| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 328.1 | Pat Robertson's put-downs | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Wed Oct 09 1991 14:44 | 12 |
| I'm working at home today and while checking News at lunchtime,
stopped briefly to hear what the 700 Club was saying about the charges
against Thomas (or rather, what they were saying about Anita Hill).
Pat Robertson was saying that Hill did not accuse Thomas of touching
her (true, according to the papers) but of asking her out! Then he
and his co-hostess chuckled over the absurdity of equating an
invitation to dinner with sexual harrassment! How a supposedly
well-educated, well-informed commentator could "omit" Anita Hill's
charges that Thomas went on to discuss sexually explicit activities
and pornographic movie plots is beyond me -- especially someone from the
religious right who is so vehemently opposed to all pornography!
|
| 328.2 | | DEMING::VALENZA | Get thee to a notes conference. | Wed Oct 09 1991 14:50 | 11 |
| Thank you for your thoughts, Nancy. What really impressed me was the
way that *female* Congressmen, virtually en masse, stormed the male
bastions of power in the Senate and convinced them to delay the
confirmation vote.
In a way, I think it would be unfortunate if he were to be rejected for
this reason, when there were already so many other reasons to reject
his nomination. But this is an issue that speaks to the hearts of a
lot of women.
-- Mike
|
| 328.3 | what did he do, what does he say, why should we believe one over the other? | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Wed Oct 09 1991 15:05 | 20 |
| Any word on why Senators with a vested interest in these alligations
didn't? I haven't had time to watch or read the news in a couple of
days so I'm still trying to pick up the story. I would expect that
Biden would have marched these charges out right away if he thought
there was the remotest chance that they were true.
There seems to be two schools of thought on this thing so far. One
thought is that the charges are false and brought up at the last minute
for political reasons. The idea being that if the charges were true
they would have come up a month or so when the Senate was first made
aware of them. The other is that they must be true because either a)
a woman is making the charge or b) Thomas is a bad man so must have
done it.
So far I don't even know what the charges are, sexual harasment is
pretty general, and have not seem/heard/read Thomas' side of it so
I don't know what to think. The opinion I get from some women is that
Thomas' side is unimportant and not worth hearing. Sad.
Alfred
|
| 328.4 | | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Wed Oct 09 1991 15:35 | 25 |
| Alfred,
There *may* be some women who say that "Thomas' side is unimportant and
not worth hearing." If they mean that, I agree that that is sad.
BUT BE VERY CLEAR: To some women the chief and overriding issue at this
point is not necessarily whether or not Thomas is guilty or whether or
not Thomas should be confirmed, but our anger, our rage, our fury, over
the attitude of many male Senators and commentators (on talk shows,
etc.) toward Anita Hill *as a person*!
The pros and cons of Thomas' qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court
are certainly important. If Hill's allegations are unfounded, then she
is guilty of a serious offense.
But many of us women who were resigned to getting Thomas on the Court,
in spite of what seems to us to be mediocrity at best, are now faced
with proof that a great many of our Senators do not seem to "have a
clue" as to what sexual harrassment means to us!
I truly and sincerely hope you can understand this difference and why
it is important.
Nancy
|
| 328.5 | first prove that the Senate has proof of the charge | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Wed Oct 09 1991 16:13 | 24 |
| > But many of us women who were resigned to getting Thomas on the Court,
> in spite of what seems to us to be mediocrity at best, are now faced
> with proof that a great many of our Senators do not seem to "have a
> clue" as to what sexual harrassment means to us!
What is this proof? Serious question. All I've heard so far is that
this woman gave testimony, the Senate asked for and received an FBI
investigation which came back with "no proof other then the woman's
testimony." So not having evidence enough to stand up in a court of
law they put the issue aside. Is there truly more evidence? If so
I agree there is a real problem.
> I truly and sincerely hope you can understand this difference and why
> it is important.
OH, I do. But I'm still looking for more than just an unsubstansiated
accusation. If Thomas were to claim that she harassed him would you
be so quick to believe it? Note that if you answer no you label
yourself a bigot. And if you say yes then you have to admit that there
is room (and lots of it) to doubt her charge. For the time being I
believe in innocent until proven guilty not innocent until accused.
Alfred
|
| 328.6 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Wed Oct 09 1991 16:27 | 18 |
| re: 0
I don't think they have decided on the "believability" of the story, it
may very well be true. I think they were more incensed by the timing,
and that it appeared to be "designed" to specifically target Thomas'
appointment. Had the charge been lodged at the time of the incident
it would be no question of considering it. But now, and since we are
in need of judge, to investigate this incident at such a late date
would be unfeasible...especially because of the lack of evidence, only
an accusation, by a woman who was employed by Thomas in two different
positions. What's the point of her all of a sudden NOW coming to the
front with this information...and more importantly, WHO put her up to
it...I refuse to believe that she has come forth on her own without
council from someone else.
Just my opinion...
Playtoe
|
| 328.7 | My two cents. | BUFFER::CIOTO | | Wed Oct 09 1991 20:48 | 82 |
| Hi Nancy,
Interesting topic.
First, I am not a Thomas fan. Having listened to his congressional
testimony very carefully, I sense that the man is deceptive,
evasive, and someone who thinks nothing of bending the truth --
especially when it pertains to owning up to the strong personal
views he has articulated over the years. I would feel uncomfortable
entrusting him with the future of women's rights, civil rights, and
individual privacy issues. Just my gut feeling about the man.
