Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nealm who wrote (140793)	4/27/2001 8:57:07 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

nealm, Have you ever heard me complaining about sexual harrassment? I'm complaining about hypocrisy and political opportunism. Scumbria

To: nealm who wrote (140793)	4/27/2001 10:19:12 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"And what was it that the Dems used against Clarence Thomas?" My problem with Clarence Thomas was two-fold. First, as the head of the EEOC, he should have been very familiar with the factors at play in perception of sexual harassment. Second, by refusing to even listen to Anita Hill's testimony, he telegraphed that he would be approaching cases placed before him with a closed mind and prejudice. A judge must listen to all testimony without prejudicial filters or he can not perform the job. I was involved in a sexual harassment suit about two decades ago. Make no mistake, the young lady had been sexually harassed. In particular, a friend of mine and myself had been the worst in engaging in behavior that could have been construed as sexual harassment. Curiously, we were not defendants in the case, but asked to testify for the plaintiff. On of the curiosities was that the defendant had presented the teasing that I received from my coworkers for the erotic magazines I sometimes had in my desk as an example of the sexual harassment. The problem in this case, which according to studies should be rampant in genuine cases of sexual harassment, was that 90% of what the young lady claimed happened never did. It is a fact that when an individual is under extreme stress, they begin to have a hard time distinguishing fact from fantasy. And in genuine sexual harassment, the individual is under extreme stress. Unfortunately, the authorities reviewing the sexual harassment case generally focus on the truth of the accusations in general, not the significance of the 10% that are actually true. A real man would have defended Anita Hill. Had it been me accused I would have said, "It is virtually impossible for any man to completely avoid behavior that can not be viewed as sexual harassment. Often it is the state of mind of the accuser at the time of the incident that determines interpretation. Anita Hill was, at that time, under severe stress and could very easily have misinterpreted some of my behavior. I would like to hear her testimony because it is important to know what I have done that she would so interpret. She was and is a friend of mine and I would like to resolve any misunderstanding between us." "As head of the EEOC, I observed that up to 90% of what a person thinks happened never did. They are not lying, just confused about reality versus fantasy. This is natural, and could happen to anybody, including myself, in sufficiently stressful situations. I expect a large portion of Anita Hill's testimony to be stress induced false memories. Challenging these false memories in this court will only result in the veracity of a good woman to be called into question. I do wish this to happen, and therefore will not defend myself against any accusations that she brings because I will know that she believes them. I will resolve these issues privately between just the two of us." In my opinion, this is the type of response that would have demonstrated the type of open mind that is an absolute requirement for a Supreme Court judge.