What would you do if you learned that two weeks from now a man repeatedly accused of aggressive sexual misconduct may decide whether women have the power to confront people who discriminate against them?
On March 29th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the largest civil rights case in the history of the country. The decision in this case could bring women's progress to a grinding halt; and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may be the deciding vote. Yes, a man whose public debut was defined by accusations of egregious sexual misconduct could decide the economic future of women across the country. Can a man reportedly "obsessed with porn" who "spoke of (sex) acts he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals . . . or rape scenes" act as an effective arbiter of sex discrimination at work? And if not, what can be done about it?
The specific issue in Wal-Mart v. Dukes is whether or not 1 million female employees of the giant retailer can be considered a class. Because it is only the threat of action by a group (in legal terms a 'class') that makes illegal bias economically un-viable for large corporations, the outcome of this case is paramount. It is significantly cheaper to bury a single employee in legal fees and continue the illegal pay disparity than it is to pay male and female employees equal pay for equal work. As a 'class', the women will have substantial power to confront the company's illegal bias against them; without class designation, they will not.
Lillian McEwen, a former long-term girlfriend of Thomas, recently released a memoir that sheds new light on the Justice's personality and his casual misogyny. Largely ignored by the media, McEwan's account bolsters Anita Hill's stories of Thomas' behavior in the workplace describing how Thomas made a hobby of "sizing up" women at work. McEwan details Thomas' obsession with pornography, which she calls "just a part of his personality structure." In interviews, Ms. McEwan says that pornography, and the attitudes that accompany it, were not relegated to Thomas' private life. According to Ms. McEwen, Thomas "allowed his interest in pornography to bleed into his professional relationships." By McEwan's telling, for this Justice, bias and a penchant for disempowering women did not disappear when the DVD stopped.
The science around pornography is hardly complete, however many studies have shown that it increases bias against women. At the very least, it seems illogical that it would decrease one's bias. A review published in The Journal of Sex Research cites a study where college men and women were shown a variety of film clips and then asked to recommend sentencing for a convicted rapist. Students exposed to sexualized violence usually supported shorter sentences. Another study measured male subjects' "rape-myth acceptance", finding that subjects exposed to violent, sexually explicit images were more likely to agree with sentiments like - "women who dress a certain way are asking for it". By that logic, does wearing a skirt also mean women are asking to be paid substantially less than male counterparts for doing the same work?
Even the most cursory examination of Thomas' professional life indicates that while Anita Hill became the most famous of Thomas' victims, she was hardly the only one to suffer his peccadilloes. Unless something is done, millions more women will also suffer those effects. So in addition to substantiating Hill's account of Thomas' anti-woman bias, Ms. McEwan's account re-opens the door to questions that were not properly examined during the Anita Hill hearings. Questions like: should a person with a documented history of bias against a group of people be allowed judge cases that will enable that same bias?
Is there any basis for preventing a person who holds a particular bias to judge a case involving that same bias? Actually, yes. In 2008, then New Jersey Governor Corzine withdrew the reappointment of Judge Fred Kaiser Jr., a Superior Court Judge from Middlesex Country, who directed an anti-Asian slur at a defendant. The Asian American Bar Association, and (dare we hope most Americans?) applauded that move. Kaiser is not the only Judge to leave the bench in shame after making a biased and incendiary statement - a suburban Chicago judge also resigned after being caught using anti-black slurs at the scene of a traffic accident. Leaving the bench for racial slurs but not for sexual ones? Seems a little (eh-hem) biased, doesn't it? When will women - and the men who care about them - demand that prejudice against women be as damning a characteristic of a public official as prejudices of other kinds? If we would step forward against a judge with a history of anti-Semitism, or racism, shouldn't we step forward now?
Will we demand the removal of a man with a troubling and corroborated history of prejudice against a specific group of people or will we endorse his prejudice by continuing to allow him to serve on the Supreme Court?
Erica Payne, a public-policy strategist, is the founder of the Agenda Project, a policy and advocacy organization. She is the author of "Practical Progressive: How to Build a 21st Century Political Movement."
Friend Erica on Facebook!
Follow the Agenda Project on Twitter: www.twitter.com/agendaproject
Follow Erica Payne on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EricaPayneAP
Lisa Anderson: A Tribute To Anita Hill After 20 Years
why do you ask?