Re: Hill. When you talk about being enraged over the senators
treatment of Ms. Hill *as a person* I am a bit confused, simply because
we (and they) do not know her "as a person." For that matter, we do
not even know Thomas "as a peson" -- just the charade the media feeds
us over the tube, bite by bite. Notwithstanding ridicule and rude/
impolite treatment, which is wrong.... For all we know and don't know,
she may be a saint -- someone with impeccable honesty, someone who
means what she says and says what she means. Then again, she may not.
For all we know, her *personhood* may leave much to be desired. For
all we know, her character may be a disgrace to the human race. We
just don't know.
However, I am glad Congress will have an oppportunity to thoroughly
check out her credibility, and, in the process, thoroughly check
out Thomas's credibility. Should the senators assume Hill IS
credible and IS a honest, decent person until she is proven otherwise?
Should they believe in the goodness of her word? Isn't that equivalent
to believing that Thomas is guilty until proven innocent? Our judiciary
works the other way around. Personally, I think the senators should
be suspect of her word and credibility, until they have the wherewithal
to check it out. Ridicule of this woman is certainly a different
story and unjustifyable. She should be afforded every courtesy,
but her word should be considered suspect until it is held up to
verification and scrutiny.
You may think that I, as a man, simply do not understand sexual
harrassment. Well, I do. Not only have several close female friends
of mine been harrassed -- and downright abused -- by men, but I
also have been sexually harrassed by certain females, from time to
time, during my 14-year tenure in the work-a-day world.
On-the-job harrassment that is unmistakable. (Most of that
time was not at Digital, by the way.) If you do not believe me,
write me privately, and I'll tell you some stories.
When a male says he was sexually harrassed by a female, people giggle
and smirk. Why? Because we're supposed to like it and feel good about
it. It's considered OK and normal. Males who experience unwelcome
sexual come-ons on the job by females don't dare talk about it or report
it, for fear of getting laughed at, for fear of being thought of as
unmanly and queer. Why do you think that boys who are molested by adult
women are supposed to consider themselves "lucky" in society's eyes?
If I seem to be making a big deal about this it is because, usually,
no one else seems to have the guts to get this issue out in the open.
Sexual harrassment is, sadly, an offense that is shrouded in subjective
societal biases regarding human nature, male/female stereotypes,
outrageous assumptions/expections of what is "right" and "wrong"
and "normal" and "abnormal" and on and on. Unfortunately, as a
society, we can't seem to tackle this problem straightforwardly,
without all the inbred traditional societal crap and conditioning.
We, as a society should:
1. Understand that it is wrong to harrass/abuse a fellow citizen.
2. Foster a free climate in which anyone can seek recourse when she/he
is harrassed/abused.
3. Treat harrassment charges with judicial impartiality and due
process. Innocence until proof of guilt. Unfortuantely, many
of these incidents of harrassments are perpetrated without
witnesses. (I know this first-hand.) And, for better or worse,
it comes down to: Who is credible and who is not? Whose word
do you believe?
My two cents and then some,
Paul
|
| 328.8 | Nope, sorry | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Thu Oct 10 1991 08:09 | 35 |
|
RE: .5, Alfred,
>> But many of us women who were resigned to getting Thomas on the Court,
>> in spite of what seems to us to be mediocrity at best, are now faced
>> with proof that a great many of our Senators do not seem to "have a
>> clue" as to what sexual harrassment means to us!
> What is this proof? Serious question. All I've heard so far is that
> this woman gave testimony, the Senate asked for and received an FBI
> investigation which came back with "no proof other then the woman's
> testimony."
Please read what I wrote again, more carefully. The "proof" I referred
to had nothing to do with proof of Hill's charges against Thomas, but
of "proof" (obviously not the legal kind -- perhaps I should have said
"strong evidence") that our *Senators* don't understand (1)why a woman
wouldn't report the activity at the time (2)why she would reluctantly
report it now and (3)why she would maintain business/professional
relations with the man.
>> I truly and sincerely hope you can understand this difference and why
>> it is important.
> OH, I do. But I'm still looking for more than just an unsubstansiated
> accusation.
Sorry, Alfred, but you don't understand at all. You're still focusing
on Thomas and his guilt or innocence while I was hopeing you could
understand the difference between *that* issue and the other. It seems
to have missed you completely. Perhaps I can't communicate it well,
but I can't improve on my original efforts. :-(
Nancy
|
| 328.9 | Timing not Hill's agenda | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Thu Oct 10 1991 08:10 | 7 |
| RE: .6
The timing may well have been politically motivated. But the timing
came from the judiciary committee, which approached Hill, who resisted
for several days before finally agreeing to tell her story.
The timing was not hers.
|
| 328.10 | | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Thu Oct 10 1991 08:26 | 63 |
| re: .7, Paul,
> Re: Hill. When you talk about being enraged over the senators
> treatment of Ms. Hill *as a person* I am a bit confused, simply because
> we (and they) do not know her "as a person." For that matter, we do
> not even know Thomas "as a peson" -- just the charade the media feeds
> us over the tube, bite by bite. Notwithstanding ridicule and rude/
> impolite treatment, which is wrong.
