The Red and Black

Originally posted by

GetaGrip

Im sure that all of you liberals would be equally opposed to Bill Clinton giving the commencement address too, right??? Just be honest...it has nothing to do with the sexual harrasment CLAIMS, you don't want him to come because he is conservative. Liberals just can't stand the thought of being tolerant and actually listening to someone with another viewpoint. Conservatives graduating have spent 4+ years listening to liberal professor after liberal professor spewing their dogma.

Whether you like him or not, Clarence Thomas is one of the most powerful individuals in America. When he retires, he plans on leaving all of his Supreme Court writings here at the University. A couple of years ago he chose a UGA law graduate to clerk for him (which is very prestigious and greatly improves the image of the law school). He has done a lot for the University, so how about sitting your liberal butts in a seat and pretend to be tolerant and open-minded.

Originally posted by

Bryan

I feel that the choice of Clarence Thomas to serve as commencement speaker should be applauded. His rise above poverty and the prevalent racism throughout the south as a young man to the position he holds today serves as a perfect example as to how hard work and perseverance leads to great opportunities in America. In a world in which young African-Americans see 50 Cent and Jay-Z as their role models, African-Americans such as Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and Tiger Woods should be revered for their success and profound effect on America.
While the claims of sexual harassment levied against Justice Thomas seem to rile up the faculty and some students of the University, they need to remember that they are but claims.
I do feel that the animosity towards Thomas is merely a result of gutless, partisan pandering. Bill Clinton would hardly be protested against had he been announced as the commencement speaker.
Furthermore, even if Clarence Thomas was guilty of sexual harassment (and this has never been proven), his selection as the commencement speaker could be seen as just another example of the University's plan to further develop a level of multi-culturalism and openness of ideas. Thomas would just present ideas that, in the eyes of the liberal protesters, represent black, dominant males who use their power to sexually demean women in the workplace!

Originally posted by

CoastalDawg

I can tell already that most of the posters here are totally liberal and closed minded individuals. Clarence Thomas is an inspiration to anyone who takes the time to know his story and learn who he really is. Anita Hill came out of the blue in a vain attempt to derail the appointment of a conservative judge to the supreme court, a last minute stand that didn't work. SHE is the one who was used by those in that desperate last ditch effort and for that where is she now and what is she doing? The allegations were just that, allegations, a she said and he said not situation. Pinpoint, Georgia, is not really a town at all, it is an area on the outskirts of Savannah where privilege and silver spoons don't exist. Clarence Thomas came out of that situation and in fact visits there today whenever he has the opportunity. For many years his mother worked at the reception desk of day surgery in a local hospital, a wonderful woman whose ego wasn't swollen by the fact that her son rose to the position which he now enjoys. I've heard him give a speech in person and as IF you are willing to go with an unbiased mind you will be inspired too, inspired to NOT carry the torch of those who don't believe in possibilities but want to rely on age old excuses for not making it in this world. THAT is the major rub against Justice Thomas by many people; he didn't become the lackey for the NAACP and other groups who expected him to continue in the vein of downtrodden individuals who can't make it in this country because they supposedly had slaves as ancestors. If you're going to comment here about his appearance, at least be honest about why you don't want him there. Allegations that are decades old won't do it - the proof is in the pudding of his decisions since becoming a justice; whether or not you agree with him in those decisions, I believe that he gives honest effort to interpreting the case before him in light of our constitution. Poster RP I think you said it best in saying that every one of us has qualities which the next person will like and qualities which the next person will dislike. There's an old Johnny Mercer song "Accentuate the Positive" and eliminate the negative. That is a great lesson for all of life - and don't mess with Mr. In Between.

Originally posted by

Janet Frick

Anyone who thinks that the faculty protest against this choice is only about allegations made 20 years ago, needs to be familiar with Justice Thomas's continued smearing of Anita Hill in his autobiography, published last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html

Further, it should be noted that the author of one of the prime "smear" books against Professor Hill, David Brock (author of "The Real Anita Hill"), later recanted his book and apologized to her.

For the record, I personally am all for a diversity of speakers and opinions being expressed on campus. That's the great thing about an institution of higher education. I think it's fine that Justice Thomas has been invited to speak on campus in the past. But a choice of someone as a graduation speaker implies that the university considers them a role model, and for someone embroiled in such controversy about sexual harassment to be the choice as speaker, in THIS of all years (when we have made the national news so many times for our weak institutional response to sexual harassment, most recently outlined in the April 18 red and black), is just unfathomable to me.

For the record, I would be equally opposed to the choice of Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy as graduation speaker. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Dr. Janet Frick
Dept of Psychology

Originally posted by

Janet Frick

Anyone who thinks that the faculty protest against this choice is only about allegations made 20 years ago, needs to be familiar with Justice Thomas's continued smearing of Anita Hill in his autobiography, published last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html

Further, it should be noted that the author of one of the prime "smear" books against Professor Hill, David Brock (author of "The Real Anita Hill"), later recanted his book and apologized to her.

