So, um, could you apologize to my husband for something from 20 years ago? No reason.

I didn't see her credibility demolished at all from this video and remembering the case in 1991, I don't recall feeling that way then either. Her credibility remained intact as far as I was concerned and Clarence Thomas was proven to be a pig, like so many before and after him. What happened between them, the various things she claimed that he said, was common, every day crap many working women had to contend with.

Thanks for finding that, GW.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Perhaps some guru---Oprah?---encouraged Mrs. Thomas to "make a list of ten good deeds to do before the end of the year", or something of that nature. Around item number seven, Mrs. Thomas began to struggle coming up with anything good. But eventually, she started brushing up against the deadline she'd set herself for making the list. So she panicked and pulled this "Make Anita Hill apologize to Clarence" thing out of her nose---or some body cavity of that nature.

It seems that most side with Ms Hill on this.

Kinda makes me wonder where Finn would be on this, or Gob1, or ... .

That's what made me think it's some self-help or self-improvement thing. At one point in the HBO series Six Feet Under, a weird self-help cult called The Plan encourages its followers to contact people from their past and tell them: "I forgive you." This ends up upsetting some protagonists of the series, who don't think that the acts they're being forgiven for had been wrongful in the first place. So, perhaps The Plan has a basis in reality that Mrs. Thomas adheres to? Her out-of-left-field voice message, left at 7:30 in the morning when it was clear that nobody would take her call, has exactly the same feel to it as the I-forgive-you episodes on Six Feet Under.

Mrs Thomas really isn't doing her husband a favor by dredging this stuff up again. Now everyone's being reminded of just what Anita Hill said about him. Is this what she wanted to accomplish?

I never bought Anita's story hook, line and sinker. When somebody shows up at a confirmation hearing, having had years to complain about alleged improprieties,... I cast a wary eye. She was used by Democrats, and obviously made gravy from her story. Coulda been partially accurate, coulda been completely accurate. If I was Thomas' wife and believed he was innocent, I might write a book, might add my opinion on a lecture tour, but this phone call was embarrassing.

Casting a wary eye is always fair, Lash, but I think that you forget that at that time, women didn't come dancing out to relate these events. That's probably even more so for a woman of color.



If it was even partially accurate, she wasn't used by anyone. It should have come out. How did she "make gravy"?

Here's the crux of the biscuit:



Her credibility is to a large extent established by how common the behavior she alleged against him was then (and probably largely still is). We all know this, and the men here know this, too--whether or not they are honest enough to admit it.

Jesus, I hope it was more than that. Noted that that suffices for you, Setanta.

I really thought his secretaries' testimony, including the one that kept a record of incoming messages was persuasive.

JTT - her notoriety from the hearings made her very wealthy,...c'mon. And, you do know that both sides of the aisle regularly beat the bushes trying to find anything they can on unfavorable nominees to the court. Certainly, she was in cahoots with the Democrats... A woman of color wouldn't have any more problem than the man of color she was accusing...and frankly - in the climate of attention toward sexual harassment on the job, she'd likely have had a red carpet rolled out for her.

I don't recall it. Can you give me a recap?

You got a source for that?

She wrote a book based on her role in the hearings...and was a popular speaker - also owing to her famous 15 minutes of fame. I feel safe assuming she didn't do it for free. But, no. I do not have a list of how much she profited.

Not the first time Virginia asked for an apology. She did so in 2007 when Clarence's published his autobiography.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/03/anita_hill_stung_by_justices_book_stands_by_story/

I don't know that, Lash. It's not like I followed it much at all. From this thread, I haven't seen that there was much in the way one way or the other as to hard facts; Roger put out a teaser of sorts.

The alleged incidents place during the 1980's. His confirmation hearings took place in 1991. The concept of 'sexual harrassment' on the job was not as clearcut nor as punishable as today. A woman's choices were very limited back then. Either you played along with whatever the boys dished out, you complained and became a victim of even worse treatment, oftentimes from fellow women in the workplace, or you quit.

Remember, she didn't shove her way to the microphone to complain about him. All of this came out when she was interviewed during his confirmation process and then called to testify.

And I dare say she became wealthy. Maybe she made a few bucks, but I highly doubt she came anywhere near wealthy.

Offers. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/13/us/anita-hill-plans-to-leave-teaching-post-in-oklahoma.html
I wonder if anyone would argue that her earning power was greatly enhanced by her role in the hearings.

I'm sorry for being anal about it, but you're moving your goalposts now. Your original claim was that "her notoriety from the hearings made her very wealthy,...c'mon." In other words, you confidently claimed that she was, in fact, getting rich, and insinuated that JTT was being dense for not knowing that. Now you're backtracking to "feel[ing] safe assuming she didn't do it for free". And by your own admission, you don't even have a source for the statement you're now backtracking to.

To be fair, "I feel safe in assuming" two things:

1. You're repeating 'facts' about Anita Hill that 'everybody knew' in the reactionary Georgia circles you'd been forced to live in during the nineties, and
2. You never revisited these 'facts' since then.

I encourage you to research the 'facts' you think you know now, or whenever you get a chance. Usually, people in your situation eventually trace them back to a book by David Brock: The Real Anita Hill (1994). Brock has since retracted the book, apologized for it, and described it as part of a coordinated attempt by Karl Rove's hit-men to character-assassinate Anita Hill. For details, see David Brock: Blinded By the Right (2003) and The Republican Noise Machine (2005).

Anita Hill was the victim of a systematic Republican campaign to assassinate her character. Her book (1998) merely responds to it. I suggest that you stop repeating the claims of this campaign uncritically.