At Inside Higher Ed this morning, there's an article with the headline At U. of Georgia, Furor Over Clarence Thomas. As always when I see such things (or, say, complaints about having Mike Huckabee speak on campus here), my first thought was "Curse you, Georgia, for making me think, even for a nanosecond, that David Horowitz might have a point."
This turns out not to be the expected contorversy over Thomas's politics. Instead, it's about his past:
Rather than sparking debates about Thomas's jurisprudence or his politics, though, the announcement has led to a flurry of criticisms drawing parallels between the allegations made at the associate justice's infamous 1991 Senate confirmation hearings -- during which a former employee, Anita Hill, testified that he'd sexually harassed her -- and more recent accusations of sexually suggestive behavior on campus that have led to a broad mandate to overhaul the way the university handles such cases.
Now some faculty members say that having Thomas as the undergraduate commencement speaker sends the wrong message at a time when the university is in the midst of a process that could change the way sexual harassment is dealt with in the campus judicial system.
"Given all of this work, and what felt like progress, the news that Justice Clarence Thomas is to give the commencement address this year has been met by dismay," said Chris Cuomo, director of the Institute for Women's Studies and a professor of philosophy, in an e-mail message. "Members of the UGA community who are concerned about the problems with enforcement of the university's own policies against harassment wonder if the university administration is sending an intentional message that they believe matters of sexual harassment and gender equity are trivial."
You know, I think I would actually be happier if this were about his somewhat sketchy jurisprudence.
I strongly suspect that the only message the administration is trying to send here is "Look! We got a Supreme Court justice to speak at commencement! Woo-hoo!" Reading anything else into it is classic obsessive faculty behavior.
Yeah, Thomas was accused of sexual harassment in 1991 (well, he was accused of harassing Hill at some point several years before that, and it just came up during his 1991 confirmation hearings). Note the verb: accused. There were long, dull hearings on the subject (I was in college then, and followed the news avidly), and they were ultimately inconclusive. No legal charges were filed, and he was never convicted of anything.
And this all happened when the graduating seniors he will be addressing were in pre-school. Outside of the occasional non-traditional student, none of the undergraduates at Georgia are likely to have any conscious memories of the Thomas hearings at all. There are probably some Ph.D. candidates in the humanities who were just starting grad school then, but for the vast majority of the audience this is ancient history.
While I don't think much of Thomas as a jurist or a person, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an accusation of wrongdoing, no matter how reprehensible, makes the man untouchable seventeen years later. Especially given his current position on the Supreme Court-- getting him as a commencement speaker is a coup for the university, and ought to be celebrated.
If faculty at Georgia insist on clinging to these old allegations, why not use this as a teaching opportunity? None of the students there now are likely to remember the Thomas hearings, so this is an excellent hook for discussing them and, really, the entire political circus that surrounded his nomination to the court. The whole thing was a fascinating mix of every dicey factor in American politics-- race, sex, class, a whole spectrum of political issues. I'm sure that multiple Ph.D. theses could be written (and probably have) about various aspects of the whole incident. Having him come to speak presents a fabulous opportunity to explore all of these issues with students, in a way that makes them immediately relevant.
But no, we get complaints about letting him speak at all, and hand-wringing about messages that are coded so deeply you need a quantum computer to ferret them out.
Incidents like this make me feel vaguely ashamed of being an academic. So curse you, Georgia, for reminding me that I share a profession with these people.
(Of course, I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't partly about his politics-- do you think that there would be a similar furor if they had invited, say, Ted Kennedy to speak?)
- Log in to post comments
Getting a Supreme Court justice to speak at a university commencement is such a coup? Back in 1958 Justice Brennan spoke at my high school commencement -- a high school with a total enrollment of 400 and a graduating class of 104. He gave a really good talk too.
Yes there would be a similar furor over Kennedy and maybe a bigger one - albeit by probably a smaller proportion of people. I don't think furors ( which I doubt this rises to ) about speakers are bad when they are on campuses and the speaker is political. If you can't stand the heat ...
Really who cares what nutty academics do anyway? (half in jest, half not).
"There are probably some Ph.D. candidates in the humanities who were just starting grad school then [1991]"
ROTFL.
Justice Brennan is impressive. One of my recent students told me that the speaker at his high school graduation was the late Ken Kesey (the lead Merry Prankster of "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" fame and author of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest").
All we got at my graduation was Walter Cronkite.
PS - Could a quantum computer replace all of the talking heads analyzing one single Presidential primary election?
