poor could be debilitating for anyone, but I was certain that the combined impact of racism and poverty was often devastating. Though I had emerged from a poor rural background well educated and now comfortably middle-class, I knew that I was the exception. And I knew that race, poverty, and gender could not be actuarialized out of the combined impact. There was no scientific way of measuring the ratio of racial disadvantage to gender disadvantage to economic disadvantage.
I assumed that Thomas and I operated in an atmosphere of mutual respect, ideological disagreements notwithstanding. I voiced my views when I could substantiate them, carefully balancing my opinion about how to accomplish objectives against the fact that he was in charge. Isuspected that some of my ideas were unpopular with people in the Reagan administration (later at the EEOC one appointee, Armstrong Williams, indicated his distrust of me to Thomas). And though I had social acquaintances who worked with the administration in other offices, I was never in the inner circle of appointees. Nor did I seek it out. I committed to what I believed in and wanted only to do the job that I had been hired to do. I had no intentions of advancing in the administration. At twenty-five, only two years away from an environment that practiced respect for different ideas, I believed that I could work on projects that would serve both the administration and the goals of equality.
But the atmosphere of mutual respect soon began to erode. At the time, the erosion seemed gradual, but now I realize how quick it really was. Though I was not a political appointee and, as a Democrat, would not pass the administration’s litmus test, I was one of the few people in the office whom Thomas had himself hired. Moreover, I was a close friend of Thomas’ friend Gilbert Hardy. Thomas identified me as an insider and the career office staff as outsiders. He began to confide in me about personal and political matters as they related to his work at the Office for Civil Rights. And despite our differences, he appeared to view me as a potential political protégée. I gathered from our discussions that he expected to mold me to his views. He also appeared to see me as a sympathetic sounding board for his personal problems. In college, while briefly considering a career in psychological counseling, I had developed my listening skills.
At first neither my role as listener nor as protégée interfered with my ability to do my work. As he continued to tell me about his difficulties with his marriage, his child, and even about his problems growing up black in Georgia, I convinced myself that this particular time in his life would pass and that work would become the focus of our relationship. I considered these things confidences and still do. In time, however, and precisely when I cannot say, Thomas began to pressure me to see him socially. But for our professional relationship, the requests might have seemed innocent. Still I declined, explaining each time that I did not want to mix my personal life with my professional life. I had just takenthe position as his assistant, and the work was important to me. I had friends from school with whom I socialized and had begun to meet others as well. I was dating two or three men casually, but even if I had not been, I would not have considered dating Thomas. I suspect that the fact that he was my supervisor was most important to me, but because of several other considerations as well, I was not attracted to him. Sure that I could keep it all under control, I concluded that I should be able to handle the situation, maintain my integrity, and keep my job. But I was fooling myself.
Notwithstanding my rebuffs and protestations, Thomas continued from time to time to suggest a closer relationship. Perhaps his experience on Capitol Hill led him to believe that his position entitled him to personal as well as professional access to his staff. Perhaps my rejection
I assumed that Thomas and I operated in an atmosphere of mutual respect, ideological disagreements notwithstanding. I voiced my views when I could substantiate them, carefully balancing my opinion about how to accomplish objectives against the fact that he was in charge. Isuspected that some of my ideas were unpopular with people in the Reagan administration (later at the EEOC one appointee, Armstrong Williams, indicated his distrust of me to Thomas). And though I had social acquaintances who worked with the administration in other offices, I was never in the inner circle of appointees. Nor did I seek it out. I committed to what I believed in and wanted only to do the job that I had been hired to do. I had no intentions of advancing in the administration. At twenty-five, only two years away from an environment that practiced respect for different ideas, I believed that I could work on projects that would serve both the administration and the goals of equality.
But the atmosphere of mutual respect soon began to erode. At the time, the erosion seemed gradual, but now I realize how quick it really was. Though I was not a political appointee and, as a Democrat, would not pass the administration’s litmus test, I was one of the few people in the office whom Thomas had himself hired. Moreover, I was a close friend of Thomas’ friend Gilbert Hardy. Thomas identified me as an insider and the career office staff as outsiders. He began to confide in me about personal and political matters as they related to his work at the Office for Civil Rights. And despite our differences, he appeared to view me as a potential political protégée. I gathered from our discussions that he expected to mold me to his views. He also appeared to see me as a sympathetic sounding board for his personal problems. In college, while briefly considering a career in psychological counseling, I had developed my listening skills.
At first neither my role as listener nor as protégée interfered with my ability to do my work. As he continued to tell me about his difficulties with his marriage, his child, and even about his problems growing up black in Georgia, I convinced myself that this particular time in his life would pass and that work would become the focus of our relationship. I considered these things confidences and still do. In time, however, and precisely when I cannot say, Thomas began to pressure me to see him socially. But for our professional relationship, the requests might have seemed innocent. Still I declined, explaining each time that I did not want to mix my personal life with my professional life. I had just takenthe position as his assistant, and the work was important to me. I had friends from school with whom I socialized and had begun to meet others as well. I was dating two or three men casually, but even if I had not been, I would not have considered dating Thomas. I suspect that the fact that he was my supervisor was most important to me, but because of several other considerations as well, I was not attracted to him. Sure that I could keep it all under control, I concluded that I should be able to handle the situation, maintain my integrity, and keep my job. But I was fooling myself.
Notwithstanding my rebuffs and protestations, Thomas continued from time to time to suggest a closer relationship. Perhaps his experience on Capitol Hill led him to believe that his position entitled him to personal as well as professional access to his staff. Perhaps my rejection
Similar Books
