Frank Sinatra/Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas
A 21st Century Sexual Harassment Redux
*
‘You Can’t Have One Without the Other…’
*
Hill and Thomas Forever Linked
It would be ‘a consummation devoutly to be wished’. That folks would be assigned a given task…
Who could bring detached objectivity. To the examination of things like: a sexual harassment problem that is rampant in America today.
*
It has been proposed. That former Federal prosecutor, law professor and administrator at the Brandeis University, examine the present Hollywood sexual harassment harangue.
“Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine…”
-Rick Blaine Casablanca
Of all the folks who might be available to address the situation: one in particular has been called to serve. Anita Hill. At first blush it would seem that the appointment is fraught.
*
A Special Commission Intended
To
Address Human Behavior
*
‘A special commission to combat sexual harassment in the entertainment and media industries will be chaired by lawyer and academic Anita Hill. The first meeting of the Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace was attended by a wide range of industry giants.’ (From BBC.com)
*
“The Commission on Sexual Harassment and
Advancing Equality in the Workplace”
E Pluribus Anita
*
“Those also serve who only stand and wait.”
-John Milton
*
So it has been decided. That of all the qualified folks that inhabit the vast landscape of our American country only Anita Hill is fit to be the chief, “impartial” arbiter in the examination of finer points of sexual harassment and “equality in the workplace”.
Just as sexual harassment: the latest social bugbear. Slowly grinds into the foundations of American entertainment, government, and industry as some ancient and plodding glacier might once have hollowed out a far-off, rocky fjord.
*
‘Like a Horse and Carriage’
“…You can’t have one, you can’t have none
You can’t have one without the other.”
-Frank Sinatra Love and Marriage
The ever linked-in-history names of: Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Joined once and for all (‘in sickness and in health’) as a, now, decades-old constitutional conundrum that was never adequately solved, surfaces again.
Was ‘there a liar in the house’ (or, more accurately in the Senate) during the judicial confirmation hearings that elevated Clarence Thomas to the lofty status of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court? The answer is: yes there had to have been.
Who was it? Then?
*
-Then-
No harm. No Foul.
-Now-
Who Should Cast the First Stone?
*
‘He that is without sin…first cast a stone…’
-Jesus of Nazareth
*
Solomon, were he to sit in judgment. The ultimate arbiter: one abundantly possessed of near-divine judicious temperament. Would be vexed by the condition of American ethics in the modern age.
For instance, the year was 1991 A.D. Were the venerable Old Testament “judge” saddled with the obligation to decide, which of the two personalities: Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas; were truthful in their sworn testimony before the United States Congress at hearings that resulted in the granting of “advice and consent” to the candidacy of Thomas for a seat on the highest court in the land.
The Biblical beneficence of the greatest judge of all time would be harshly tested. He would, however, be obliged to conclude that one or the other of Hill or Thomas had, intentionally misspoken, under oath, before the watchful gaze of a Senate Judiciary Committee, an entire Congress and a transfixed nation.
*
A Spate of Facts…
From A False Premise
-
Must Beget
-A-
False Conclusion
Generally, such a spate of facts would bode disaster for an individual as well as an entire governmental administrative system; let alone considerable fallout upon society-at-large. Such that the individuals involved in the unfortunate event would be hobbled with an onus for entire careers and: then beyond…into history.
After the passage of time: a quarter century. The accuser, Hill and the accused, Thomas, both, somehow managed to escape being tarred by the brush of popular displeasure and official censure. Which ordinarily would disqualify either or both from what eventually became their, not inconsiderable, official appointed duties.
Ordinarily and at the least the, elusive social ethereal that is “Ethics”, would bring either or both persons into disrepute. Morality and decency and the ‘better angels’ of good judgment would nag at and diminish the lives and livelihoods of either or both based just on their performances before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991.
Today. Not only does a high Court Justice sit and consider with supreme gravitas and conspicuously silent personal decorum, the propriety of confirming or denying various constitutional rights that, scores of appellants and appellees might be entitled to.
