After 19 Years, Wife of Clarence Thomas Still Pursuing Anita Hill for ‘Apology’

October 20, 2010

(ChattahBox U.S. News) – Several years ago, Clarence Thomas’s wife Virginia requested an apology from Anita Hill for her 1991 testimony against the Supreme Court Justice. Hill responded that she had nothing to apologize for, and assumed that the matter was behind her. But last week Hill arrived at her office to find a voice mail from Mrs. Thomas asking Hill to “explain why you did what you did,” The New York Times reports.In the message, Mrs. Thomas asked Hill to “consider an apology” as well as a “full explanation” of her actions when she testified that Justice Thomas had made inappropriate sexual comments to her when she worked as an aide to him prior to his Supreme Court nomination, the Times reports. All along, Justice Thomas has maintained that Hill invented the allegations, and Hill has stood firm that she spoke the truth.

Hill, who is now a social policy, law, and women’s studies professor at Brandeis University, turned over Mrs. Thomas’s voicemail to Brandeis campus police — with instructions to share it with the FBI – but was not sure whether it was actually Mrs. Thomas’s voice on the call.

Virginia Thomas runs Liberty Central, an activist group that opposes “the leftist tyranny of the Obama administration and Congressional democrats” and is funded by anonymous donors, the Times notes.  In a statement conveyed through a publicist, Ms. Thomas confirmed leaving the message, which she portrayed as a peacemaking gesture.   In response to Ms. Thomas’s statement, Ms. Hill said that she had testified truthfully about her experiences with the future Justice Thomas and that she had nothing to apologize for.


Comments

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.