From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:08:07 GMT

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.

    How about this as an alternate wording? 

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

    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 
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 
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.

    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 
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.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu