Quoting from the October 8, 1991 (25 years ago, to the day) New York Times article (by Maureen Dowd), “The
Thomas Nomination: The Senate and Sexism.” Click here for full article.
“Representative
Pelosi and other female lawmakers also issued formal statements and petitions
to the Senate leaders today urging that the Thomas nomination be re-examined in
light of Professor Hill's accusations that, when Judge Thomas was Professor
Hill's superior at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in the early 1980's, he first asked her out, and then
when she refused, he discussed sexual preferences with her and recounted scenes
from pornographic movies he had seen.
"She is not an October surprise,"
Representative Patricia Schroeder, a Colorado Democrat, said of Professor Hill.
"The times they are a' changin' and the boys here don't get it on this
issue. They don't really understand what sexual harassment is and it's not
important to them. They tried simply to dispense with her in short order. "Why
weren't there any questions about his views on pornography by the Senators who
had read that F.B.I. report?"
Women contended that
the public reaction today of some of the members of the Judiciary Committee
showed not only that the men did not give as much weight to the matter as their
female counterparts, but that they did not understand the law.”
….
I offer this for all of us to draw our own conclusions. My
initial impressions, for what they are worth:
1.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed, notwithstanding
devastating testimony by Anita Hill concerning his repeated efforts to coax and
coerce her to have sex on the job at the EEOC, the nation’s agency for
enforcing sexual harassment.
2.
This was a signal event that caused courts and
employers to take hostile work environment claims much more seriously. It was a
pivotal moment for the nation.
3. How much has our
nation progressed since October 1991? That is for you and for me to contemplate
today and beyond.
No comments:
Post a Comment