I don't think things have changed at all - or if anything, for the worse. 7 Years of the Dimwit Administration has pretty much gutted any sort of EEO enforcement, or real requirement to adhere to any level of standards.

Very few companies are doing much in terms of educating their management and employees on policies and laws. The result of this is ignorace about what can and cannot be said or done.

Second is the push for Video Resumes in the "Job Board" Industry - and in some cases even pictures requested by some companies. This is an open invitation to both sexual and racial discrimination.

The Video Resume is an open invitation to hiring managers to select their employees on looks, and is a throwback to the days when Texas Air hired their Flight Attendants on age, looks, and maritial status. Selection at your fingertips to fill your office with women looking more like Alicia Keyes...

Than Whoopi Goldberg (no offense meant to Whoopi's looks, but Alicia is 27 and Whoopi's 51 feeding the age discrimination thing).

We still live in an age where identical resumes are parsed by voluntary EEO data - and checking the other than white box results in a 40-60% lower chance of being considered for employment in most managerial positions.

So my view - is discrimination and harrassment at the job level has gotten a lot worse in the last 7 years.

I'm curious about something Prof, as a female if you were being sexually harassed would you react like Isaiah Thomas' accuser and sue or would you follow him around to two different government agencies and then wait until he was up for a big job and cry foul over 10 years later like Anita Hill?

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201822.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Here is some of the evidence Thomas omits:

First, Hill did not wait 10 years to complain about his behavior. Susan Hoerchner, a Yale Law School classmate of Hill's, described how she complained of sexual harassment while working for Thomas, saying the EEOC chairman had "repeatedly asked her out . . . but wouldn't seem to take 'no' for an answer." Ellen Wells, a friend, said Hill had come to her, "deeply troubled and very depressed," with complaints about Thomas's inappropriate behavior. John Carr, a lawyer, said that Hill, in tears, confided that "her boss was making sexual advances toward her." American University law professor Joel Paul said Hill had told him in 1987 that she had left the EEOC because she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor.

Second, Hill was not the only former subordinate of Thomas's with complaints. Former EEOC employee Angela Wright described how Thomas pressured her to date him, showed up uninvited at her apartment and asked her breast size. "Clarence Thomas would say to me, 'You know you need to be dating me. . . . You're one of the finest women I have on my staff," Wright told Senate investigators.

Wright's account was corroborated by Rose Jourdain, a former speechwriter who, like Wright, was dismissed by Thomas. Jourdain said Wright had complained that she was "increasingly nervous about being in his presence alone" because of comments "concerning her figure, her body, her breasts, her legs."

Another former Thomas employee, Sukari Hardnett, said of his office, "If you were young, black, female and reasonably attractive, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."

Whoops...

Well if true that is horrible..however why did she follow him from one government department to another and why did Thomas' superiors do nothing?

Dragon asks: Well if true that is horrible..however why did she follow him from one government department to another and why did Thomas' superiors do nothing?

From Wiki: OK, I know not the best source...

"Although Hill was a career employee (Schedule A) and therefore had the option of remaining at the Department of Education, she testified that she followed Thomas because, "[t]he work, itself, was interesting, and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures . . . had ended." [2] Also, she testified that she wanted to work in the civil-rights field, and that she believed that "at that time the Department of Education, itself, was a dubious venture."

Why didn't Thomas' superiors do anything? Funny you should ask, 'cause it seems that this wouldn't be the last of government shinannigans...

Let's not forget what happened to our commander in chief, betrayed by that little spot on Ms Lewinsky's dress...

Hey author, they're called the "Knicks" NOT the "Nicks". I'm like "Maybe this is a typo" but it appeared again and again. Now for the disclaimer before I issue a comment:

WARNING! YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER THE CONSERVATIVE NEGRO ZONE!