For the record, I personally am all for a diversity of speakers and opinions being expressed on campus. That's the great thing about an institution of higher education. I think it's fine that Justice Thomas has been invited to speak on campus in the past. But a choice of someone as a graduation speaker implies that the university considers them a role model, and for someone embroiled in such controversy about sexual harassment to be the choice as speaker, in THIS of all years (when we have made the national news so many times for our weak institutional response to sexual harassment, most recently outlined in the April 18 red and black), is just unfathomable to me.

For the record, I would be equally opposed to the choice of Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy as graduation speaker. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Dr. Janet Frick
Dept of Psychology

Originally posted by

MRJ

I wish Justice Thomas would revoke his acceptance to speak at commencement. Certainly it would be an honor to have him on campus. Despite this, the faculty at UGA shows once again that their concerns for the student body are subordinated because of their asinine political leanings.

Note to the "outraged" professors: This isn't your school. It belongs to the students. They're here to attain education, not to serve as victims of liberal indoctrination. Thank you for another blatant example of sheer arrogance (and stupidity) expressed by those in academia. Now please, go write another journal article about some abstract topic which will provide absolutely no benefit to society. Leave the "real world" to the students who will soon be entering it and to people who've experienced it, like Justice Thomas.

A note about Anita Hill: This is the same PC-at-any-cost mentality which crucified 3 wealthy white kids at Duke. Despite overwhelming evidence (ALMOST EVERYONE WHO WORKED AT THE EEOC) to the contrary, they simply will not accept the reality Thomas, not Hill, is likely the victim. Anyone who finds his visit deplorable because of unfounded sexual harassment charges has obviously fallen victim to a culture where accusation equates to guilt. It is political correctness run amok, and it is quite repulsive that higher education is fostering such close-mindedness.

Originally posted by

MRJ

Note to the "outraged" professors: This isn't your school. It belongs to the students.

Originally posted by

MRJ

I wish Justice Thomas would revoke his acceptance to speak at commencement. Certainly it would be an honor to have him on campus. Despite this, the faculty at UGA shows once again that their concerns for the student body are subordinated because of their asinine political leanings.

Note to the "outraged" professors: This isn't your school. It belongs to the students. They're here to attain education, not to serve as victims of liberal indoctrination. Thank you for another blatant example of sheer arrogance (and stupidity) expressed by those in academia. Now please, go write another journal article about some abstract topic which will provide absolutely no benefit to society. Leave the "real world" to the students who will soon be entering it and to people who've experienced it, like Justice Thomas.

A note about Anita Hill: This is the same PC-at-any-cost mentality which crucified 3 wealthy white kids at Duke. Despite overwhelming evidence (ALMOST EVERYONE WHO WORKED AT THE EEOC) to the contrary, they simply will not accept the reality Thomas, not Hill, is likely the victim. Anyone who finds his visit deplorable because of unfounded sexual harassment charges has obviously fallen victim to a culture where accusation equates to guilt. It is political correctness run amok, and it is quite repulsive that higher education is fostering such close-mindedness.

Originally posted by

MRJ

But do I think their objections should supersede the decisions of the administration (and what I presume includes student input)? Absolutely not.

Originally posted by

MRJ

I wish Justice Thomas would revoke his acceptance to speak at commencement. Certainly it would be an honor to have him on campus. Despite this, the faculty at UGA shows once again that their concerns for the student body are subordinated because of their asinine political leanings.

Note to the "outraged" professors: This isn't your school. It belongs to the students. They're here to attain education, not to serve as victims of liberal indoctrination. Thank you for another blatant example of sheer arrogance (and stupidity) expressed by those in academia. Now please, go write another journal article about some abstract topic which will provide absolutely no benefit to society. Leave the "real world" to the students who will soon be entering it and to people who've experienced it, like Justice Thomas.

A note about Anita Hill: This is the same PC-at-any-cost mentality which crucified 3 wealthy white kids at Duke. Despite overwhelming evidence (ALMOST EVERYONE WHO WORKED AT THE EEOC) to the contrary, they simply will not accept the reality Thomas, not Hill, is likely the victim. Anyone who finds his visit deplorable because of unfounded sexual harassment charges has obviously fallen victim to a culture where accusation equates to guilt. It is political correctness run amok, and it is quite repulsive that higher education is fostering such close-mindedness.

Originally posted by

MRJ

I wish Justice Thomas would revoke his acceptance to speak at commencement. Certainly it would be an honor to have him on campus. Despite this, the faculty at UGA shows once again that their concerns for the student body are subordinated because of their asinine political leanings.

Note to the "outraged" professors: This isn't your school. It belongs to the students. They're here to attain education, not to serve as victims of liberal indoctrination. Thank you for another blatant example of sheer arrogance (and stupidity) expressed by those in academia. Now please, go write another journal article about some abstract topic which will provide absolutely no benefit to society. Leave the "real world" to the students who will soon be entering it and to people who've experienced it, like Justice Thomas.

