From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill...giving out pubic hairs?!  Oh please!  PROVE IT!!
X-To: THEODORE A. KALDIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Lines: 100

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>In article <1993Mar20.161551.4638@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will S
>eeves) writes:

>[J. Lani Herrmann:]

>>>> We are wondering why the Clinton administration is having so much
>>>> trouble finding a suitable nominee for the post of Attorney General,
>>>> when there is an obviously superior candidate:...

>>>> We refer, of course, to Prof. Anita Hill.

>[Michael Friedman:]

>>> Probably because if they pick her the Republicans will investigate
>>> the rumors that she sometimes returned papers to her students with
>>> a couple of pubic hairs inserted between the pages.

>> While I'm hardly one of Prof. Hill's biggest fans, I find *this* hard
>> to believe.

>> Could you please supply (with a post, preferably) some proof of this,
>> ie., newspaper articles documenting such allegations, etc.?

>Well, your ignorance about this is unsurprising, given you're a
>Canadian.  And I'm at a complete loss at to why you should be so
>interested in this, given that it is an American issue which should
>properly be of absolutely no concern to you at all.

Actually, my interest in gender issues is not limited to international
boundaries.  Indeed, I often exchange information with Americans about
issues which concern us, in both countries.


>In any event, in
>answer to your question, the following is taken from David Brock's
>article, "The Real Anita Hill", published in the March 1992 issue of
>_The_American_Spectator_.  [This is taken from page 27.]
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah...someone had mentioned this journal, but gave no further information.


>     But the most bizarre incident is alleged to have happened in the
>   school year 1983-84 at Oral Roberts [University], according to a
>   sworn affidavit, dated October 13, 1991, and filed with the Senate
>   Judiciary Committee, in which Lawrence Shiles, now a lawyer in
>   Tulsa, recounted the following:

>     Shortly after the class had begun, Professor Hill gave us a
>     written assignment which I completed and duly turned in.  When
>     this assignment was passed out to the class after having been
>     marked by [the] professor, sitting next to me were fellow
>     students Jeffrey Londoff and Mark Stewart.  Upon opening the
>     assignments and reviewing our grades and comments made by Anita
>     Hill, I found ten to twelve short black pubic hairs in the pages
>     of my assignment.  I glanced over at Jeff Londoff's assignment
>     and saw similar pubic hairs in his work.  At the time I made the
>     statement to Londoff that either she had a low opinion of our
>     work or she had graded our assignment in the bathroom.  Mark
>     Stewart overheard the conversation and said that he had similar
>     pubic hairs in his assignment also.  This became the standing
>     joke among many students for the remainder of the year in
>     classes.

>     Other students in that class confirmed the story.  Londoff says
>   he couldn't be certain that the hairs were pubic, but he said he
>   thought it was unlikely that they could have come from Hill's head,
>   since they were short, coarse, and curly, and Hill had had the hair
>   on her head straightened.  Another student who saw the hair, but
>   did not want to be identified, said of its origins: "You just know
>   when you see it."

>Does this satisfy you,

Yes, thank you, though I am really curious as to why this never came out
(at least not in what I saw, up here in Canada, or on CNN, which is sent
up here) during the Thomas nomination hearings.  Surely, one would think
that her claim to having been sexually harassed, would have a great deal
less credibility if it could be shown that she had herself been guilty of it.


>or do you regard sworn statements given to a
>U.S. Senate committee as equivalent to toilet paper?

Ahemmm....  It depends.  :-)

(For instance, if it were the "sworn statements" at the Warren Commission,
then yes, I _would_ say that the statements were no better than toilet
paper, used at that :-), but in most cases, the answer would be "no").

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Solve Patriarchy, Install Peterarchy"
   - Peter J. Hanus, B.A. (UPEI)

 * SLMR 2.1a * Scott me up, Beamy.
