From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:44:44 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    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.

    No, I would say that we still can't say anything about the *quality* of 
her evidence since it's never been presented in court. What I am saying is 
that it was completely beyond the purview of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
to decide whether her evidence constituted proof.

>>    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.

    That's true, however I would personally hope that they would choose to 
base their decision on what has been established rather than what has been 
alleged.

>>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?

    Under our judicial system we establish proof by presenting evidence in 
a court of law and then receiving a favorable ruling from the judge or jury.
Testimony pertaining to criminal activities is highly pertinent *in a court 
of law* where such decisions are made. But the Senate Judiciary Committee is 
not a court of law, the Senators who sit on that committee are not judges, 
and they have absolutely no jurisdiction to determine guilt or innocence 
based on any testimony they hear. Ms Hill's evidence would have been highly 
relevant if it was proven in a court, but in the absense of that validation 
her testimony came down to her word against his.

>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.

    Yes, fortunately most Senators have a slightly more sophistocated 
knowledge of their responsibilities and jurisdiction than the general 
public.

>>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?

    I have no idea whether she was lying. In fact, I'm inclined to believe 
that she was not lying. Unfortunately, I am also forced to accept that the 
charges she made accused Thomas of criminal activity, and I am forced to 
concede that the correct venue for the decision of criminal cases is the 
Judiciary, not the Legislature. 

>>    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.)

    True, however if Ms Hill had presented her evidence in court and had 
gotten a favorable ruling then she would have had a much stronger argument.
A conviction would have made all the difference in the world.

>>    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?

    Yes, they should have ignored it. Presenting a bunch of hearsay 
testimony concerning alleged criminal activities was a last ditch, sleazy 
effort which not only failed to stick but also distracted everyone's 
attention and took time away from discussion of the real issues surrounding 
Thomas's qualifications.

>Or should they have held hearings?   I say they should have done the 
>latter.

    Instead of "hearings", I believe the word that you were looking for is 
"trial". Ms Hill was accusing Judge Thomas of criminal activity, and the 
correct venue for pursuing those accusations is a courtroom.

>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.

    I agree with you on some of those points, but I'm confused now that you 
consider Anita Hill's testimony not to have been a waste of time when you 
also believe that it was irrelevant.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american