Weinstein

[homoe]

From NY Times..........
In a statement conveyed through a publicist, Ms. Thomas confirmed leaving the message, which she portrayed as a peacemaking gesture. She did not explain its timing.

“I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago,” she said. “That offer still stands. I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”

In response to Ms. Thomas’s statement, Ms. Hill said that she had testified truthfully about her experiences with the future Justice Thomas and that she had nothing to apologize for.

“I appreciate that no offense was intended, but she can’t ask for an apology without suggesting that I did something wrong, and that is offensive,” Ms. Hill said.

[homoe]

(CNN)Former Vice President Joe Biden says he owes Anita Hill an apology for not doing more for her during confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee when Hill testified there in 1991. Hill said she was sexually harassed by Thomas while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education. Thomas denied the allegations, calling the questioning during the hearing a "high-tech lynching."

"And my one regret is that I wasn't able to tone down the attacks on her by some of my Republican friends," Biden said. "I mean, they really went after her. As much as I tried to intervene, I did not have the power to gavel them out of order."

Biden added that if he could do it again, he would have gone forward with a subpoena for three women, whom he had sign affidavits saying they wouldn't testify.

Perhaps NOW one of these three could open their mouth and speak their truth?

[homoe]

Tinged with a whiff of still-faraway justice, a new Hollywood commission on sexual harassment has appointed attorney and law professor Anita Hill as its chair. Hill’s story has been a symbol of cultural reevaluation lately, as her famed egregiously-run 1991 Senate Judiciary hearings beg for atonement now more than ever. (Her sexual harassment claims against then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas–which were unwittingly leaked to the press–resulted in humiliating interrogation involving porn, breast and penis size, by 14 white men questioning whether she had a “zealoting civil rights” agenda in blocking Thomas’s appointment). As head of the Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace, Hill be leading a “comprehensive strategy” to address workplace harassment in the entertainment industry.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by homoe

I saw that article as well and found this additional info from the NY Times........

In a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times.

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “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.”

Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

I can't tell you how disgusted this makes me feel.

[*Anya*]

I always believed her, from her first word of testimony to the very last.

I listened to both of them. Thomas was never believable.

When is Trump going to be held accountable for his "pussy-grabbing"?

Originally Posted by Kätzchen

An dear butch friend sent me the article from the magazine The New York Magazine , published on February 18th, 2018.

Remember how she testified before an senate committee before Clarence Thomas was appointed to be an Supreme Court Justice? And how back then, we had the first huge public case of sexual harassment and how her life was ruined by politicians making bargains with powerful GOP senators and pundits, to limit the scope of testimony proving the amoral behaviors of Clarence Thomas?

The article is superbly written and it goes deeper into the behind the scenes details of what happened to Anita Hill....I highly recommend reading this article for an inside look at how those in power play GOD for the day and participate in covering up behaviors, such as those of an Supreme Court judge nominee, who went on to be installed in an life long position, with his searing and hardly hidden, conservative right-leaning positions, which has altered the face of law on the books pertaining to women and women's rights.

LINK TO ARTICLE:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ce-thomas.html

[Orema]

Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a chance to do better by the country than it did nearly three decades ago.

By Anita Hill
Ms. Hill is a professor at Brandeis University.


Anita F. Hill, right, is sworn in to testify before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas by Chairman Joseph Biden in October 1991. Credit: Arnie Sachs/picture-alliance -- dpa, via Associated Press

There is no way to redo 1991, but there are ways to do better.

The facts underlying Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of being sexually assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh will continue to be revealed as confirmation proceedings unfold. Yet it’s impossible to miss the parallels between the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing of 2018 and the 1991 confirmation hearing for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate its appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims and the need for public confidence in the character of a nominee to the Supreme Court. It failed on both counts.


Ms. Hill testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in 1991. Credit: Greg Gibson/Associated Press

As that same committee, on which sit some of the same members as nearly three decades ago, now moves forward with the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, the integrity of the court, the country’s commitment to addressing sexual violence as a matter of public interest, and the lives of the two principal witnesses who will be testifying hang in the balance. Today, the public expects better from our government than we got in 1991, when our representatives performed in ways that gave employers permission to mishandle workplace harassment complaints throughout the following decades. That the Senate Judiciary Committee still lacks a protocol for vetting sexual harassment and assault claims that surface during a confirmation hearing suggests that the committee has learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement.

With the current heightened awareness of sexual violence comes heightened accountability for our representatives. To do better, the 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee must demonstrate a clear understanding that sexual violence is a social reality to which elected representatives must respond. A fair, neutral and well-thought-out course is the only way to approach Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh’s upcoming testimony. The details of what that process would look like should be guided by experts who have devoted their careers to understanding sexual violence. The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to serve as fact-finders, to better serve the American public, and the weight of the government should not be used to destroy the lives of witnesses who are called to testify.

Here are some basic ground rules the committee should follow:

Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing. Our interest in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in eliminating sexual misconduct, especially in our public institutions, are entirely compatible. Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy.


The Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill last week. Credit: Doug Mills/The New York Times

Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault.

Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.

Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply “Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.” Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person.


Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearing. Credit: Tasos Katopodis/EPA, via Shutterstock

Process is important, but it cannot erase the difficulty of testifying on national television about the sexual assault that Dr. Blasey says occurred when she was 15 years old. Nor will it negate the fact that as she sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey will be outresourced. Encouraging letters from friends and strangers may help, but she cannot match the organized support that Judge Kavanaugh has. Since Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh have the same obligation to present the truth, this imbalance may not seem fair.

But, as Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.

In 1991, the phrase “they just don’t get it” became a popular way of describing senators’ reaction to sexual violence. With years of hindsight, mounds of evidence of the prevalence and harm that sexual violence causes individuals and our institutions, as well as a Senate with more women than ever, “not getting it” isn’t an option for our elected representatives. In 2018, our senators must get it right.

Anita Hill is university professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/o...gtype=Homepage