Are you unable to tell the difference?
I was hired by a company who, unknown to me at the time, had a class action suit filed against it for sexual harrassment and race discrimination. Two of the results of the suit was that all employees had to go through "Diversity" training and the men had to take the pornographic pictures off of their tool boxes and work areas. The older men employees became very hostile, agressive and rude.
I had always been a very good worker and was encouraged by my co-workers and the company to enroll in one of their skilled trades apprentiships which are 99% male dominated. After the "Diversity" training was started I became a target. Of the 9 apprenti in my group, we had one woman - me, and two black men. Although all of the men in my group were very supportive of me I found it very interesting that it was my two black co-workers who would wait for me at night after our shift ended to walk me to my car to make sure none of the threats I had received were carried out. They knew what if felt like to be discriminated against.
So what exactly has this joker been convicted of?
Or is it that you just don't like him and his attitudes?
I would rather see Wal-mart employees join a union and have ALL employees promoted on a seniority and performance basis with regular raises and benefits.
The way she talked about him I got the impression that he was some kind of criminal.
I must have the wrong impression.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that does not have core beliefs and values from which they will not part.
But ultimately a judge is supposed to make decision based on the law and the rule of law, not some bias.
At least that's the way it is supposed to work.
Class actions suits are notorious for getting judgements that benefit attorneys more than the people who were wronged. Women are not hired as a group, they are hired individually just like men. Is there evidence that Wal-Mart has discriminated against them individually? Are they not capable of being hired elsewhere? I mean if I was being discriminated against I would seek other employment. Argue the case if it is important to you. Don't attack a person because they have a different ideological perspective based on he said she said accounts from people they were involved with over 3 decades ago. It makes you seem petty.
I have no doubt the man is compromised, a judicial activist, and as we know, a perjuring tax cheat. He has no business being on the Court in the first place. But unless we can somehow impeach him on ethical grounds, I don't see any hope. He has no moral code of his own. We can't expect him to recuse himself ever.
The answer is having Progressive presidents put Progressive Justices on the bench.
With the corporations whispering, "Who's your Daddy?" to all of them, I'm inclined to believe that at this point we have no friends, justice, or democracy in any of our three branches of government.
A generation of fools voting for these people.
Look in the mirror, America, to see the guilty.
Pogo was right. Alas.
How did all those anti-women judges get on the surpreme court in the first place (it's easy to pick out thomas as the "deciding vote" but really in any 5-4 decision there are 5 deciding votes)? Weren't they chosen by Republican presidents? And weren't all of those presidents elected by the people? And aren't there more female people (voters) then there are men in this country?
It sounds like democracy to me. Where's the problem?
I should have said something like: With an actual majority in numbers, why do women still feel they have to strive for "equality" with the men of this country. For instance why can't women receive the same pay for the same work as men and why do they have to strive for "class" status to fend off harrasment.
I mean, women should run their own female candidate for president and, oh wait a second, there was a perfectly capable & viable woman candidate for president. And the women of this country abandoned her in droves.
Just because the divorce rate has escallated in the last 50 years doesn't mean that women always had a man to provide for the family - men use to just up and leave their families and the women had to move their children back in with her parents and go to work to provide for the children. Because the women weren't the "head of their household" they didn't merit better wages. So they and their children had to grow up and second class citizens. This is the mind set of these older men who are on the supreme court bench.
Unfortunately, it is also the mindset of a substantial number of younger males and females reared in households and communities that still relentlessly adhere to long outdated; socially, morally and ethically-challenged views based on antiquated and long proven dysfunctional perceptions of our appropriate roles in society. Real old fashioned, time honored "traditional Judeo-Christian, American, white supremecist values" still reign supreme among a substantial proportion of our population; most notably in the deep south and Appalachia but thoughout our nation. Dismal at best.
And a pron addict, molesting "judge" bought by the Koch brothers to ruin democracy and human rights decides on the rights of women at work.
That is no coincidence. It is the core of what is american politics today.
We get the government we deserve. Elections have consequences.
If we don't learn that, we will face those consequences, and we may not like them.
There is clearcut evidence that he is biased in the health insurance reform case coming up - and in all his mind-numbing arrogance he refuses to even complete the financial forms required.
How does one get rid of a corrupt justice whose radical worldview is dangerous to the country?