I guess some good points were made, I really don't know - that whole "Nicks" thing threw me off really bad. Then I saw this: "In the lawsuit against the Nicks we see that some white men can also foster a hostile workplace for black women." Wait a minute. Must everything come back to the "white man"? Geez. Isaiah and Clarence are big boys and they can be blamed for this. I am not excusing Dolan or the head honchos at EEOC BUT I am sure no one held a gun to their heads and said "go harass that sister over their or I'm gonna blow your head off." I'm not buying it.

In the case of the Knicks (not Nicks), I am sure that work environment was somewhat, ahem, sexually charged. Remember the younger employee that slept with Marbury in his SUV? Remember that it happened after they had gone to a strip club? And if you've hung around after a basketball game (I've done this many times because I had to cash out and get my pay from selling beer at Hawks games), you will see a nice share of groupies waiting for the athletes. I just cannot blame a white man for fostering this kind of environment, especially since the business (the NBA) is so heavily populated with black folks. And I am not blaming black folks either. For me its simple math: Young male athletes + groupies = an inevitably sexually charged environ. This does not excuse Thomas though and nor should white execs in the NBA be used as a means of excusing sexual harassment perpetrated by black men.

What is interesting is that Justice Thomas and Professor Hill have both interjected themselves into fora where they could sue each other for slander.

I'd rather not see that.

"I don't think things have changed at all - or if anything, for the worse. 7 Years of the Dimwit Administration has pretty much gutted any sort of EEO enforcement, or real requirement to adhere to any level of standards."

Nevermind the previous president was emmitting body fluids on the free help interns in the oval office. We were explained this private superior/ subordinate relationship was a private matter and would not effect his other job. We also had other women come forward, even one describe a rape. In my manual this would have qualified for a classic example of harrassment, but the political leanings nullified the other classic issues in the case.

Never fear, we have a pretty good chance of electing this man back as the first gentleman. Ironic isn't it.

Sexual harassment is not a racial problem--it's a f'd up male problem.

It seems that no one on this site is going to show Justice Thomas any respect.

But this is a fact: Thomas raised himself up from poverty to become a first-rate jurist on the Supreme Court. Anita Hill will always be a mediocrity, a cautionary tale on the abuses of affirmative action.

Clarence: 1; Anita: -6

Go, my brother--great book.

Uhhhhh... Ken... Now you are pissing me off.

You hypocrisy is astounding, but typical of the Reich Wing self installed blinders. As a person who worked in both the White House (under 2 Presidents) and Congress for some years, I can assure you that there is a lot more seminal fluid on the fixtures and furniture than just Bill's.

Prior to you sanctimonous lying Rethugly scumbags making an public spectacle of Bill's infidelities, what went on in those buildings between consenting adults was sacrosanct.

None of the powerful individuals who have occupied the Oval Office have been saints, nor have their families often been the perfect harmonious groups put forth by the image makers - starting with George Washington who died of syphallis contracted on one of his frequent trips to the slave quarters to rape the women there.

Your morality has no clothes, Ken - when you condemn Bill for having sex with a woman...

And your own hero, Dumby, has a male prostitute (Jeff Gannon AKA "HotMilitaryStud" in his "escort" advertisments on the Web) visiting the White House over 200 times in 2 years sometimes at 1 and 2 AM in the morning somehow bypassing the post 9/11 strict Secret Service security...

And spending the night on several documented occasions.

rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm

Not to mention Congressman Mark Foley homosexually assaulting teenage pages...

Or Senator Larry Craig trying to "hook up" with men in airport bath rooms.

And don't even get into the "Hookers on the Hill", with Former (1 day) Speaker of the House Rethugly Bob Livingston having having to resign for a "group grope" with 3 hookers on the floor of the Congress...

You really want me to get into how many of your sanctimonious "moral" christian right "brothers" are serving time right now for child molestation and carnal acts on children?

Guess that's why you guys have so much problem with a guy who has sex with grown women.

Wow Fungus - Thomas deserving to be appointed?

Guffaws!

Let's look at the record.