Sorry, my language was not precise. I am referring to the "ridicult
and rude/impolite treatment," which, IMO, make up a personal attack
as opposed to dealing with the merits (or lack of merits).
- To doubt her credibility "out of hand"
- To cast doubt *because* she didn't report it ten years ago (and to
say what she "should have done" and what the man speaking (at any
given time) would have done and equating that (implicitly) with "what
any reasonable person would do"
- To cast doubt *because* she continued to have professional dealings
with him
- To blame her for the timing (in spite of the fact that the judiciary
committee approached her and that even then she was reluctant)
These are what I meant by the way they treated her as a person.
> Should the senators assume Hill IS
> credible and IS a honest, decent person until she is proven otherwise?
> Should they believe in the goodness of her word? Isn't that equivalent
> to believing that Thomas is guilty until proven innocent?
No, it isn't the same at all! They should not *prejudge* either
person's credibility. *That* is the point! Sure, if you know Thomas
and trust him (as one Senator was stating), you continue to trust his
denials -- but you can, at the same time, leave yourself open to the
evidence that you (perhaps) have either not yet seen or (worse yet)
may have chosen not to examine!
> Personally, I think the senators should
> be suspect of her word and credibility, until they have the wherewithal
> to check it out.
Do you honestly believe that if a *male* law professor who was an
*honors graduate* from Yale Law School came forward with *any*
allegations against Thomas that his credibility would be immediately
suspect as hers was?
I'm trying -- perhaps quite unsuccessfully -- to say that there is
a difference between refusing credibility to someone out of hand and
judging that the other person is guilty. You can say that A is a
person of integrity and so the charges A brings certainly need to
be taken seriously while also saying that you believe B is innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
I can imagine that a male who is harrassed would almost never be
believed, unfortunately. I have *heard* men say -- undoubtedly only
joking and without any idea of what it would really be like -- that
they'd love to be sexually harrassed! Very sad.
Nancy
|
| 328.11 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Thu Oct 10 1991 09:38 | 17 |
| > Please read what I wrote again, more carefully. The "proof" I referred
> to had nothing to do with proof of Hill's charges against Thomas, but
> of "proof" (obviously not the legal kind -- perhaps I should have said
> "strong evidence") that our *Senators* don't understand
I was asking for the proof or stong evidence that the Senators don't
understand.
> Sorry, Alfred, but you don't understand at all. You're still focusing
> on Thomas and his guilt or innocence while I was hopeing you could
> understand the difference between *that* issue and the other. It seems
> to have missed you completely.
No it didn't miss me. I was talking about two issue which you merged
into one. Mia culpa probably.
Alfred
|
| 328.12 | | DPDMAI::DAWSON | Looking for reality | Thu Oct 10 1991 10:01 | 23 |
| RE: basenote...
My one real hope is that this thing can be proved one
way or another. I would hate to think that political attacks could
destroy anyones chances for promotion and career enhancement. I also
think that a proof that "she" is lying would be *SO* hurtful to the
womans movement that it might take years to recover. If the proof
turns the other way, then I think that this man has *NO* right to be on
the highest court in the land. A most difficult situation.
I also think that a very valid question should be
asked of the committee as to why they did not take seriously the
information when they recieved it. In all fairness to both parties
involved. I shudder to think that in this day, our elected officials
are *STILL* playing the "good ole boys" game. With events throughout
the world occuring as they are, our elected officials have a greater
responsibility to govern and pass on very important and world changing
issues. I am saddened by the handling of the whole process and has me
not just a little bit worried.
Dave
|
| 328.13 | Christian Perspectives? | TFH::KIRK | a simple song | Thu Oct 10 1991 11:27 | 37 |
| Nancy,
Thank you for bringing this up, I found your base note extremely well thought
out and expressed. I've watched some of the televised hearings, and caught
some of the discussion on the MacNeil/Leher NewsHour (where, as far as I can
tell, they make a concerted effort to bring together several people with
strong viewpoints from many sides of an issue).
I have my own (mixed) thoughts about Thomas, but the style of discussion of
sexual harrassment by some of our leaders I thought showed clear
misapprehension at best, and even disdain for a majority of our population.
(And has been pointed out, there is a certain disdain for those on *both*
sides of the sexual fence who have been victimized by such abuse. I know.)
To hold Thomas as innocent until proven guilty, while being open to the
veracity of Hill's claims may be a difficult proposition for some, but I think
it is well worth the exercise.
My question here is, what are our various Christian Perspectives? I read this
thread and see mostly political oriented discussion. Yes, there is certainly
an underlying flavor to various entries, ranging from, shall I say, the
predominantly Old Testament perspective through a more Gospel inspired view .-)
I myself am praying that our elected and appointed leaders find a way to do
their work in love; of God, of each other, and of the people they work for.
I think we all fall short of the mark of accepting ourselves and others as
equal--equally human, equally unique, equally precious in the eyes of God.
I find myself meditating on Christ's words "love, as I have loved you". Where
does that love take us? Where does the divine lead us, socially,
economically, politically?
I wonder where others find themselves as Christians debating these issues?
Peace,
Jim
|
| 328.14 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Thu Oct 10 1991 12:28 | 10 |
| I suspect that there really isn't any disagreement as to the wrongness
of sexual harassment. It's pretty clearly wrong. Especially from a
Christian perspective. I think that we have debate here only over
if it happened in this case or not. I suspect that we do not have
enough information to make that judgment.