Clarence Thomas also represents one of the nine very considerable threads, which, when woven: constitute the legal fabric confection that is the rich tapestry of the highest court in the land. As a branch of government, the Supreme Court is one of the three very identifiable faces of political America.
*
Yet. Today, a law professor teaches the finer points of the law to students whose number could well include those who will someday appear before the very court on, which, her nemesis, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits.
Two, very different folks have two very important responsibilities within the framework of greater society and the law in general as well as the judicial system in particular. In the end one or the other has no business being where she or he is. Period.
*
Meanwhile, decades have passed since the fateful U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee encounter. Yet, America is still without clear knowledge of the facts pertaining to the truth and veracity of the testimony of either or both of these powerful people.
*
‘You Can’t Have One Without the Other…’
One thing is for sure, however. In short order, one of them, Anita Hill will preside as “chair” of a commission.
Whose function is to determine the truth and veracity of folks. Who will be thoroughly examined regarding complaints of alleged sexual harassment in the workplace.
All the while, Clarence Thomas, at some point, before the present sexual harassment crisis blows over. Will likely have before his court at least one case, which seeks judicial determination of citizen rights in the workplace when sexual harassment is at issue.
*
King Solomon Would Sweat:
Who should pay the price of ‘21st century sexual harassment redux’…
Hill or Thomas?
King Solomon would sweat. Moreover there will be no proverbial, tormented mother whose offer of supreme personal sacrifice could rescue the good judge from a painful, obligatory decision. One or the other: Hill or Thomas is unfit for the appointed duty… Again, in 2017, as it was in 1991: the “case” is before us as a society. Front and center.
Arguendo. If Anita Hill, as committee chair of “The Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace”, can investigate with impartiality a spate of charges of sexual misconduct testimony. Should the good Judge Thomas be obliged to recuse himself from the hearing of such legal issues, effectively denying his right to hear cases of that legal vernacular?
Then again, if, Clarence Thomas should recuse himself shouldn’t the law professor cum chair of the “Special Commission”, Hill. Be barred from serving in her ‘commission chair’ capacity as well.
Crossroads
*
“Our world is at the crossroads.
We have a choice, right and wrong.”
-L L Cool J
*
The issue must be parsed today. Now. Before further complications arise from legal processes that could be a waste of time due to the detection of what are inherent “ethical” flaws.
Anita Hill couldn’t have been truthful in her allegations of sexual misconduct against Clarence Thomas if Clarence Thomas gained appointment to the bench. Because Thomas is a sitting justice, does that mean that Hill was a liar?
Or. If Hill told the truth in 1991, has the bar for advancement and freedom from punishment; all in light of alleged sexual misconduct been set so high. That any position of employment including that, which is the high status of appointment to the United States Supreme Court: is safe from the vagaries of sordid allegation?
*
History
*
“History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”-Mark Twain
*
Dateline October 1991
Washington, D.C.
N.B. Either a soon-to-be-seated justice of the United States Supreme Court has perjured himself. Or, a lawyer destined to be an academic in-residence at Brandeis University has perjured herself.
Dateline December 2017
Washington, D.C.
N.B. Clarence Thomas is sitting as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Professor and attorney Anita Hill of Brandeis University is chairing “ The Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace”.
*
Is Something “Rotten” in Hollywood?
*
“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.”
-Wm. Shakespeare Hamlet
*
If. Anita Hill is considered to be ethically equipped to act as chair of a commission that will entertain sworn testimony from ordinary witnesses to, as well as resident experts on, sexual harassment. Then a quarter century ago a Supreme Court Justice must have lied in a denial of her own sexual harassment allegations
If. That Supreme Court Justice told the truth, however. Then, Anita Hill represents a dangerous ethical anomaly.
Moreover. Everything would be wrong about even the most good faith effort that might be made to address the issue of sexual harassment by newly formed: “The Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace” chaired by Attorney Anita Hill.
*
NON SUB HOMINE SED SUB DEO ET LEGE
*
Posted 11 minutes ago by DILULIUS, King of Troy