The man Uncle Clarence replaced, Thurgood Marshall tried 34 cases before the Supreme Court, and won 29.

Uncle Tommy Clarence never tried a case period, to any evidence I can find. So let's look at his record as a Rygun Appointee at the EEOC, before his Rethugly Uncle Tom AA Appointment to the Appellate Court by Poppy:

Specifically, during Mr. Thomas' administration, the backlog of cases rose from 31,500 in 1983 to 46,000 in 1989; while the number of class action suits filed by the EEOC actually decreased from 218 in fiscal year 1980 to 129 in 1989. The number of Equal Pay Act cases filed by the EEOC also declined under his leadership. In 1980, 50 Equal Pay Act cases were filed. After Thomas assumed leadership, there were nine cases in 1984; in FY 1985, ten; in FY 1986, twelve; in FY 1988, five, and in FY 1989, seven cases.

the EEOC under Thomas' leadership saw a sharp decline in the rate of remedies for individual claimants: settlement rates plunged from 32.1 percent in 1980 to 13.9 percent in fiscal year
1989. A 1988 review by the General Accounting Office of the investigations of charges that had been closed with "no cause" determinations by six EEOC district offices and five states found that 41 to 82 percent of the charges closed by the EEOC offices were not fully investigated, and 40 to 87 percent of those closed by the state agencies had not been fully investigated during Judge Thomas' tenure at the EEOC, "over 90 percent of all litigation filed under Title VII" was initiated and conducted by the private bar.

Judge Thomas, as the EEOC Chair, attacked the Guidelines because in his view they encouraged "too much reliance on statistical disparities evidence of employment discrimination."

Finally, in one of the most controversial and outrageous incidents of his eight-year tenure at the EEOC, the EEOC allowed more than 13,000 Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA) claims to lapse by failing to act within the prescribed time limits, thereby compromising the discrimination claims of thousands of older workers, who comprise more than one-third of the national work force. Ultimately, Congress had to pass special legislation to reinstate the rights of those older workers whose claims the EEOC had failed to act on.

a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/19sep20050805/www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt2/947-968.pdf

And somehow we are supposed to commisurate with the victimhood of this piece of shit?

I don't think so.

October 05, 2007
Why is Clarence Thomas So Angry?
By Mona Charen

National Public Radio was one of the first out of the box greeting Clarence Thomas's memoir, My Grandfather's Son. Nina Totenberg acknowledged that it was, "in some ways a beautifully written book" but went on to declare it "a book of complete bitterness and rage." The Washington Post's front page announced that Thomas had "settled scores" in his "angry" book. And Washington Post columnist (as well as Charen pal) Ruth Marcus writes of Thomas's "blast furnace" anger.

Imagine that. He hasn't gotten over it. Totenberg, for those who may have forgotten, was the journalist who first reported that Anita Hill had made allegations against Thomas (though at the time, Hill had not agreed to go public). And she was a prominent Hill enthusiast during the contretemps.

Totenberg affects surprise that Thomas is angry? It would require a masochist not to be angry. Imagine that your spotless reputation had been thoroughly trashed before a worldwide audience. Imagine further that everything you had attempted to accomplish in your career was undermined in two weeks by ideological opponents ready to do anything to keep someone with your heterodox views down. It is my experience that people often become enraged when they read even small inaccuracies about themselves in the newspapers. Contemplate enduring a campaign of vilification. How many years is it supposed to take to get over something like that? Is Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky thing?

Actually, speaking of President Clinton, the brouhaha over Thomas and what he did or did not say to Hill now seems almost quaint in retrospect. Even if we assume (and I do not) that the worst of Hill's allegations were true, they do not stack up to the kind of brutish behavior attributed to Bill Clinton by Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. But the very same people who adjudged Thomas one of the lowest creatures on Earth, found Clinton's behavior a private matter of no consequence with no public implications.