Some of us want to believe Thomas innocent. Some want to believe him
guilty. This clouds all our judgment. This is the way it is.
Alfred
|
| 328.15 | | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Thu Oct 10 1991 15:23 | 21 |
| re: .11, Alfred,
The "strong evidence" I referred to in .8,
> that our *Senators* don't understand (1)why a woman
> wouldn't report the activity at the time (2)why she would reluctantly
> report it now and (3)why she would maintain business/professional
> relations with the man.
...consists of statements that various ones of them have made. It is
true that I did not (and cannot) quote them verbatim. Their comments
were on TV, in the newspapers, etc. And, of course, the comments were
not made by *all* the Senators. They may have been made by only one or
two but have received a lot of media coverage.
Nevertheless, it was enough to undermine my confidence and make me
fearful for the overall welfare of women in our country.
Nancy
|
| 328.16 | | DEMING::VALENZA | Get thee to a notes conference. | Thu Oct 10 1991 15:32 | 92 |
| Few Doubting Thomases in the Senate
by Ellen Goodman
(from today's Boston Globe)
It was her word versus his. Just a he-said, she-said sort of thing, as
Sen. John Danforth had put it, dismissing the "October surprise," the
"smear campaign," the "eleventh hour" accusation of sexual harassment
that had thrown Clarence Thomas' sure thing into full disarray.
Who was this "she" anyway? The senators who found her "credible" called
her Professor Anita Hill. The others called her "the woman," or "this
lady," or even, in the strange case of Sen. Alan Simpson, "the lady who
was lured."
Before Hill stepped into her televised Oklahoma classroom, measured and
earnest, dignified and strained, the Senate's Judiciary Committee had
dismissed her. Before Hill said, "It is an unpleasant issue. It is an
ugly issue," they had decided to deal with her charges the old-fashioned
way. Among themselves.
Anyway you cut it, some of these men had known since mid-September that
the former head of the civil rights enforcement agency was accused of
violating a woman's civil rights. Anyway you run the sequence of
events, they had known before the committee vote that a Supreme Court
nominee had been accused of sexual harassment as defined by that court.
But like businessmen running a private corporation, they handled this
"delicate matter" discreetly, among their own kind. Why, Arlen Specter,
the very model of judiciousness, had gone to Thomas and gotten a
forceful denial. Dennis DeConcini had "made the judgment, right or
wrong, that he was credible to me." It was her word versus his. They
took his without hearing hers. They didn't tell the rest of us.
Would it have been better if Hill had gone public earlier? Sure,
although anyone who wonders why she was reluctant can listen to the
messages on her telephone tape. Did the senators have any legitimate
reason for protecting Thomas' privacy? Sure, FBI files are full of
scurrilous attacks.
But anyone with half an investigative eye open could have discovered
that Hill was "no kook," as Sen. Paul Simon put it. And anyone doing
his job should have understood that this is a subject that deserved as
much attention as Douglas Ginsburg's tokes of marijuana.
This portrait of men in power is not pretty. Capitol Hill is not just a
place where you can bounce checks with impunity and discriminate without
fear of the law. It's a place where men can listen to Thomas's
straight-faced claim that he had no opinion on abortion and then
question Hill's credibility.
If these men kept the lid on the charges of sexual harassment, however,
it was not just to protect Thomas. To many, Hill is their worst
nightmare. The woman who rides out of the past waving a charge. False,
of course, or maybe true.
Women have always lived with a sense of vulnerability. They have been
vulnerable to rape, harassment, abuse; on the street, at work, even at
home. Slowly, they have won some tools of self-defense. In the
shouting match of his word against hers, it is not always or only his
that is heard.
Date rape, battered-women's defense, sexual assault. With each modest
change in attitude and law, there has been a stunning overreaction on
the part of many men. Where women feel vulnerable to male assault, men
feel vulnerable to a woman's accusation.
Rape is still vastly underreported. Twice as many men kill their wives
as wives kill husbands. Sexual harassment remains as widespread as it
is hard to prove.
Yet when a Willie Smith is arrested, how many men think: Any woman could
accuse me. When a battered wife who killed her husband is granted
clemency, how many think: It is open season on husbands. And when
Thomas is hit with a charge, how many thing: You can't even ask a girl
out anymore.
In real life, false accusations are few, maybe even fewer than false
acquittals. But in fantasy life, they are the "reverse discrimination"
story lines of the time, the female pit bull attack on the ankle of
innocent man.
Her word is not always the right one. The chore of proving in public
what happened in private remains as difficult as ever. There is no
assurance that airing Hill's charges and Thomas's countercharges would
lead to a crisp clean-cut winner.
But it was not for the all-male Senate committee to silence "her word"
before it was spoken in public. At the 11th hour and the 59th minute
these senators finally heard, loud and clear, the voices of women. The
women they represent.
Her word, her word. This is our word to Congress: Listen up.
|
| 328.17 | He Who Is Without Sin Will Be Confirmed ? | PCCAD1::RICHARDJ | Bluegrass,Music of Perfekchun | Thu Oct 10 1991 17:43 | 28 |
| Are we electing Saints to the Supreme Court ? If sexual harassment
accusations keeps Thomas from being confirmed to the Supreme Court, then
you can forget putting any man on the Supreme Court in the future. Sexual
Harassment by today's definition wasn't nearly understood ten years ago by
women, never mind by men. I would challenge any male who is over 40 to tell
us that he never said things that couldbe defined as sexual harassment by
todays feminist.
