University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. 15, No. 8, Ed. 1 Wednesday, October 16, 1991 Page: 4 of 15
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: University of Dallas Newspapers and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the University of Dallas.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
4
University News
October 16,1991
Commentary
Trust Older and Experienced Students 24 Hours A Day
id
I
l
students on this campus to handle such
a situation as this dorm.
Why such a strong belief? This
dorm may look very much like Anselm
Hall did my freshman year. Anselm
was mainly an upperclassman dorm.
Our R.A. told us at the beginning of the
year that Anselm should be a dorm
based upon a respect for one another —
and that is how Anselm was throughout
the year I lived there.
The other day when I was discusing
my idea with Bob Zens. He said, “In
that dorm you would need a condom
dispenser in each of the bathrooms.”
Bob was joking then, but unfortunately
some students will actually have an
attitude like his, causing such an ideal
dorm to deteriorate.
Another great philosophical ideal
down the drain.
1
nail in the coffin bearing the ideology of
liberal judicial activism. Yet the Senate
Judiciary Committee (which only makes
recommendations to the Senate) could
find no fault which any reasonable citizen
would hold against him. Until this.
Hill’s accusations have two focal
points. The first is that he, Judge Thomas
“asked her out repeatedly,” on dates. Does
this constitute sexual harassment? I hope
not, because I’m quite certain that I shall
one day ask a woman out. I may regret it,
but not because of any legal ramifica-
tions. I may annoy a woman—even at the
work place—by asking her for the pleas-
ure of her company at an event that would
not necessarily have anything at all to do
to work. I may annoy her immensely, but
that I regard as my constitutionally guar-
anteed right (derived from emanations of
pneumbras from the first amendment), at
least until my boss threatens to fire me. I
am, in fact, politically insensitive to this
type of sexual hai^ssment
I am, though, much more concerned
with the second type of sexual harassment
that the main brunt of her argument de-
scribed. Hill claimed that Judge Thomas
had described privately to her his sexual
prowess, as well as certain pornographic
films that involved “women with large
breasts” having “sex with animals and
people, “ “oral sex,” etcetera. Such films
are morally reprehensible; conversation
about such films is at best puerile and
immature.
These are three characteristics that
Thomas certainly does not possess, as
even a cursory view of today’s hearings
reflected. (It is, incidentally, quite evident
that Hill never worked for any type of
construction company). Nevertheless the
charges were brought forth by her, and the
Senate reviewed them—which they
should.
However, the degree of attention, the
incredible stress, public or private, that
these charges have received is simply un-
warranted. She has admitted from the
first that she has no evidence, no wit-
nesses, no written records or previously
recorded or written testimony. She has
nothing but her own word and the strength
of her own word.
I do not know from any experience,
but I suspect that any reasonable district
attorney in America would categorically
refuse to prosecute such a case, particu-
larly given the great number of men and
women, former and present employees,
friends and employers who have staunchly
stood by his side these last five days and
repeatedly denied that Thomas has ever
exhibited any type of rude behaviour,
much less lude remarks or sexually har-
assment
At the beginning of her testimony,
Hill stated that she found the proceedings
very difficult and embarrasing; she was
forced to speak of things that she would
under any other circumstance speak of
only to her closest friends. Why have
..JI
J
credence to Hill’s testimony today, their
own hypocricy by ignoring this most
fundamental tenentof our legal system; a
principle that should extend beyond the
realm of the juridical and partisan life.
The whole confirmation process itsel f
is a travesty, as Thomas pointed out to-
day. “This has been a high-tech lynching
for an uppity black; but if you don’tkow-
tow to the old order, you are lynched by
the US Senate,” said Thomas. He is cor-
rect in his assessment; the “confirmation
process” has become simply a trial by
torture, giving the media and special inter-
est groups time to find dirt, scandal, or
scurrilous lies and rumors about a nomi-
nee.
If these proceedings were to be done
at all fairly, they would be completely
closed to the public; the Senate Confir-
mation Committee would be give a very
brief duration of time in which to exam-
ine the nominee and make their decision.
“No job is worth this....Nothing is worth
it [The confirmation process] is far gone
beyond McCarthyism, far more danger-
ous than McCarthyism...It’s more than
that, Senator. You are ruining the coun-
try.”