Of course, while there is anger in the book -- justifiable anger, one might argue -- there is also tenderness, vulnerability, brutal honesty and overflowing gratitude. None of the major reactions to the book seem to have noticed those things. There is also unswerving intellectual integrity. A small example among many: In law school, Justice Thomas relates, "I was uncomfortably aware that blacks failed to pass the bar exams at a much higher rate than whites, and that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund had filed lawsuits alleging that the exams they took were racially discriminatory. . . . At first I assumed that the disproportionate black failure rate was conclusive evidence of racial discrimination, but the more closely I looked at the facts the more apparent it became that I was wrong. At that time each question on the bar exam was graded separately by a difference scorer and each completed exam identified solely by number, thus making it impossible for the graders to tell which examinees, if any, were black." Thomas concluded that the poor education many blacks received was the culprit, but by differing from the conventional wisdom he was already on the road to heresy.

Justice Thomas has continued that apostasy on the Supreme Court, courageously and brilliantly arguing his philosophy in one magnificent opinion after another. Jan Crawford Greenburg, longtime Supreme Court reporter for the Chicago Tribune, now with ABC, dismisses in her recent book the claim that Thomas is some sort of cipher on the Court (a view held only by the abysmally ignorant). "An extensive documentary record shows," she writes, "that Justice Thomas has been a significant force in shaping the direction and decisions of the court for the past 15 years." No one who has read his opinions could fail to appreciate that.

Finally, no one who has had the pleasure of meeting Clarence Thomas would recognize him from the public descriptions that have greeted this book. His legendary laugh is sonorous and infectious. His manner is dignified yet approachable. Those who know him are aware of his passionate efforts to help other blacks -- and of his equally passionate refusal to advertise this. The Anita Hill business is a tiny part of this man's story -- a story that makes for very rewarding reading.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Uhhhhh... Ken... Now you are pissing me off.

"Your morality has no clothes, Ken - when you condemn Bill for having sex with a woman..."

I think your post is accurate, and I agree with you. You might have noticed the poeple you mentioned resigned or were convicted, etc.

Which is exactly what my post pointed out.

His actions were classic, but the political leanings nullified the other classic issues in the case.

This shouldn't have made you mad, but proud.

It is true when a republican do these things the ones who do our hypocritical and rightly should resign. I am no way am saying democrats are hypocritical when perfoming these actions. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

Advertise
Newsletter
Store
Contact
About Us
Services
Site Map
Voter Services

Log-In Email: Password: Remember me

Register | Forgot Password? | Change Password | Update Email



Read This Book
Clarence Thomas's memoir is almost as important a contribution to his beloved country as his work as a Supreme Court justice.
by William Kristol
10/15/2007, Volume 013, Issue 05

Increase Font Size
| Printer-Friendly
| Email a Friend
| Respond to this article

At the most recent Democratic presidential debate, Tim Russert asked the candidates to name their favorite Bible verse. The answers tended toward the unexceptionable--including the Sermon on the Mount (not a "verse," but who's counting?) and the Golden Rule. Watching the debate, I idly wondered how I'd respond.

Upon a bit of reflection, I think my answer would be Numbers 10:35, one of the verses read in synagogue on Saturday in preparation for the reading from the Torah. When the ark is opened, revealing the Torah scrolls, the congregation stands, as the Israelites stood at the base of Mt. Sinai, and chants the verse: "When the ark was carried forward, Moses would say, 'Arise, Lord! May Your enemies be scattered, may Your foes be put to flight.'" For some reason, this has always been one of my favorite moments in the service.

I don't know if Clarence Thomas has ever attended a Shabbat service, but I suspect he might like this verse too. Not because he's consumed by "rage" or because of his "roiling state of mind," as unfriendly commentators have claimed in the week since the publication of his memoir, My Grandfather's Son. In fact, the book, like the man, is remarkably calm, though it recounts times of justified anger, legitimate rage, and understandable roiling. But Thomas understands that he does have enemies, who stooped very low indeed to try to bring him down. And he has called on the Lord for strength to help him scatter them and put them
to flight.

