Justice Clarence Thomas’ Wife Leaves a Message
The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas [who is Black] (born June 23, 1948), Virginia “Ginni” Thomas [who is white], left a voice mail to Anita Hill’s office [who is Black]. Ginni Thomas is a conservative activist who founded the organization Liberty Central. Ginni is also described by friends and husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, as being deeply religious.
Hill has maintained that she told the truth. Justice Thomas, meanwhile, has steadfastly denied her accusations.
Now, Virginia Thomas, the justice’s wife, has rekindled the controversy by leaving a voice mail message at Hill’s Brandeis University office seeking an apology.
“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” said the message left earlier this month, according to a transcript provided by ABC News. “I just want to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometimes and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”
Hill, a Brandeis professor, told reporters that she held onto the message for nearly a week as she weighed whether it was legitimate. Eventually, she turned it over to campus police with a request that it be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI’s Boston field office declined comment.
“I certainly thought the call was inappropriate,” Hill, who worked for Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions, said in a statement released to the Associated Press.
In her Senate testimony, Hill said that Thomas would make sexual comments to her at work, including references to scenes in hard core pornographic films.
“I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony,” she added.
During the controversy Justice Thomas, then nominee Thomas, had this to say:
“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”
On a side note, a politician wanting to hone in on the spotlight in this campaign season weighed in. Lillian McEwen, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer who said she dated Clarence Thomas from 1979 through the mid-1980s, Thomas then being 31 years old, said she was not surprised that Virginia Thomas would leave Hill a message, even after all these years.
“In his autobiography, Clarence described himself as a person incapable of doing what Anita Hill said he did,” McEwen said in an interview. “He is married to a woman who is loyal to him and religious in a way he would like to be. This combination of religiosity and loyalty and belief that he is really the kind of person who he describes in his book would just about compel her to do something like that.”
“The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then,” McEwen said.
In a statement released this week to the Associated Press, Mrs. Thomas said she did not intend to offend Hill with the voice mail. “I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed (sic) what happened so long ago,” Thomas said in the statement. “That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same.”
Hill had worked for Thomas at the Education Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However Hill is not credible, because of a few things:
- she first made her allegations after Thomas had been nominated to the high court, 10 years after she began working for him and only after she was contacted by congressional investigators
- Other former colleagues testified on Thomas’s behalf. Nancy Altman, who shared an office with Thomas at the Department of Education, testified that she heard virtually everything Thomas said over the course of two years, and never heard any sexist or offensive comment. Altman did not find it credible that Thomas could have engaged in the conduct alleged by Hill, without any of the dozens of women he worked with noticing it.
- Senator Alan K. Simpson was puzzled about why Hill and Thomas met, dined, and spoke by phone on various occasions after they no longer worked together.
According to the Oyez Project, there was a lack of convincing proof produced at the Senate hearings. After extensive debate, the Judiciary Committee split 7–7 on September 27, sending the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote on October 15, 1991, aged 43 years old, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final floor vote was mostly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination. Newspaper coverage of Thomas’s private life was limited after he was confirmed.
It is my personal opinion that Anita Hill was lying. After reviewing much of the then testimony, given by several women it amounts to, those with grevances were called upon, i.e. those who had been fired and disgruntled, and those who were coaxed by politicians testified, namely ONLY Anita Hill. That fact alone should raise red flags for everyone in the nation.
Now as a Black man, Justice Thomas works against everything that Black people, like myself, work for, i.e. equality in all things and a level economic playing field for us to do business in, devoid of government interference. As a Christian, Justice Thomas works against what is righteous.
There can be many allegations against the man’s personal shortcomings, but sexual harassment is not one of them, in my opinion. I do not feel he should have been nominated to the supreme court. He has been a monumental failure for causes I believe in and serves as nothing more than a place holder.