Just telling a sexual type joke to a woman or having a playboy calendar
on your desk constitutes sexual harassment by todays standards. However,
I remember working in a factory with women and men, where just about
every guy had a pinup hanging in his locker.
Let's face it. Many of us older guys didn't understand the feelings of
the women we've worked with in the past. We're learning and we've come
a long way in changing the way we treat women, but even as much as
we've come to understand, I doubt if anyone really knows what could
constitute sexual harassment in todays world, never mind eradicate it
from their behavior. From what I understand, even laughing at a sexual
joke told by another male could put you on the sexual harassment list.
How many could plead innocent to that ?
By today's standards, St. Agustine couldn't get elected to the Supreme
Court. His life before his conversion surely would of prevented him
from being confirmed.
Peace
Jim
|
| 328.18 | Responsibility, not sainthood | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Thu Oct 10 1991 22:30 | 39 |
| re: .17, Jim,
If you have the opportunity, please take the 1/2-day seminar on sexual
harrassment that is offered at DEC from time to time. Because I am
a supervisor, I *had* to take it -- because anyone in management
can be legally liable on a "should have known" basis (even if they didn't
actually know that something was legally wrong).
If you are an individual contributor, as I understand it, you are not
liable for some things unless and until you are told that it is
offensive and not to repeat it. This would cover telling a joke or
having the calendar. Your supervisor/manager would tolerate it or not
according to whether it created a "hostile environment" for someone in
your group or facility. (I'm *not* qualified to teach this stuff, so
please don't hold me to the explanation.)
So it's different for managers and non-managers. And it's especially
different for Judeg Clarence Thomas. It is was his *job* as head
of EEOC to KNOW the law and to uphold it! And it will be even more his
*job* to know, support, and uphold the law as a Supreme Court Justice.
Your argument about changing standards, rules, definitions over the
years doesn't apply here. You see, IF he himself was guilty of
violating a law his agency was supposed to enforce, how can he be
trusted to interpret and uphold the Constitution?
Frankly, many things that can legally constitute sexual harrassment are
things that I find personally quite acceptable. For example, I'm a
"touchy" person in that I like to touch people on the arm or shoulder,
etc. This is a very risky thing to do -- especially for a supervisor
-- and yet it is second nature to me and is not intended as a sexual
overture (much less a threat). I can usually sense a person's
"personal space" and respect it (refrain from violating it). (It's only
sexual harrassment if it offends the person being touched.)
But what if I'm wrong in assessing a person's comfort level or in not
sensing his or her need to avoid being touched?
Nancy
|
| 328.19 | | JURAN::VALENZA | Get thee to a notes conference. | Thu Oct 10 1991 23:03 | 133 |
| Article: 1013
From: [email protected] (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: CLARENCE THOMAS OPPOSED EEOC INVESTIGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Date: 10 Oct 91 21:11:12 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: PACH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 102 1980: THOMAS ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT
christic christic.news 1:10 pm Oct 10, 1991
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CLARENCE THOMAS OPPOSED EEOC INVESTIGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Oct. 10, 1991
[Excerpts transcribed and edited by the Christic Institute,
Washington, D.C.]
NEWS ADVISORY: Reporter Laura Sydell of radio station WFUV in New
York City has uncovered documents dealing with sexual harassment
linked to Clarence Thomas' work on the 1980 Reagan transition team.
The excerpt below, according to Sydell, is from a part of the report
of the EEOC transition team that was inserted by a subcommittee that
consisted of Thomas and one other member. The passage criticizes ``a
barrage of trivial [sexual harassment] complaints against employers
around the nation.'' It urges that the EEOC not devote resources
toward ``the elimination of personal slights and sexual advances
which contribute to an intimidating, hostile or offensive working
environment.''
The EEOC transition report would appear to be relevant since Thomas'
subcommittee report urged a low priority for the type of harassment
of which Thomas has been accused. Yet the document has not been
widely reported.
.. . . The documents were first reported by Sydell on Oct. 7. The AP
story on the documents ran Oct. 8.
For more information:
Laura Sydell (212) 365-8050, (212) 877-7541
Jim Naureckas (212) 633-6700, (212) 598-4436
Document 1: Excerpt from report of EEOC transition team, 1980,
inserted by a subcommittee of which Thomas was a member:
``. . . the vagueness of the definition of discrimination has
undoubtedly led to a barrage of trivial complaints against employers
around the nation. The elimination of personal slights and sexual
advances which contribute to `an intimidating, hostile or offensive
working environment' is a goal impossible to reach. Expenditure of
the EEOC's limited resources in pursuit of this goal is unwise.''
Document 2: Memorandum from Clarence Thomas to Jay Parker of the EEOC
transition team, dated Dec. 22, 1990:
``On November 10, 1980, the EEOC promulgated guidelines on sexual
harassment. These guidelines hold an employer responsible for acts
of sexual harassment in the workplace. The employer is `responsible
for its acts and those of its agents and supervisory employees with
respect to sexual harassment regardless of whether the specific acts
complained of were authorized or even forbidden by the employer and
regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of their
occurrence.'