Thomas cites Scripture at key points in My Grandfather's Son. He writes that during the crucible of his Supreme Court confirmation fight, "It was in the consoling words of the prophet Isaiah that I found my own watchword: 'But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles: they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.'" And he closes the book with his prayer as he joins the Court: "Lord, grant me the wisdom to know what is right and the courage to do it. Amen."

Wisdom and courage: These are the themes of My Grandfather's Son. Thomas offers an education in practical wisdom and moral courage. Particularly instructive, and moving, is the portrait of his grandfather, Myers Anderson, who raised Thomas after his own father abandoned him as a toddler. Anderson was hard-working, upstanding, stern, and iron-willed. He made it possible for Thomas to grow up, to succeed, to become a man. He concealed his love for the boy out of fear that showing softness would undercut the discipline necessary to instill in his grandson a character strong enough to survive and flourish in a difficult world. His character building worked. But his iron will and forbidding demeanor made it hard for Thomas, as a young man, to get along with him.

One of the most gripping passages in the book is Thomas's account of what turned out to be his last meeting with his grandfather. His grandmother was in the hospital, and after Thomas had visited with her, he had "a wonderful talk, the best we'd ever had," with his grandfather. Afterward they embraced, "the first and only time in our lives we did so." Thomas hoped this might set the stage for a new and more intimate relationship with this man he revered, but he would never see him alive again.

Advertise
Newsletter
Store
Contact
About Us
Services
Site Map
Voter Services

Read This Book
Clarence Thomas's memoir is almost as important a contribution to his beloved country as his work as a Supreme Court justice.
by William Kristol
10/15/2007, Volume 013, Issue 05

Increase Font Size
| Printer-Friendly
| Email a Friend
| Respond to this article

Page 2 of 2

Earlier, Thomas had described his grandfather's indulgent treatment of Thomas's son Jamal. "As far as Daddy [Thomas's grandfather] was concerned, Jamal could do no wrong." Thomas posed the question: "Tell me something, Daddy, you never make Jamal do anything he doesn't want to do. You let him do whatever he wants. You do whatever he asks you to do. But you never treated [my brother] and me that way. Why not?" His grandfather replied, "Jamal is not my responsibility."

As Thomas comments, "It really was as simple as that. Daddy had to raise us, but he only had to enjoy Jamal, so he kissed and hugged him." And Thomas goes on to wonder "how hard it had been for him to hide his affection from us. How often had he looked in on my brother and me as we slept, gazing at us with the same sweetness I saw each time he looked at Jamal? How often had he longed to hold us, hug us, grant our every wish, but held himself back for fear of letting us see his vulnerability, believing as he did that real love demanded not affection but discipline?"

Thomas's memoir raises fundamental questions of love and responsibility, family and character. His book is a brief for the stern and vigorous virtues, but in a context of faith and love. It's a delightful book--you really can't put it down--but it's also a source of moral education for young Americans. It could be almost as important a contribution to his beloved
country as Clarence Thomas's work as a Supreme Court justice. And it suggests one more contribution he could make. Thomas in 2012!

--William Kristol

Let's look at Uncle Tommie Clarence's compassion:

"We can look at Bowles vs. Russell, a case on which he wrote the majority opinion in June.

Keith Bowles, an Ohio inmate convicted of murder, had one chance to get a federal appeals court to correct what he said were errors that led to his conviction and a sentence of 15 years to life in prison.

But his lawyer inadvertently filed for an appeal two days after the statutory deadline. It wasn't Bowles' lawyer's fault. He actually filed one day before the deadline given by a federal district judge. The judge figured out he had messed up and let the process move forward. But the federal appeals court wasn't so forgiving and threw it out.

The Supreme Court -- in a rare opinion penned by Thomas -- ruled that the appeals court was right. Thomas wrote that Bowles' appeal must be dismissed because the deadlines are "jurisdictional in nature" and cannot be waived. It doesn't matter that the mix-up was the result of a judge's error.

