wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UI87XMFjS5M

Anita Hill's rebuttal on CNN

Brian and his guest stated that Thomas and the Knicks were found guilty of sexual harassment. In fact, they were found civilly liable. Guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil liability requires proof only by a preponderance of the evidence. To use a football metaphor, that's like the difference between the 51st yardline and a touchdown. A civil case is brought by one party against another. Criminal cases are brought by the government against a party. Civil remedies generally involve a payment of cash, whereas criminal convictions could result in prison time.

I don't believe that an attorney would really think the distinction unimportant. Maybe Brian's guest merely wished to conceal her error. Unfortunately, that resulted in a false report of a news event. That's a shame.

Brian, You keep saying, "If a woman files for sexual harassment" I would like to point out that not only women are sexually harassed. I am a man and I have filed for sexual harassment before.

Let's tie this in with Thomas/Hill.

reading the letters to the editor in todays NYT about anita hill's oped piece I made an interesting correlation between her claims against c. thomas & the MSG employee against i. thomas & MSG. a NYT letter:

At the core of America’s effort to improve its democracy should be much needed reforms in the workplace to protect employees from the type of abuse Ms. Hill was a victim of. There is no better place to continue this effort than within the federal government.

As a former Congressional staffer, I saw firsthand many examples where the existing laws failed to protect dedicated and competent federal employees from supervisor abuse. Ms. Hill should be proud in her endeavors, and especially her poise in rising above the fray produced by Mr. Thomas to heed the call for continued vigilance in this effort.

Isaac Castellano
Lexington, Ky., Oct. 2, 2007

•