``These guidelines expand the common law of agency. Under common law,
the actions of the agent must be within the scope of his employment
before the principle is held liable. The EEOC guidelines not only
eliminate this requirement that the activities of the supervisory
personnel be within the scope of employment, but go so far as to
state that even if the employer forbids such action, it will still
be responsible.
``Recommendation:
``It is recommended that these guidelines be reexamined and that
the liability of the employer be related to its participation in the
alleged sexual harassment.''
FAIR is recommending phone calls to newspapers and other media to
ask if they plan to run this story. They suggest the following
message:
``I'm calling about a story on Clarence Thomas. It was about a 1980
EEOC transition team report. Thomas helped put together a section on
sexual harassment recommending that EEOC funds not be used to pursue
elimination of sexual harassment in the workplace.
``Have you seen the story? I know AP ran a story on it. Fairness and
Accuracy in Reporting has the information.
``I haven't seen anything on it. Are you planning on running
anything? When? If not, why not?''
The following is a partial list of phone numbers for television
networks, wire services and newspapers:
ABC World News Tonight 212-887-4040
Associated Press NYC 212-621-1600
Associated Press Washington 202-828-6400
CBS Evening News 212-975-3693
CBS This Morning 212-975-2824
Christian Science Monitor 800-225-7090
Cable News Network Atlanta 404-827-1500
Cable News Network Washington 202-898-7900
CNN Crossfire 202-898-7951
Face the Nation 202-457-4321
Good Morning America 212-496-4800
Los Angeles Times 800-528-4637
MacNeil/Lehrer 703-998-2870
Morning Edition/All Things Considered 202-822-2000
NBC Nightly News 212-664-4971
New York Times NYC 212-556-1234
New York Times Washington 202-862-0300
Newsweek 212-350-4000
Nightline NYC 212-887-4995
Nightline Washington 202-887-7364
PBS 703-739-5000
Time 212-522-1212
NBC Today 212-664-4249
United Press International 202-898-8000
U.S. News & World Report 202-955-2000
USA Today 703-276-3400
Wall Street Journal 212-416-2000
Washington Post 202-334-6000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Lang 151251507 CHRISTIC telex
Christic Institute christic PeaceNet
202-797-8106 voice [email protected] Internet
202-529-0140 BBS uunet!pyramid!cdp!christic UUCP
202-462-5138 fax cdp!christic%labrea@stanford Bitnet
|
| 328.20 | I Agree With You Nancy | PCCAD1::RICHARDJ | Bluegrass,Music of Perfekchun | Fri Oct 11 1991 09:31 | 29 |
| RE:18
Nancy,
yes, I agree with what you are saying. However, articles that
were in this weeks paper on sexual harassment were scary. DEC's policy
as you have given us seems reasonable. What extremist feminist groups
want, would make any male fearful of looking at women or talking to
them about anything other than work. Last night on the PBS McNeal
Leaher SP ? report, they were talking about the same thing. They
interviewed some managers of the top Fortune 500 companies, and they
said, that when they talk to their female counterparts or employees,
they make sure they only talk about work, and whenever possible make sure
there is someone else around. What great environment to work in !&;)
Our world is gone crazy. My wife is a second grade special needs aid in the
elementary school in my town. She said some of the kids she works
with will often come up to her and hug her and thank her for helping them.
She is put into a dilemma because she is not suppose to even touch a child.
So like she said, "what am'I suppose to do, push the child away from me ?"
The only affection some of these kids know is what they get at school.
She gives clothing to some of them because some come to school in cold
wet weather, with out socks on and shoes that have holes in them. I
bet she isn't even suppose to do this cuz the parents could say it
humiliates them.
Original sin is making compassion a thing to be feared.
Peace
Jim
|
| 328.21 | Trying to further communication | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Fri Oct 11 1991 09:56 | 68 |
| Jim,
I have hope (when I'm in my usual optimistic mood, but that isn't the
case *this* week!) that when men (in general) truly understand what
offends women, what impact "sexual stuff" has on many women's ability
to do productive work, and *why* this is true for women, then MAYBE the
rules won't have to be so rigid!
I *enjoy* sexual repartee -- when it is among *equals* who obviously
respect each other and aren't "on the make." I agree that *for me*
the absence of all such exchange would make the workplace very dull.
After all, our sexuality is part of who we are, and
recognizing and affirming it can build up general, overall
self-esteem. (In other words, I appreciate being appreciated as a
woman -- providing I'm ALSO appreciated as a productive worker! The
first does not substitute for the second!)
On the other hand, Jim, it takes an *awful lot of energy* to be ready
and able to defend oneself against improper, uncomfortable advances,
demeaning comments, etc. Many of us learn coping mechanisms that we
have to employ daily!!! When I stop to realize how much *energy* that
requires that could otherwise be spend in productive work, it really
makes me furious!
So if the only way to solve the problem is for men to start spending
more of *their* energy in dealing with being "fearful of looking at
women or talking to them about anything other than work" then I can
feel angry enough to say -- even to a friend like you -- live with it!!
(Questions of the day: does this make sense to you? Do you understand?
Am I able to communicate these issues effectively?)
How many men have even *tried* to understand why behavior that men find
harmless and "fun" can be deeply offensive and hurtful to women -- at
least before all this came up this week? It's painful for all of us to
talk to each other (cross-genders) about these issues. It's hard for
us women to understand men's fears of being falsely charged when we
think men don't understand what it does to us inside to "put up with"
*unwanted* things from men -- sometimes on a daily basis.