A note about Anita Hill: This is the same PC-at-any-cost mentality which crucified 3 wealthy white kids at Duke. Despite overwhelming evidence (ALMOST EVERYONE WHO WORKED AT THE EEOC) to the contrary, they simply will not accept the reality Thomas, not Hill, is likely the victim. Anyone who finds his visit deplorable because of unfounded sexual harassment charges has obviously fallen victim to a culture where accusation equates to guilt. It is political correctness run amok, and it is quite repulsive that higher education is fostering such close-mindedness.

Originally posted by

MRJ

I cannot believe that this type of response is out there. A couple of items. Some faculty have voiced their opinions. There are thousands of faculty on this campus. How can you lump them all together? I never lump all of my students into one category. There is great diversity here. I entirely believe in the right of any faculty to voice their opinions just as I believe students have that right. Let the faculty who do make their points, debate with them if you wish, but cut the vitriol. If you are one of our students then we have not taught you how to engage in constructively critical discussion. Perhaps you see everything through a political lens, but I guarantee you that many, if not most, faculty do not.

Originally posted by

Patricia Richards

Here's what we know about Clarence Thomas now, from UGA Law Professor Donald Wilkes, on the occasion of Thomas's participation in the 2003 UGA Law School graduation ceremony:

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/41thomas_2d.html

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/43accuse.html

Originally posted by

Patricia Richards

Here's what we know about Clarence Thomas now, from UGA Law Professor Donald Wilkes, on the occasion of Thomas's participation in the 2003 UGA Law School graduation ceremony:

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/41thomas_2d.html

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/43accuse.html

Originally posted by

Patricia Richards

Here's what we know about Clarence Thomas now, from UGA Law Professor Donald Wilkes, on the occasion of Thomas's participation in the 2003 UGA Law School graduation ceremony:

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/41thomas_2d.html

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/43accuse.html

Originally posted by

Patricia Richards

Do you know that many people who win that award are not aware of Russell's history. And it comes with a sizable cash award and it is an important recognition. I would like to think that the Foundation that administers the award does not equate to what the man did many years ago. Rather the foundation created in his name works to make up for some of his not so admirable actions.

Originally posted by

Susan Mattern

Excuse me, this has nothing to do with politics. This is about our president--who, after a year of sexual harassment scandals, after promising to take significant steps to improve the climate for women here on campus, now invites as commencement speaker a figure who has polarized the nation on precisely the issue of sexual harassment for 17 year. I still think "outrageous" is a pretty good word.

Originally posted by

Tom Sanborn

All you so-called tolerent liberal people in Georgia.
You never cease to show your true colors. You hate anyone or anything that does not agree with your warped world view. You would not know tolerence if it smacked you in
the face. I know you will not like this, becuase it makes you look foolish, the truth always hurts!!

Originally posted by

Unimpressed Dawg

Okay, I'll type really slowly so the folks who keep whining about the whining liberals might be able to follow. As several "liberal" faculty on this discussion have explained, the concern--at least for them--isn't about conservative or liberal politics. As for myself, I detest many of Thomas's rulings, but in most other years, he would be a perfectly legitimate speaker. The problem is this semester and this year, after all the incidents that have come to light at UGA and the administration's disturbingly habitual handling of them. With almost all of those cases hitting the news just in spring semester, we are now inviting a man who, whether right or wrong, has a name forever linked closely to "sexual harassment." "Clarence Thomas" . . . "sexual harassment."

The issue isn't whether he did it or not. The issue is Mike Adams's ongoing tin ear when people's perceptions and reactions are concerned. The problem would be the same if he invited Bill Clinton, whose politics are closer to my own, but this particular year, he would be a lousy choice as we've talked about men in positions of power who use those positions sexually to exploit those with less power.

It's a habit with Adams. An outcry about not naming the stadium for Dooley? Adams answers, "Well, in my time here, we don't do a whole lotta hyphenating." Some writers shy away from using semicolons, but punctuation habits are a lame excuse for a decision of that size.

As for the bellowing shout above that "the university ain't for them namby-pamby, liberal professors. It's for the students," it's actually for both. One of the university's primary roles is, of course, educating its students. Another primary role, though, is to provide an environment in which academics can carry out their research, research that can address important problems--both academic problems and real-world crises like famine and disease. Of course, not all research that goes on will come close to doing that, but at the university, knowledge changes because of research. What we know today isn't what we knew yesterday, and what we know tomorrow isn't what we know today. Teaching students is a major responsibility, but research, with or without students, is another major responsibility of the university.

I'll quit now so that someone can explain how I'm a liberal who musn't be tolerated since I can't tolerate an extremely ill-timed, insensitive decision. Another outcome of the university: it teaches us to think, and when we think, sometimes we come to conclusions like "that's a lousy idea."