This is indeed what is happening; the
confirmation process—as well as any
public figure—is now openly susceptible
to blackmail, Senatorially approved libel
and slander. There is no longer any room
left for rational discourse in our govern-
ment (not that I was ever convinced there
was to begin with); we have reached the
form of government that Aristotle warned
us about 2,300 years ago.
We have become a mob rule, for the
Senators, who in the blinding light of
television cameras are intensely aware of
the public scrutiny they are under and will
do only what will guarantee their contin-
ued presence in office, are swayed by the
fickle passions and desires of the public.
The presence of Senators Hatch and Spec-
ter on the Confirmation Committee is the
one thing that provides to me any final
iota of faith in our Congress. (How is it
that Massachusetts keeps re-electing
Senator Ted Kennedy? The mind
boggles...)
I do not believe that Thomas will be
confirmed; I do not believe our Senate as
a whole has the intellectual or moral in-
tegrity to adhere to the most basic premise
of our justice system. I pray that I am
wrong, for the sake of our country and our
Supreme Court—not that we who have
allowed this travesty and injustice to
continue deserve such a man of such
outstanding character, courage and dig-
nity to serve on our Court. I pray for
Thomas; he has been maligned, slan-
dered, and irreparably damaged by accu-
sations that of their nature cannot be dis-
proved.
Somewhere in my memory, from
childhood, perhaps, is the command,
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbor.”
those friends not been produced to verify
that she did, ten years ago, complain pri-
vately of the hurt and humiliation that her
boss was inflicting upon her?
Why did she, despite this strained (but
“cordial and professional”) relationship
between her and her employer, follow
him from employment to employment?
She answered that she believed that she
had no other choice; she was not aware
that she was guaranteed a position in her
present place of employment
Why did she repeatedly call him, years
later, in a very cordial and friendly man-
ner, congratulating him upon his mar-
riage, “sorry that she missed him last
week,” when she could have, had she
desired to, avoided contact with him eas-
ily? She responded to these charges as
well, saying that she contacted him for
favors for others or out of professional
politeness.
Why had she not on any of the three
confirmation hearings for Thomas previ-
ous appointments come forward and
spoken of his crime? Why did she not
ever speak to anyone of his illicit behav-
ior? Surely, as an employee of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commision,
she realized that she could have gone to
any other office in the EEOC, as Judge
Thomas pointed out, and spoken in confi-
dentiality about him.
Hill, it cannot be denied, was very
astute under examination, and she an-
swered most questions quickly and intel-
ligently; yet I found a unifying synergism
lacking in her replies to these facts. Her
recorded behaviour and actions seemed
inconsistent with that of a woman badly
hurt and embarrassed by a former em-
ployer.
Ultimately, it is simply her word
against Thomas. She provided vivid
images in her testimony that he could do
nothing else but deny with a simple “no.”
The word “no” does not have the same
profound effect upon the imagination as
all her varied allegations. He can present
the only defense that has always been that
of those who are being slandered and
maligned, a simple, unquestionable, un-
equivocable denial of the charges.
What I fear will happen, though—and
by the time this is in print, the issue will
have already been decided—is that the
Committee will come to no decision. They
will neither affirm nor deny the guilt of
Thomas, giving themselves the opportu-
nity to speak phrases such as “While we
do not accuse Thomas of...,” “we find it
necessary...,“ “in such a difficult and
uncertain situation...,** “tenuous
ground.“keep the in teres t of the Uni ted
States in mind,” and vote not to confirm
him.
Senator Joseph Biden has already said
that no verdict will be returned for “this is
not a legal trial.” Yet I do not believe our
Senate has the intellectual integrity to
abide by the principle of innocence until
proven guilt. They reflect, by giving such
e
open house pol-
icy, as stated in
the Student
IE Handbook, is
® overall a good
BB policy, at least
This hypothetical dorm will be based
upon respect for one another. A simple
way to solve any problem, even now,
with your roommate or your neighbor is
by talking to them about the problem,
not bringing in a third party. I strongly
believe that there are enough mature
Travesty Spells “D-o -o-m” For Democracy
by Paul Flynn
I spent
Saturday watch-
ing a man being
B^t< lynched.
