Justice Thomas's Memoir

[DavidEBernstein at aol.com]

If she had nothing to gain, why is she now a well-known chaired  professor 
and feminist icon at Brandeis, as opposed to an obscure professor at  University 
of Oklahoma?   She had nothing to gain, but did gain, big  time, doesn't make 
much sense.
 
Of course, her original allegations were confidential, and she didn't  
anticipate they'd become public (and I believe was told as much by her "friends"  
working on the Democratic side on the Judiciary Committee, who then leaked it  
anyway just before the scheduled vote on his nomination).  In which case,  she 
also thought initially she had nothing to lose.  If one could  imagine that 
Hill held a grudge against Thomas for any reason, or just didn't  like him 
ideologically, her allegations in that context would make perfect  "logical" sense.
 
The "logic of the situation" therefore does not tell us who was  being 
truthful.  There is additional evidence on both sides, some of which  seems highly 
persuasive (many women who worked for Thomas swearing that he never  behaved 
the way Hill described; Hill complaining contemporaneously about her  boss).  
But weighing such evidence is quite different than stating that the  "logic of 
the situation" dictates the conclusion.  I could just as easily  (maybe more 
easily) say that logically, a controversial black conservative  running the EEOC 
in the Reagan adminstration would "logically" go out of his way  to avoid any 
conduct that if revealed would ruin his reputation and  career.
 
In a message dated 12/4/2007 8:26:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
zimmermi at shu.edu writes:


I don't think the issue is so starkly  partisan, especially as to Professor 
Anita Hill, as you suggest.  For  Justice Thomas to reopen that whole issue is 
just  very strange. His  raising the issue again is unlikely to convince 
anyone to change their mind  about what happened.  She had no personal agenda to 
advance in coming  forward when she did and certainly has a right now to defend 
herself when he  attempts to yet again cast aspersions on her.  While radicals 
sharing  Justice Thomas' viewpoint  want, and need, to believe him very  
desparately, the rest of us have a variety of viewpoints.  To say it is  
he-said-she-said as if there could never be a finding of truth or significance  is just 
wrong. While people can come to different conclusions and those  conclusions 
can be shaped by our different values and world views, to deny  that there is 
significance because it is simply he-said-she-said suggests the  whole thing 
is inconsequential. And it is not. Certainly not for Justice  Thomas; otherwise 
he would never raise this up again only to reopen old  wounds, particularly 
his own. That it will be to no good effect  does  show that it is not 
inconsequential. 

The logic of the situation still points in one direction, even after  all 
these years:  Then-Judge Thomas had all to gain by denying Professor  Hill's 
claim and she had little to gain, but doing her civic duty, by coming  forward. 
She was and continues to be subjected to attacks that she did not  bring on 
herself.  I know for a fact that she was interested in the  developing law of 
sexual harassment years before the confirmation hearings.  This was at a time when 
she was teaching far from any area that had to deal  with it. 



Michael J. Zimmer
Professor of Law
Seton Hall  Law School
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ  07102
973.642.8833
973.642.8194 fax 





David E.  Bernstein
Professor
George Mason University School of  Law
http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20071204/5cade395/attachment.htm