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

Of course her earning power was enhanced because of the notoriety. But I don't see anything in this article that's close to 'wealthy', as you stated.

"wealthy" wouldn't make no nevermind anyway, would it, Eoe. Is a person supposed to stop the profits from a book after "comfortable", maybe give the rest to charity. It's a thought, but not a necessity.

My point is simply that the woman did not become wealthy as stated.

I think we may have different ideas about how much money constitutes "wealthy." She was plucked from relative obscurity for the lecture circuit and at least one posh professorship (Berkeley) that she wouldn't have been considered for previous to her political appearance against Thomas.

Did she have no friend she'd told back in the day - no journal entry of these incidents by Thomas?

What is your evidence that Berkeley wouldn't have considered her for the professorship without the Clarence-Thomas affair?

Thomas - she profited to a condition I consider wealth due to her role in the hearings. She wrote a book, and was popular on the lecture circuit, and was offered swanky professorships directly due to her testimony. I'm not backing away from that assertion, though I can't find her fee or her portion of proceeds from her book,.. I am confident the money/gifts/opportunities she enjoyed due to the hearings is at least a few hundred thousand dollars - and that, to me, is wealthy.

My point is that she made money from the experience - and yes, I do think it's common knowledge.

It may be common, but it's not knowledge. You are regurgitating fabrications made up in a deliberate, long-exposed smear campaign. And you're repeating them uncritically. But, be my guest. I can only lead the horse to the trough, but....

I'd say wealthy means you never have to work another day in your life. As far as I know, she's still working.

Other people in the office did speak up. I seem to recall one woman in particular saying that the incidents Anita Hill spoke of did indeed take place but she herself never considered it harrassment. One womans' claim of harassment is just the usual fun and games to another, I suppose.

That kind of nasty talk and free and loose environment was so common back in the day, it was hardly worth a journal entry, but when questioned about it by officials, and the clown is now up for appointment to the SUPREME COURT, you have to ask yourself, is he really someone you want to see in that position, knowing how juvenile and foul he really is?

Just think about some of the assholes you may have worked for. While you may not report their foolishness to the police, would you really like to see them elevated to such a highly respected position of power?

I wouldn't.

You seem to be asserting that she didn't make money due to her role in the hearings - and that my assertion that she did is a "smear."

The reason I say she wouldn't have been offered the Berkeley spot is because she worked in contract law until the hearings - and suddenly all her offers (including the one from Berkeley) were based in the "social change", "womens' rights", "racial" areas.

I do welcome you questioning anything I present as fact. I'm just puzzled as to what you seem to be refuting.

Yeah, we have a different view of wealthy. But, I do agree with your post. It is likely really difficult to say the same thing to two women - one laughs and gives as good as she gets - and the other one tries to crucify you in Congressional Hearings... I don't know... if it wasn't important enough for a journal entry - it sure became important later... But, this is all second guessing. It's a big He Said/ She Said... I just never completely believed either of them.

I am not.


No. The regurgitated smear is that she got "very rich" from her role in the hearings.


That's fair enough evidence if your only claim is that she wouldn't have gotten this particular position at Berkeley. If, however, your claim is that Berkeley wouldn't have offered her any position without the affair, you need better evidence than that. When the Clarence-Thomas affair started, Hill had for six years been a law professor in good standing at the University of Oklahoma. It wouldn't have been an unusual career step from there to Berkeley, Brandeis, or other universities of that caliber.

You always make me laugh.

I think that this part of the hearing was an attempt to show that Hill phoned Thomas several times long after the incidents took place. This cast a shadow on Hill's testimony because a victim of harassment would supposedly not be calling the man who harrassed her. The phone calls to Thomas happened after Hill was no longer working for him.

I remember watching those hearings. Anita Hill was outted by an old friend or co-worker who remembered Anita complaining that the remarks and behavior of Thomas toward her made her uncomfortable. She did not willingly go to testify, she was obligated because she was called and you don't refuse the Senate's request, unless you are BP.

She did not offer her story, she tried to distance herself. Arlen Spector and some of the other Senators spoke to her like she was a common crack whore. The women I used to work with were pissed at the way she was treated. I think it is very difficult for some men to believe these stories because they would never dream in a million years that a man would speak in such a disresptful and unwelcome way.

When it gets down to brass tacks, women learn early what happens if you cry foul everytime someone treats you offensively. In 1980, We had a young Army Sgt. who thought he could pinch the breasts of the Air Force women he outranked. One of the lucky gals told her flight commander about it, he was called in and frankly he could have made it a he said-she said situation and possibly avoid any problems, but nooooooo, the Idiot Sgt. became outraged that some worthless (fill in any vulgar insult usually reserved for women)would dare complain about him and became so abusive and agressive with his superiors, the Army yanked his clearance and he was back painting rocks at Fort Meade.

If that sounds like a success story, think again. The rest of the men, civilian and military began treating the Air Force woman like a pyriah. Life was miserable there for her until she left for her next tour. She was only about 20 back then, I'm pretty sure she made a career out of the Air Force, but I've lost track. But the lesson was not lost on the young military women who worked there at the time.

Anita Hill was not a publicity seeking slut like those women who keep popping up claiming they had a meaningful relationship with Tigar Woods. She is a bright, polished professional who was unfortunately scrutinized by a bunch of jerks who appeared to actually enjoy the uncomfortable questions they asked her. I have a close friend I've known since we both started with DOD and she called today to say WTF. My friend is more conservative than I am, but she was the one who reminded me of Arlen Spectors' treatment of Anita Hill, and the video clip was a painful reminder.

Mrs. Thomas is making an ass out of herself and I see no good thing coming out of this.

But thank you for the laugh out loud of the day, the idea that Professors are wealthy. If my brother-in-law was still alive, he would enjoy the idea of that, he was an English professor at Tulane. In fact I think I just heard him chuckle.

Glitterbag I read somewhere that Mrs. Thomas was shikker when she made the call. Alcohol a good excuse?

No, it was not "several times". They also testified they knew of no such harassment, either to themselves or to others. My own office experience convinces me these are the people in the best position to know what is happening.

Could he have been the perfect gentleman to every one except Hill? It's possible. Doesn't sound likely, but it's possible.

Well maybe not a good excuse, but I guess a possible reason. I just don't understand why she would do it!!!!! Most younger people have never heard of Anita Hill, and I think Anita Hill likes it that way. Someone said the call came in at 7 A.M, I hate to think she was liquored up by 11 in the morning in D.C. That unusual even for the House of Representatives. Well I at least hope she doesn't commit herself to some rehab facility and claim the devil made her do while possessed by demon rum. Just once it would be nice to hear, 'wow, I really screwed the pooch on that one'.

If your brother the Tulane English professor were among us, perhaps he may tell you to read again and this time more carefully. No one suggested professors are wealthy.

Had he been offered a few professorships, and was paid thousands of dollars just to speak - and was asked to repeat this lucrative deal around the country, ...and wrote a book, I'd consider that a pretty sweet gig.

I am happy for you that misreading and misunderstanding is all it takes to make you laugh...but sort of sorry for you that it was the laugh of your day. Hope you have a better day tomorrow.

At the end of the hearings, I felt it was possible to give Clarence Thomas "the benefit of the doubt."

Not me, wandeljw.

Mrs. Thomas left the voicemail at 7:31am (or was it 7:29am??). Either way, it was way early and in pondering what could move her to make such a call so early on a Saturday morning, booze did cross my mind. Because it's completely whack.