YOU did it! YOU weren't happy making babies and driving black cars with stick shifts. YOU wanted pastels and automatic transmissions. YOU wanted to vote, YOU wanted to be in the workplace, YOU wanted to be in the military. YOU wanted Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, diversity, compassion, and daycare. You've gotten it lady, trumped in spades redoubled. Work your butt off, abandon any thoughts of family, and watch as real experts in whining being carried in palanquins beat you to the finish line every time. Nobody dares hold you dearly for fear of being drawn and quartered by "social activists" and their pro bono legal representation. The best you can hope for is to get laid.
The only outrage Yearning For Zion committed was reproducing exactly like protected minorities - and with the same financing.
"Of course, I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't partly about his politics-- do you think that there would be a similar furor if they had invited, say, Ted Kennedy to speak?)"
I doubt it. You're talking about Georgia, remember?
To me, your complaint is like looking at the definition of a word without considering the connotations. There is a widespread feeling that Thomas got away with something because of a good-ol'-boy attitude towards sexual harassment. You know, can't these women just take a joke? What's the big deal?
And, you might also consider that what you read is a headline. Just how widespread is the "furor?" And just how furious is it?
Upon rereading I see that I should have reread before posting.
Georgia is a notably conservative state and, despite the tradition of ivory-tower, liberal university professors, I suspect that there would be about the same "furor" about Kennedy as about Clarence Thomas - virtually none. The Atlanta Journal/Constitution uses the typical weasel wording of a poorly-researched story: "Some University of Georgia faculty are concerned ..." How many? Who knows? But it's safe to say "some". Who can deny that? You certainly know you can find someone on campus to be furious about anything.
I don't think you get the point of the consternation over him speaking at commencement. In the last several months at UGA, three professors quit after they were found sexually harassing students, while another was put on suspension pending an internal investigation (all of this was kept secret until it was unveiled by the UGA college newspaper). Another professor, who left in 2004 after sexually harassing a professor as well as other students, was found to do the same thing at his new school in Texas, where he has since resigned. When all this came to light, the UGA president actually created a whole new system to deal with harassment issues. So after a semester when it was revealed that 5 professors were sexually harassing students at UGA, the choice for speaker is Clarence Thomas? You have to see where the dismay comes from, even if just a little.
You should have done some background checking before writing such an ill-informed post.
So after a semester when it was revealed that 5 professors were sexually harassing students at UGA, the choice for speaker is Clarence Thomas? You have to see where the dismay comes from, even if just a little.
Yeah, I know that. I just think that the fact that he is currently a justice on the Supreme Court is a whole lot more relevant now than the fact that seventeen years ago he was accused (not convicted, accused) of sexually harassing someone.
The article quoted someone saying that he had a standing invitation to be a commencement speaker, and this was the first year he was able to make it. It's not like they deliberately went and actively sought a speaker who would be insulting.
I guess I can see where the "dismay" comes from just a little. And I'm sure that the report is lazy in it's qualitative definitions of "furor" and how many of the faculty are are involved in that furor. But I wonder if Thomas was asked in the "last several months" to be speaker or if he was scheduled well in advance of the discovery of the abuses.
More to the point of the post however, is the relevance of the accusation to the accomplishment. Bill Clinton (a man I have some level of admiration for) was President and an admitted adulterer. Which holds the greatest priority in remembrance of him? Does one cancel the respect afforded to the other aspect of his character? This says nothing about the validity of Clinton being a commencement speaker at a campus that is dealing with a sexual abuse scandal, but I think this is the larger point being made. Is Thomas a Supreme Court Justice or an accused sexual molester? Is everyone merely accused of a sexual crime forever to be treated as sexual criminal?
Imagine this scenario: Two varsity Bulldog football players kill their exgirlfriends and their current lovers in brutal fashion, are tried and convicted. The university then invites O.J. Simpson as its graduation speaker that same semester, protesting, "but he was never convicted!"
If this discussion typifies the "open intellectual" atmosphere on most colleges today, I think parents would be better off sending their offspring to a good trade school or find them a position as an apprentice. Trying to equate the farce of a trial that allowed OJ Simpson to escape justice with the allegations against Justice Thomas is delusional at best. But then many today refuse to let reality intrude on their own internal world view.
Wow, Leukocyte. If I ever write a book about inept analogies, I now have my greatest example. Try this: A group of football players are invited to be guest judges at the Westminster dog show, and Michael Vick is invited. Horrors! Not an apt analogy but still, horrible.
Yeah, we know.
You don't get excited by anything, because you are so measured and moderate and wise and above it all. Everything is very dull to you, and anyone who gives a shit about anything that you don't is a screechy monkey.
We get it already.
It's not like they deliberately went and actively sought a speaker who would be insulting.
No, not at all. It's just like they deliberately and actively didn't think at all about women when they sought out Clarence Thomas. Sexual harassment and its ramifications just doesn't even reach their consciousness.