Now that Clarence Thomas has gone public and presented a sterling defense of both his character and reputation, the New York Times and Anita Hill evidently feel entitled, or obligated, to besmeerch Thomas’s reputation yet again.
Ms Hill has an op-ed in the Times whining how Thomas has smeared her. Hill doesn’t make much of a case and her piece does not merit a link. I will note only one line from Hill:
But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.
I listened to the first part of the Sixty Minutes interview with Thomas and all of Rush Limbaugh’s. At no point in either interview did Thomas exhibit any anger.
There is a lot of anger with respect to Thomas, but the anger is the exclusive property of the left who are seething mad at Thomas for thinking for himself and shunning liberal doctrine.
Other comments of note.
True and important. If only the politics could be set aside. If only Hill had also addressed what happened to our perceptions about the seriousness of sexual harassment during the Clinton era, when the politics cut the other way.
Now she wants to cry that Thomas has attacked her in his memoirs, and without what she sees as substantiation. Sixteen years still hasn’t taught Hill much, apparently including the “sauce for the goose” proverb.
Contrary to the impression you’ll get from the world, he’s actually fairly generous toward her in the book.
What’s so infuriating is that the book is in part an attempt to fix the damage done — to his reputation, to the whole SCOTUS nomination process. But the New York Times won’t let that go down without a fight.
One gets the impression Justice Thomas expected nothing else as his book was released, but it still infuriates.
It seems clear that before writing this op-ed, Hill didn’t even bother reading the book. Having a law degree from Yale doesn’t mean you no longer have to do your homework. We have no way of independently evaluating her performance at EEOC, but to call her a mediocre op-ed writer would be generous.
It is hard, ie not impossible, to take the left’s charges of sexual harrassment seriously post-Clinton.
“I’d be happy to give him [Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”
While Hill calls Thomas angry, I see no anger in Thomas’ motivation. I only see a man trying to repay a debt to his grandfather.
Addendum: Added James Taranto.