Justice Thomas's Memoir
Janet Alexander
jca at stanford.edu
Wed Dec 5 14:29:16 PST 2007
David Bernstein's original post (see below) said that Professor Hill
"did gain, big time" in that she is "now a well-known chaired
professor and feminist icon at Brandeis" and that "she had nothing to
gain, but did gain, big time, doesn't make much sense." That is, he
implies that Professor Hill expected to gain professionally (and
economically) by her testimony. In the very next sentence, he says
that she did not expect her allegations to be made public. So, she
expected a payback in the form of a better job from testimony that
she was promised would not be made public? It would be quite a
conspiracy that could get an endowed chair for an "obscure" (and by
implication unqualified) professor through the appointments process
at a university like Brandeis as payback for nonpublic testimony.
Janet Alexander
At 09:11 AM 12/5/2007, Earl Maltz wrote:
>Wouldn't say that she got a payoff, but she did benefit from being a
>victim or a "victim," depending on your point of view.
>
>At 12:06 PM 12/5/2007, Michael Zimmer wrote:
> >Sometime in the 1980's, as sex harassment was just developing under Title
> >VII, the AALS meeting employment discrimination section had a panel on it
> >and I was in the audience. Anita Hill came in just before it started. Not
> >knowing her, I introduced myself and she introduced herself. I asked her
> >if she taught in the area but she said she didn't at all but that she was
> >just interested in the topic. At the time, I thought that was interesting
> >but made nothing of it. When the whole thing came out in the confirmation
> >hearings, I put two and two together. I have never had the opportunity to
> >talk with her again, but I was impressed by her interest at the time and
> >even more impressed by her stellar performance of her civic duty in the
> >confirmation hearings.
> >
> >BTW I take deep offense the insinuation that Professor Hill has gotten
> >where she is as a payoff for her having testified. That seems an awful lot
> >like assuming that she is not qualified and, perhaps, that assumption is
> >based on the fact that she is an African American. Just the sort of thing
> >that Justice Thomas claims has impacted him.
> >
> >Michael J. Zimmer
> >Professor of Law
> >Seton Hall Law School
> >One Newark Center
> >Newark, NJ 07102
> >973.642.8833
> >973.642.8194 fax
> >
> >
> >
> > jfn
> > <jfnbl at earthlink.
> > com> To
> > Michael Zimmer <zimmermi at shu.edu>,
> > 12/05/07 10:34 AM Ilya Somin <isomin at gmu.edu>
> > cc
> > conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu,
> > CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu,
> > DavidEBernstein at aol.com
> > Subject
> > Re: Justice Thomas's Memoir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Someone innocent of those charges would take the opportunity to deny them
> >without hesitation. Ignoring the allegations, in his own memoirs no less,
> >would be tantamount to a confession.
> >
> >With the evidence nearly in equipoise, I think you have to begin by
> >assigning the burden to the accuser. Beyond the testimony of the accused
> >and accuser, you have only their reputations. I find most persuasive the
> >fact that there is no evidence of any other misbehavior toward Thomas'
> >subordinates. The charges betray a character flaw that never reveals itself
> >just once.
> >
> >With respect to Hill, I am interested in what Prof. Zimmer is referring to
> >in the following:
> >
> > >... 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.
> > >
> >
> >John Noble
> >
> >t 8:20 AM -0600 12/5/07, Michael Zimmer wrote:
> >Picking scabs off old wounds that will only reopen them and doing that in
> >public is not strange?
> >
> >Michael J. Zimmer
> >Professor of Law
> >Seton Hall Law School
> >One Newark Center
> >Newark, NJ 07102
> >973.642.8833
> >973.642.8194 fax
> >Ilya Somin <isomin at gmu.edu>
> >12/04/2007 10:01 PMToDavidEBernstein at aol.comcczimmermi@shu.edu,
> >conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu, CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.eduSubjectRe:
> >Justice Thomas's Memoir
> >
> >
> >
> >Just to add to the points made by David Bernstein:
> >
> >I was not suggesting that there is no evidence on either side, merely that
> >the evidence is murky enough that there is genuine doubt about who is
> >telling the truth, and that in the absence of partisan bias, we would not
> >see opinion aligning in such rigid lockstep.
> >
> >I agree with Michael Zimmer that Thomas had much to gain by denying Hill's
> >accusations. But Hill also had much to gain by making them, including
> >becoming a heroine to the left and - possibly - getting back at a former
> >boss whom she disliked for ideological and other reasons. The former
> >benefit could only occur if her accusations were made public, of course.
> >But the latter might have happened even if the remained secret, but still
> >influenced the Senate to vote against Thomas.
> >
> >That doesn't prove that she was lying, but by the same token Thomas'
> >self-interested reasons for denying her accusations did don't necessarily
> >prove that he was lying.
> >
> >As for Thomas "reopening" the issue today, I don't think there's anything
> >strange about that. He had decided to write a memoir. In doing so, he could
> >hardly avoid addressing the most famous public controversy he had ever been
> >involved in and restating his side of the story.
> >
> >Ilya Somin
> >Assistant Professor of Law
> >George Mason University School of Law
> >3301 Fairfax Dr.
> >Arlington, VA 22201
> >ph: 703-993-8069
> >fax: 703-993-8202
> >e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
> >Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> >SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: DavidEBernstein at aol.com
> >Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 10:01 pm
> >Subject: Re: Justice Thomas's Memoir
> >
> > >
> > > 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)
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> >as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
> >are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> >(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list