The Washington Post has no sense of humor
In a piece deceptively titled Roberts Resisted Women’s Rights, the Washington Post alleges that this is an example of Roberts’ anti-women views:
In a July 31, 1985, memo, Roberts noted that, as an assistant dean at the University of Richmond law school before she joined the Reagan administration, Arey had “encouraged many former homemakers to enter law school and become lawyers.” Roberts said in his memo that he saw no legal objection to her taking part in the Clairol contest. Then he added a personal aside: “Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide.”
Sounds like a funny anti-lawyer joke to me! The WP needs to get their head out of their behind if they can’t see the humor in that one.
I can’t help but note that Roberts lauded a “major victory in the fight against sex discrimination” in the memo on page 4 of this PDF, and also takes pains to point out the importance of “equal pay for equal work” in the same PDF (page 3), as well as in a memo in this PDF (on page 24).
In 60,000 pages of documents, I suppose the WP thinks it can get away with cherry picking quotes out of context to smear Roberts. But where’s the smoking gun? The pattern of deception, duplicity, and lies? There isn’t one.
My personal favorite attempted Roberts smear has to do with this attempt to make his criticism of Michael Jackson look bad:
On April 30, 1984, Roberts wrote to oppose a presidential award that was to have been given to Jackson for his efforts against drunk driving. Roberts particularly objected to award wording that described Jackson as an “outstanding example” for American youth.
Roberts wrote: “If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose ‘Michael,’ as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson’s androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President.”
Sounds prescient to me. Add “good judge of character” to the “pros” side of the column. And no, that description of Michael is not “anti-gay”… Michael Jackson isn’t even gay! Well, not officially, anyway. And last time I checked most gays aren’t androgynous (sexless), they’re pretty darn vocal about their sexual identity!