOT SH?

>Another reason is that as head of the EEOC the only people
>    above Thomas who could be complained to were the president and a
>    senate committee responsible for the EEOC.
 
	The EEOC did not have an office to investigate SH charges?

   
>    I think that Biden could have investigated the allegation
>    thoroughly even if Hill asked for anonymity.  

	You mean like maybe getting the FBI to conduct field interviews
	with the parties involved?


Jim

>    I think that Biden could have investigated the allegation
>    thoroughly even if Hill asked for anonymity.

 What happened? The FBI investigated the allegations at the committee's
behest. The senators on the committee examined the report. How much more
thoroughly should they have "investigated" the allegation? What other
agency or group of people should have gotten involved? In what manner?

>If his investigations
>    warranted, he could have asked Hill to appear in a private session
>    before the committee.

 And what if the investigations didn't warrant? I cannot escape the 
conclusion that what constitutes a complete investigation is what amounts
to a conviction of Thomas of the allegations, that anything short of
everyone nodding their heads in agreement that Thomas "harassed" Prof. Hill
is ipso facto an incomplete investigation. 

 The Doctah

    .578=
    As for the Hill part.
    
    Anything that, if the public is aware of it, warrants a full formal
    hearing and delay of vote, is probably important enough to have
    warranted a hearing in the first place.
    
    If the press had not heard, the men would have nodded in agreement
    that it wasn't that bad, probably wasn't really founded, and shouldn't
    be dug into during the hearings.  It was only after WOMEN heard about
    it and expressed their dismay, that the men considered their votes
    over their previous dismissal.  All things being even, anything would
    have been handled the same in private as it was in public.  However,
    that was obviously not the case.
    
    As long as no one but a crew of men, and their staff knew about
    it, it did not warrant investigation on the stand.
    
    It kind of makes some feel like there was a set of hidden rules
    that were only upset by the leak.  I would have liked it all to
    come out (Hill, the pud puller, etc.) in the original hearings.
    However, men that we elected, decided in private, that it wasn't
    worth it.  They would have continued along those lines, hopelessly
    out of step with more than half of the populace, had one of
    them not let their constituents know what was going on.
    
    What more investigation was needed?  Not much more than eventually was
    done.  However, it should have been put out THE FIRST TIME THROUGH.
    
    JMO,
    Cindi