I think you were the one, Jim, to ask about our "Christian
perspectives" on all this. I believe it is our Christian
responsibility to promote communication and understanding on these
issues. I'm much less judgemental toward someone who *understands*
-- or at least tries to understand -- even if his behavior doesn't
always measure up to his understanding -- 'cause *my* behavior sure
doesn't always measure up!
RE: touching, etc. Part of the rationale for the legal stuff here (in
terms of touching an employee, for example) is that we have no way of
knowing who has been abused or had other traumatic experience that
causes them to react to touch differently than we might expect. That's sad,
but statistics indicate that an awful lot of us (both female and male)
have been abused, and we don't want to stir up painful
memories/reactions.
As for not touching the children, that boggles my mind. On the other
hand, I suppose it is "necessary" to avoid being charged with child abuse.
(Have you read "The Good Mother"?)
I think my Christian discipleship would require that I touch (in an
appropriate way) and take the risks of being falsely charged. At least
in cases of obvious need.
By the way, am I really the only woman in this conference interest in
discussing this stuff? I realized last night that all my exchanges here
so far have been with men...
Nancy
|
| 328.22 | this is serious for men too you know | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Fri Oct 11 1991 11:00 | 25 |
| One thing that women appear not to understand about this issue
is how scary it is to men. There is no defense in our society
against a charge of sexual harassment. Teachers lose their jobs
regularly because of harassment charges. Often the charges are
dropped later because the girl only made them (with out base)
to "get" the teacher. This is not to say that there aren't all
too many valid charges. There are - but a man knows that a girl
(no matter how young) can destroy his career on her word alone.
That is scary. At a time when we need male teachers as examples
for boys raised in fatherless homes we are making it too risky
for them to consider teaching kids - especially teenagers.
Likewise many men in business are afraid to deal with women. Especially
older men whose business behavior was formed in the days when women
were less common in the work place. All of a sudden things they said
and did which were safe in an all male environment are grounds for
dismissal. Even though there is no intent or desire to make anyone
uncomfortable.
Women seem to think that men don't take sexual harassment seriously
or try to understand it. I think women don't understand, or even try
to, the man's side. There are two sexes involved here but many women
seem to forget that. The men I know take it very seriously.
Alfred
|
| 328.23 | | PCCAD1::RICHARDJ | Bluegrass,Music of Perfekchun | Fri Oct 11 1991 11:34 | 11 |
| RE:21
Nancy I like the way you explain it !
Most women, especially the ones I work with are real good sports,
and I would guess that the type of woman who goes running off to personal
at the first off color remark are exceptions and not the rule.
We have had such type women in my department, but they usually had a
problem getting along with both men and women in general.
Peace
Jim
|
| 328.24 | | CARTUN::BERGGREN | a deeper wave rising | Fri Oct 11 1991 12:02 | 13 |
| Nancy .21,
> By the way, am I really the only woman in this conference interested
> in discussing this stuff?
No. My work load over the last few days has been such that I cannot
participate beyond read-only. Thanks for opening this topic up Nancy.
All responses have been extremely thought-provoking and I appreciate
them and the participants here a *great* deal. I hope to add more
later.
peace,
Karen
|
| 328.25 | Another hand up | CGVAX2::PAINTER | | Fri Oct 11 1991 12:34 | 11 |
|
Nancy,
Same here - not enough time...and also I haven't been able to closely
follow the events either (however I'm taping the 10am hearing today and
hope to watch it tonight).
I am interested though. I've been fighting this all my life, and
you're right - it is tiring and energy-draining.
Cindy
|
| 328.26 | | WILLEE::FRETTS | if u want to heal u have to *feel* | Fri Oct 11 1991 14:18 | 13 |
|
Me too Nancy. I haven't come to any conclusions about this because
I want to hear the full disclosures that are happening today (at least
they are scheduled to). I too appreciate the exchange in this note.
I may be back to share some thoughts in this note and I may not...just
not sure how my schedule will be and whether I will be able to put
my feelings into words on this topic.
However, I do feel that what has happened with this is similar to the
tip of an iceberg finally getting everyone's attention, but there is
so much more of importance going on underneath it.
Carole
|
| 328.27 | News update... | BUFFER::CIOTO | | Fri Oct 11 1991 14:29 | 30 |
| Just a quick update....
My brother, Ed, called me about an hour ago to say the congressional
hearings re Thomas/Hill have been very, very explosive and emotional so
far. He said Thomas gave a highly emotional, tearful, angry statement
regarding his reputation. In it he reportedly said something like,
"This job isn't worth it! My reputation is permanently reuined and
the pain inflicted on me and my family is unfair/irreparable. If
you want me for this job fine. If not, it isn't worth what you are
putting me through.... Everything Prof. Hill said about me is not true.
In fact, she never voiced any concern/grievance regarding what she is
accusing me of..." or some such thing along those lines.
It was a downright tearjerker, designed to be that way or otherwise.
Senator Hatch angrily blew up, shouting/screaming at Chairman
Biden, when Biden told the committee not to ask questions of
Hill pertaining to personal things in the FBI report, things having to do
with her and Thomas's private life. "I'll quit this committee
if we're not allowed to question the accuser! All the information
is already out in the open, reported by the press. Everyone already
knows all the things we're going to question Prof. Hill about!"