“Lynch,” I be-
■ lieve, is an ap-
||BB propriateterm; it
I became the
modus operand!
of the Senate Judiciary Committee when
it dragged Judge Robert Bork through the
political refuse that so pollutes the corri-
dors of our nation’s capitol. Ginsberg,
the nominee to follow in Bork’s wake,
suffered a mercifully short trial at the
hands of this Senatorial body.
But never have I seen such a blatant
disregard for justice, for personal integ-
rity, for common courtesy as I have wit-
nessed in the confirmation hearings of
Judge Clarence Thomas. Professor An-
ita Hill came forward and made her for-
mal accusation against Thomas, accusing
him of sexual harassment Rather (she
made it known later), she was only report-
ing facts that she believed that the Senate
necessarily must know; she was leaving
the actual charges themselves up to the
Senate. She herself has no interest in
accusing him or charging him with any-
thing—a subtlety not lost upon the legal
system that sets the statute of limitations
in sexual harassment cases at 180 days.
Her complaint is some ten years old.
Thomas has already undergone 103
days of questioning and query, his life
being probed to every comer of his being,
his mind raped and pillaged neuron by
neuron as carnivorous senators eagerly
tore at his thoughts and beliefs, seeking to
find some piece of evidence, some faulty
thought or ideology that they could bare
to the giant omniscient orb that is the
public eye.
But now they tear at his soul, as he, in
his own words, has done these last two
weeks since the FBI first informed him of
the accusation brought against his name.
Now, Hill has conveniently provided them
with a reason to find fault with him, a
scapegoat by which they can safely justify
their own liberal ideology. Special inter-
estgroups (NOW and the ACLU are names
that leap to mind, God knows why...) tried
to use Thomas’ Catholic heritage against
him earlier this summer, attempting to
instill an anti-Catholic predjudice in the
public mind. The public’s blunt and
immediate criticism of such attempts
renewed in me a Chestertonian faith in the
common man.
Our Supreme Court is, in fact, thanks
to the efforts of Ronald Reagan and Bush,
a conservative court; it has righted itself
after two decades that brought us the
regrettable genre of decisions that were so
often characterized by the written opin-
ions of Thurgood Marshall. But the ap-
pointment of Thomas to the Supreme
Court would clinch the conservative vote
for the next 25 years; it would be the last
by Mark
Bultman
T h
V I
in this author’s belief. I agree with the
current open house policy in most re-
spects.
However the open house policy
could use modification. One upper-
classman (or, non-freshman or first time
UD student) dorm should have a 24
hour open house policy, and from dis-
cussions with many students over the
past four years, I knowthat plenty of
students on campus agree with this
opinion.
Many arguments may be made to
prevent even one dorm with 24-hour
open house hours, but I believe that all
these arguments can be answered. Let
us look at just a few of the reasons that
may be given which counter 24-hour
open house dorm:
1. This policy would promote pre-
marital sex.
Now you mighthave thoughtl am going
to say something like, “Who Cares? If
they don’t do it in the room they’re
going to do it somewhere else any-
ways.” Well, then, you were wrong in
making such an assumption.
My point here is that we the stu-
dents, as adults, should be trusted to
make the right decision for ourselves.
The University is the best small Catho-
lic college in the country, and the UD
admissions process should weed out
potential students who cannotbe trusted.
2. I don’t want my roommate’s
girlfriend to stay over all night every
night.
Then make sure you pick a roommate
who will not have a girlfriend who
spends every minute of every day with
him. Remember: this dorm will not
have any freshmen or first time stu-
dents, so you have the opportunity to
choose a roommate whom you already
know.
3. I would feel embarrassed walk-
ing down the halls to the showers with
members of the opposite sex watching
me.
Once again, you do not have to
choose to live in this dorm. There will
still be six other dorms on campus that
do not have a 24 hour open house pol-
icy. You will know what you are get-
ting into at the beginning of the semes-
ter.
4. A 24 hour open house dorm
would provide the opportunity for
homosexual activity.
This is probably the weakest of the
arguments I have heard. The current
open door policy condemns heterosex-
ual relationships and condones homo-
sexual activity by allowing members of
the same sex to stay in the room with the
door completely shut but not allowing
the same for members of the opposite
sex.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View two places within this issue that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. 15, No. 8, Ed. 1 Wednesday, October 16, 1991, newspaper, October 16, 1991; Irving, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1218426/m1/4/?q=divorce: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting University of Dallas.