From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:35:17 GMT

In article <nate.801@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
>>pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>>jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>>>>tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.

>>>>In your opinion...

>>>Testimony is evidence.

>>If it was truly "testimony", then why all the fuss over how she was
>>treated by the "cross-examiners". BTW , Clarence Thomas "testified" that 
>>her allegations were false, if you take her testimony as "evidence", you 
>>must take his as evidence also.

Quite true.  And then we can do what juries do all the time.  *Weigh*
the evidence on each side and come to a conclusion.

>    How about this as an alternate wording? 

>    "She offered no *proof* that she was harassed by anyone."

Yes, she did.  Given that we have no time travel, the only *proof* we
have of ANYTHING is evidence.  If we think that the evidence is good
enough, we call it "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  You may argue
that her evidence wasn't good enough, but you can't argue that she
didn't give any.

>    Evidence and testimony are all well and good, but the Judiciary was the 
>only body which could validate Ms Hill's evidence. There were no judges 
>on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and there was no chance that any 
>new allegations made in Thomas's confirmation hearings could have been  
>validated within the purview of those hearings. Our system demands that 
>Judge Thomas be considered innocent until proven guilty, and since no 

No, it doesn't.  He wasn't on trial.  If he were, then he must be
considered innocent.  But you don't have a RIGHT to a Supreme Court
seat.  It's up to the judgement of the Senate.  Totally.  They can
consider whatever they want to, including what brand of breakfast cereal
he eats.

>proof could possibly have been established, I'm forced to conclude that 
>Ms. Hill's testimony was a waste of time. Sexual harassment is a serious 

Um, how do you establish proof of anything?  Besides testimony?  It
wasn't a waste of time; it gave the Senate a chance to hear something
about Thomas.  Then it's up to *them* to decide whether that was
convincing enough.  They obviously didn't.

>issue, and the plight of women who have suffered harassment is not well- 
>served by poorly organized assaults staged for the media's benefit. The 
>story of the boy who cried wolf inevitably comes to mind.

And how do you know she was lying?

>    Even from a liberal point of view I believe that it's blatantly 
>obvious; we blew it. We wanted to prevent Thomas's confirmation very badly 
>but we flubbed our homework (we didn't make sure that Hill had irrefutable 
>proof). Then, even after it was clear that we had flubbed our homework, we 

There's no such thing as irrefutable proof -- even videotaped evidence
isn't irrefutable.  (Ask Rodney King about that.)

>continued to push through days of melodramatic and pointless testimony 
>apparently in the hope that the voting members of the Judiciary Committee 
>wouldn't notice that we didn't have anything written on our homework when 
>we turned it in.

>    In both strategic planning and tactical execution our liberal leaders 
>failed. They tried to buck the rules when the only hope was to present 
>evidence which was scrupulously correct. 

>    I am outraged over the disparate opportunites which are available 
>to men and women, however I am *more* outraged over the fact that our 
>leadership blew it so badly, and then did an even worse job over covering 
>for their failure. I'm a big believer in picking battles which can be waged 
>on the most advantageous terms. Once it was clear that the battle against 
>Clarence Thomas was one which would be waged without real ammunition, I 
>believe the best course would have been to graciously concede and wish Judge 
>Thomas luck in his new job. The extent of wasted time, effort, and emotion 
>which were expended in the failed effort to reject Thomas does not reflect 
>favorably on either the Senate leaders who led the effort or on any of us 
>who supported it.

Drivel.  Should they have ignored the evidence?  Or should they have
held hearings?   I say they should have done the latter.  The circus
atmosphere had to do with the media, not the Senate.

I say the whole thing was irrelevant, since they should have rejected
Thomas on his (lack of) merits.  Aside from being Black, he had
*nothing* going for him.  Little judicial experience, no obvious outside
experiences which would make up for that.  No great writings.  Nothing.

The *real* problem was that we had a bunch of Democrats scared of their
own shadows, trying so hard not to offend George Bush that they weren't
willing to reject Thomas unless they could come up with a flashy reason
for doing so, rather than a plain judgement about his qualifications.

(This, IMHO, was the main problem with Congress during the Bush
administration.  They were unwilling to go along with Bush too much, but
*also* were unwilling to push their own agenda.  This is why we had
gridlock.  Just the threat of a veto made the Democrats scurry back into
their corners to hide.)

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59832 ca.politics:9546 misc.legal:19850