Sen. Biden called a recess to cool everyone off.
This report is second-hand, so I don't know exactly how accurate it is.
But one thing is for sure: It's quite an explosive spectacle.
I wished I had remembered to tape it. Catch it on the news tonight.
Paul
|
| 328.28 | | SHALOT::LACKEY | Birth...the leading cause of death | Fri Oct 11 1991 15:07 | 21 |
| Hi Paul,
I had the opportunity to take a long lunch and I watched most of what
occured prior to the lunch recess (around 1:15). Most of what you
reported, in terms of content, was accurate; but the notable exception
is that the proceedings, while being very graphic and somewhat intense,
were nevertheless very subdued. Thomas' opening statement was very
emotional and potent, and contained the message you described.
Hill's opening statement was very subdued, but clear and void of
specifics. The questioning, however, quickly got into the details of
who said/did what and when. There was some irritation between Hatch and
Biden, but from what I saw there was no "blow up." They exchanged
several "All I'm trying to get at is...," and "Well what I thought you
were asking was...," type statements; but there was no yelling or raised
voices that I heard.
Btw, CSPAN will be replaying all of the coverage in the evenings
according to a newspaper article I saw.
Jeff
|
| 328.29 | Praying for "righteous judgement" | VMPIRE::WASKOM | | Fri Oct 11 1991 17:28 | 33 |
| I've been struggling with how to approach this topic. Much of my
personal study in the last few days has focused on Bible Concordance
work with "justice", "judgment", and the like. The most obvious call
is to look to God for true justice and righteous judgement. I see
precious few praying for God's will to be done by *all* parties
involved in the nomination/judging processes currently in the political
arena.
I'm also becoming more and more aware that the strongest attacks on
Good (not a typo) are coming in the arena of sexuality/sexual relations/
relationships in this era. I can't figure out exactly *why* yet, but
I'm working on it. :-) Other eras have had other challenges, this
appears to be ours.
So far as the specific nomination of Clarence Thomas, I'm not thrilled
with him as a candidate, and haven't been from the beginning. He
wasn't willing, while head of the EEOC, to enforce the laws that his
job called for him to enforce. That strikes me as behavior that is
less strong-minded and fair than what I want on our court benches, at
all levels. And this is from someone who is politically conservative
on many things. What I want is non-idealogues in positions of judging.
I got my first exposure to sexual harassment education, in an attempt
to wipe it out, at another employer in 1978. That education stated
what has been stated since - harassment is in the eye of the beholder.
You don't make sexual comments at work. If someone complains, you stop
the conversation, take down the poster, remove the calendar, whatever.
That goes both ways - men can complain just as much as women can. The
offendee doesn't have to complain to the offender directly, and whoever
receives the complaint to has to act promptly to resolve the problem.
Here at Digital, I haven't had a problem, for which I am grateful.
Alison
|
| 328.30 | some personal observations | BUFFER::CIOTO | | Fri Oct 11 1991 18:05 | 48 |
| .28 Jim, I guess the story that was passed along to me was a bit
exaggerated, but we shall see when it all comes out in the wash.
Nancy.... Re: teachers and students. I know many teachers (male and
female) who have told me they do not, under nearly all circumstances,
touch a student or get left alone with a student for fear of being
accused of child molestation/abuse.
This is sad. So many children NEED decent affection/compassion and
touching. But I am afraid precautions are necessary. We as a society
are not ready yet, not mature enough yet, to differentiate between what
constitutes healthy/good touching and intrusive/bad touching. And
even then, what is "good" to one is "bad" to another. For example,
I am a rather touchy person, like you. However, I have my own
standard for what is offensive and what is not. Someone touching
me on the shoulder in the workplace is OK. However, during
the years, I have been pinched on the rear by a few females in the
workplace. (I can tell you all are laughing now!) But that happened.
It happens to other guys I know too. The women, when confronted
with it, thought nothing of it. They said it was just harmless
flirting and that I was too sensitive. (These women were not
even friends; they were good work acquaintances.)
Do many women feel safe coming onto men in the workplace, thinking
that the men will *welcome* it? (If so, they may have good reason
to think that.)
Anyway, we as a culture are uptight and messed up about issues
regarding touching, physical affection, and sexuality.
Sure, guys say they WANT to get sexually harrassed in the workplace.
It is basically true, to a large extent, but they have very
STRINGENT criteria. First and foremost, the woman
must be *attractive*. Personally, I think getting pinched on the
rear by ANYONE in the workplace, attractive or not, is offensive.
But with a lot of guys, it is not ... but ... but...
God help any woman who comes on to these same guys -- expecting them
to like it -- when the guys consider her unattractive. A lot of guys
I know simply freak out when a woman, who they perceive
as unattractive, comes on to them, but would nevertheless welcome
blatant sexual come-ons in the workplace by women who they
consider attractive.
I don't expect many people to agree with these personal observations
of human nature, but I wanted to share them with you nevertheless.
Paul
|
| 328.31 | | LJOHUB::NSMITH | rises up with eagle wings | Fri Oct 11 1991 21:16 | 6 |
| I agree with your observations, Paul. (If there was one I disagreed
with, it sure didn't jump out at me!)
:-)
Nancy
|