Hill-Thomas Debate Taxes Civility

By Freivogel, William H. | St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO), November 1, 1993 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Hill-Thomas Debate Taxes Civility

Freivogel, William H., St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)

CLARENCE THOMAS started his work on the Supreme Court two years ago this week, yet he is still haunted by the ghost of Anita Hill's sexual-harassment allegations.

Hardly a month passes without a journalistic re-examination of the October weekend when Hill's graphic allegations and Thomas' angry denials captivated the nation.

There was the book by David Brock, a Washington Times reporter, debunking Hill's story. Then a response to Brock, debunking the debunker. Then Brock's rebuttal. Finally, an article in The New Yorker portraying Thomas as an angry man taking his revenge from the high court bench through archconservative positions.

Meanwhile, the subject of this scrutiny is ridiculed in TV skits - can't travel without Secret Service protection and can't give a speech without protesters at the door.

An argument may be made that all this is healthy in a robust democracy.

But there are arguments on the other side. The Hill-Thomas debate drains civility from public discourse. In addition, it encourages the growth of a wing of the women's movement that is focused on victimization rather than a broader view of women's rights.

First, civility.

The notion itself seems hopelessly old-fashioned in this take-no-prisoners era of political combat. Years of achievement are vaporized in a media minute.

Perhaps Robert Bork, John Tower and Lani Guinier all deserved to lose. But the public dismemberment of their reputations was brutal.

What does civility dictate for Clarence Thomas?

Maybe we in the press should avoid snide asides, such as one in a recent wire story saying that Thomas sometimes doesn't listen to oral arguments. Nor do we need a paragraph about Thomas every time a sex-harassment case comes up.

Granted, Thomas is a man of contradictions. He professed sympathy for African-American prisoners at his confirmation, but he doesn't think the Constitution bars all prison beatings. He is the product of largely desegregated schools and colleges, yet is ready to dismantle school desegregation. He is a beneficiary of affirmative action, but seems not to believe in it.

Despite the bedeviling contradictions, legal experts of varying political stripes give Thomas' opinions high marks for scholarship.

The second point, about the role of victimization in the women's movement, is tricky.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Hill-Thomas Debate Taxes Civility


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?