Is this about a deadline or a man's life? Certainly there are times when adhering to the strict construction of the law is necessary. This was not one of them. The justices could have used their discretion under something called "unusual circumstances."

In dissenting, Justice David Souter said it was "intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch." He was right. The ruling was mean-spirited and unnecessary."

While Uncle Tommie has demonstrated an understanding that burning crosses in the front yard might not be legitimate excercises for the Welcome Wagon - he utterly fails again in another case of "southern justice" -

He also dissented in an Alabama case in which the majority found that chaining prisoners to outdoor hitching posts -- and not allowing them to eat, drink or relieve themselves -- was also "cruel and unusual."

Thomas' rationale was that the hitching post served "a legitimate ... purpose" that brought prisoners in "compliance with prison rules while out on work duty."

Methinks it would be instructive if Uncle Tommie served a few years in prison for lying to Congress during his confirmation hearing...

In Alabama.

I think your unifying premise -- that both Thomases are guilty -- is not supported by the facts.

Isaiah Thomas was found guilty, Clarance Thomas was not. This is an important difference between the two cases, but you ignore this and give us the same essay you would were Thomas found guilty (that is, hadn't he received the nomination.

In addition, even if we ignore the different results of the hearing and trial, the cases were dramatically different, save for the similarity in charges. Isiah all but admits on tape the Brown-Sanders' allegations, Clarance Thomas categorically denied them all and nothing -- even after 16 years -- has given us cause to question his denial.

Also, there's the matter of the different venues. The Clarence Thomas case was a Senate confirmation hearing, not a civil court case. Also, it was not a civil court case for good reason -- it contained no evidence against Thomas save Hill's testimony.

You obviously believe Anita Hill and that's your prerogative. The problem though is that you ignore the facts noted above to support your believe.

You provide no new evidence showing us why Hill was telling the truth, you just write as if it's a known fact she was and Thomas was lying.

He may not have been lying.

Anita Hill may have been the liar.

ricland

[QUOTES]Here is some of the evidence Thomas omits:

First, Hill did not wait 10 years to complain about his behavior. Susan Hoerchner, a Yale Law School classmate of Hill's, described how she complained of sexual harassment while working for Thomas, saying the EEOC chairman had "repeatedly asked her out . . WHOOPS...[/QUOTE]

Sorry "WHOOPS" and that's because what folks like you fail to understand is that's not how the system works. Our Constitution grants us the right to face our accusers and there's a genius in that.

During the Senate Confirmation hearings the DEMS begged anyone with dirt on Thomas to "Come Forth" and tell the world about it, but no one did. Not a single person!

Therefore, your ever-growing laundry list of allegations aren't worth the paper they're written on -- they're worthless.

They also pose the question, why all these women who are jumping on the bandwagon now, didn't come forth during the Hearings?

Yeah, I know... they didn't want to lose their jobs, blah, blah, blah....

WHOOPS...

ricland

[QUOTES]Here is some of the evidence Thomas omits:

First, Hill did not wait 10 years to complain about his behavior. Susan Hoerchner, a Yale Law School classmate of Hill's, described how she complained of sexual harassment while working for Thomas, saying the EEOC chairman had "repeatedly asked her out . . WHOOPS...[/QUOTE]

Sorry "WHOOPS" and that's because what folks like you fail to understand is that's not how the system works. Our Constitution grants us the right to face our accusers and there's a genius in that.

During the Senate Confirmation hearings the DEMS begged anyone with dirt on Thomas to "Come Forth" and tell the world about it, but no one did. Not a single person!

Therefore, your ever-growing laundry list of allegations aren't worth the paper they're written on -- they're worthless.

They also pose the question, why all these women who are jumping on the bandwagon now, didn't come forth during the Hearings?

Yeah, I know... they didn't want to lose their jobs, blah, blah, blah....

WHOOPS...

ricland