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

@JTT,

I think from Ms. Thomas's view, the situations might be comparable. If she completely believes her husband and completely believes that Ms. Hill's allegations were lies and did her family great harm, I could see that she would feel just as Billz feels about getting an apology.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ms Hill said just yesterday that she has nothing to apologize for. SO, now, instead of some hope of "burying the past", Ms Thomas has just exhumed the corpse and made it visible for a new generation of forensic review.

I think that's it -- regardless of what you feel really happened back in the day. An attempt to somehow smoothe it all over has backfired rather spectacularly and completely (and painfully publicly). Makes you wonder why the initial attempt was made. What I want to see is the motivation. Why now? Why 7 whatever AM?

What's the engine driving this train?

3 Replies

@eoe,

Quote:

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

If I remember correctly she follow him "the pig" around from one job to another for years am I wrong in so remembering?

2 Replies

@jespah,

I think there has to be a fundamental disconnect in Ms. Thomas's mind about the matter. She cannot picture Ms. Hill as someone who is honestly presenting her interpretation of what happened. Because she knows that Ms. Hill was completely lying, she believes that those lies must haunt her and one day she will confess everything, allowing all parties to see her husband as she sees him, a judicial great martyred to the political gods. For those who see this as a crass politically calculated move, I don't buy it. If Ms. Hill had recanted her testimony after all this time, of course it would have been a conservative field day, but everyone except Ms. Thomas knew that wasn't going to happen. Instead is dredged up the story all over again and there's no way that benefits Ms. Thomas in her political career.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
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

If I remember correctly she follow him "the pig" around from one job to another for years am I wrong in so remembering?

Nope, you are on the money. Many abused employees take the abuse because the powerful boss can provide opportunites that no one else can. I can see that in my workplace although the abuse is generally not sexual in nature.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

Many abused employees take the abuse because the powerful boss can provide opportunites that no one else can. I can see that in my workplace although the abuse is generally not sexual in nature.

Being a stupid male I can see why another male would not have a clue that his conduct is not accepted to her if she was asking me to be allow her to follow me from one position to another.

That the one fact that did in any case raised red flags in my mind.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

She's about as wealthy as hundreds of other college professors.

And, to repeat, Hill already was a college professor when Clarence Thomas got appointed. Let's stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that college professors are wealthy. Even so, Hill's testimony didn't make her wealthy, because it didn't make her a college professor. By Lash's implicit definition of "wealthy", then, Hill had been wealthy for years before the Clarence-Thomas hearings started.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ms Hill said just yesterday that she has nothing to apologize for. SO, now, instead of some hope of "burying the past", Ms Thomas has just exhumed the corpse and made it visible for a new generation of forensic review.

Can anyone explain to me how Mrs. Thomas's voice mail would raise any hope of burying the past in the first place? Here's the full text of her message:

Quote:

Good morning, Anita Hill; it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK have a good day.

Source: NPR

All I can see in this message is demands on Anita Hill. If this is an attempt to bury the past together, what is Virginia Thomas offering to bring to the burial?

1 Reply

@jespah,

jespah wrote:

What's the engine driving this train?

I'd never heard of her until about two weeks ago when she started popping up all over the place. GW posted a link back on page one about her "mission". I see the engine as a pure publicity stunt to get attention for her endeavor.

Quote:

Mrs. Thomas is the founder and head of a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central, dedicated to opposing what she characterizes as the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and to “protecting the core founding principles” of the nation.

It is the most partisan role ever for a spouse of a justice on the nation’s highest court, and Mrs. Thomas is just getting started. “Liberty Central will be bigger than the Tea Party movement,” she told Fox News in April, at a Tea Party rally in Atlanta.

1 Reply

@JPB,

OTOH, this only became "news" when someone gave it to the media. It seems that the call was made on Oct 9, turned over to school officials on the 18th and then became a media blitz. Someone, somewhere decided this should be in the media. It could/should have remained private between Ms Hill and those she thought should help protect her privacy.

Quote:

Ms. Hill, in an interview, said she had kept the message for nearly a week trying to decide whether the caller really was Ms. Thomas or a prankster. Unsure, she said, she decided to turn it over to the Brandeis campus police with a request to convey it the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I'm curious how this got into the public spotlight.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I'm curious how this got into the public spotlight.

Judging by NPR's account of the story, it got into the public spotlight because Virginia Thomas publicized it.

On NPR, Nina Totenberg wrote:

Hill apparently didn't get the message for several days because of the holiday weekend. When she did, she was unsure whether it really was Virginia Thomas calling or a crank. So she conferred with her longtime friend and onetime lawyer, Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree, and decided to turn the matter over to the Brandeis campus police, who in turn referred it to the FBI. According to sources close to Hill, the bureau then contacted Virginia Thomas, who confirmed that she had made the call.

On Tuesday, Virginia Thomas issued a public statement, saying the call was an "olive branch" to Hill and that she had not intended any offense.

Source

There is no indication that Anita Hill, or the campus police, or the FBI, attempted to publicize anything before Virginia Thomas did.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Point taken, E. I agree.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
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

If I remember correctly she follow him "the pig" around from one job to another for years am I wrong in so remembering?

You're absolutely right. And as stated, it's hardly uncommon for someone to follow a successful but abusive boss around for the sake of their career. It happened back then and it still happens today. Again I have to reiterate, this was a situation that stemmed from Prof. Hill being questioned about Thomas' ethics and who knows what else during the proceedings leading up to his confirmation to the Supreme Court. She was asked about him, about his moral character no doubt, and she chose to to be honest about the man. I'll bet there were lots of times while on the hotseat when she wished she had lied but she'd been yanked out of the closet by then. And it just snowballed from there. After it was all said and done, she squeezed some lemonade out of those lemons and I ain't mad at her about it but no, she did not bring him up on sexual harassment charges. She never filed any complaints against him.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

There is no indication that Anita Hill, or the campus police, or the FBI, attempted to publicize anything before Virginia Thomas did.

There's your engine, jes.

0 Replies

@eoe,

I think that even the senators conceded that they had made a mistake in dragging in Anita Hill for PUBLIC testimony. I can easily believe that Hill wanted her involvement to end with the interview that she gave to the FBI. Therefore, the bottom line is that Hill has nothing to apologize for. It was the media and political elements in this story that created such an embarrassing circus.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

It was the media and political elements in this story that created such an embarrassing circus.

Was, and is.

0 Replies

@jespah,

Seems to me that Ms. Thomas might have had one two many Bloody Marys for breakfast that day. Those types of phone calls often are driven by alcohol. Whenever my ex-wife would call you could tell she had been hitting the sauce.

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

It's been a long time since I've been the recipent of drunk dialing.

I've only drunk dialed Dunkin Donuts.

0 Replies

@parados,

The proceeds from her book, associated tour and lucrative speaking engagements/lecture tour didn't net anything per you?

2 Replies

@Lash,

But what's your point, Lash? Are you suggesting that making money from such ventures indicates she lied for that purpose?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know