I think Supreme Discomfort is worth reading ,it is a good book. before one of friends on EbonyFriends.com told me about this book so I know a little about it.

Marcus Garvey was very dark skin black man and he said all mulattoes should be killed. He hated W.E.B. Dubois he called Garvey called Dubois a mulatto. Clarence Thomas is dark caramel skin (almost dark skin) and he hates light skin blacks. Thomas feels inferior to whites and wants their approval. He is jealous of light skin blacks because they carry white blood and genes. Rev Jesse Lee Peterson and Lashawn Barber also are jealous of light skin and they feel inferior to whites. Look at the skin color off all these people notice they neither are nor light skin. They are scared to attack whites because they fear punishment.

Prof Ifill

I'm sure this is a good read. But, notwithstanding his concurring and dissenting court opinions, Thomas's divided soul was already fighting against itself, in public, 16 years ago. Because it provided an illuminating spectacle for the world to see during his confirmation hearing when he himself played the race card ("high-tech lynching" of an "uppity negro"), for which he always expressed such contempt, to silence his critics and whitewash the affirmative action that led to his appointment on the supreme court.

However, unless Thomas poured out his soul to these writers, their purported insight into his intra-racial prejudices is psycho-analytical bullshit. After all, Thomas would argue that his opinions are informed by the prideful self-help philosophy of people like Booker T Washington, not conservative bloviators like Rush Limbaugh.

Moreover, Spike Lee's "School Daze" makes it clear that it's invariably light-skinned blacks who suffer all kinds of pathologies about their racial identity (including aping the delusions of racial superiority over dark-skinned blacks that whites assume over all of us).

I'm sorry you wasted your time reading about this lost shell of a man. There really is nothing positive I can say about him and I won't waste another minute thinking about him. He disgusts me.

Thank you, Professor. But, instead of posting a commentary about this foul, hateful man who has damaged the nation so much in his jurisprudence, I wish you would have posted about the work and contributions of Anita Hill and Lani Guinier.

I am going to have to read this book.

Sounds like the "Double Consciousness" spoken of by DuBois ...

He's one of my "black heroes"!

Sounds like the "Double Consciousness" spoken of by DuBois ...

Sherrilyn,

Thank you for the commentary. I thought it was very good.

I remember clearly the confirmation hearings. I wasn't a fan of Thomas, however I wasn't against him either. For some blacks going against Thomas would help the black cause. Personally, I didn't.

Clearly the Thomas hearings were a victory for the white woman. During that time the complaint was "all those white men in the Senate". It was funny to me that the Asian Senators were suddenly white.

A couple Senators Byrd and Kennedy were "ashamed", but not ashamed enough to step aside for a black or woman to fairly compete for their Senate seat.

Since that time you have a growing number of white women, Hispanics and at least two Asians every session in the Senate. One Negro.

I find him fascinating due to his flaws and his obvious conflict with his identity. What I'd really like to see is Thomas have a fellow black justice, preferably female and progressive. While not female, wouldn't it had s/thing to see the giant Leon Higginbotham on the Court with Thomas.

I find him fascinating due to his flaws and his obvious conflict with his identity. What I'd really like to see is Thomas have a fellow black justice, preferably female and progressive. While not female, wouldn't it had s/thing to see the giant Leon Higginbotham on the Court with Thomas.

Clarence Thomas (The sambo who sits amongst the whites): A sorry example of a Black man with a white supremist complex. May he continue to experience discomfort in his chosen ideology, environment, and circle of associates.

A better read: The Spook Who Sat by the Door – Sam Greenlee

Clarence Thomas is the epitome of what is called less than human trash. Words come out of the lower orifice of his body and his farting pretensions of protecting the Constipation of the United States seem to get lost coming out of that bald idiotic gigantic pimple on his shoulders. I can only come to the conclusion that he seems to be full of it and refuses to drink the laxative of life to rid him of the guilt he feels for being Black and personifying what he feels should be his whiteness. Clarence: go to the bathroom and relieve yourself soon because when you burst no one will be around with the toilet paper to wipe your mouth. Your declaration of incompetence is coming to the fore and you need some serious Geritol.

Thomas won’t hire blacks as law clerks if they taken “that Afro-American studies stuff” as undergraduates.

What do you expect from a self hating black man?

Thank you, Professor, for that insightful review. I also blogged on this book, arguing that we need to "Take Thomas Seriously," as a person and as a Justice. We don't need to agree with him--and I don't--on matters of law or philosophy or whatnot. But I do think we have an obligation to understand where he comes from, and what motivates his branch of thinking.

I think your post does "take Thomas seriously", and for that I commend you.

professor ifill's post brings up an important (if not obvious) issue: blacks and their rampant crab-in-a-barrel-ism. notably, thomas' biggest detractors are black. consider, too, barack obama, who faces more opposition from blacks who think he doesn't "act black enough" than from whites (who are either too enchanted by or confused with him to know any better). although black "intellectuals" (read: liberals) tend to be the main purveyors of this black self-hatred, as the black anti-clarence and the black anti-obama movements demonstrate, black self-hatred isn't directed only at black conservatives, as many people tend to think. black self-hatred is a pervasive thing that hurts blacks from every part of the political spectrum. a byproduct of all this is that whites, previously too scared to attack thomas because, well, he's black, have become emboldened by blacks' violent (and irrational) hatred of the guy, with the result that whites now attack clarence for very frivolous reasons (i.e., these whites attack him just for the sake of attacking him). "if blacks think he's an uncle tom, then i'm going to think the same thing. if blacks can attack clarence for retarded reasons, then i can too. and i will." for a very clear example of this, examine the following:

"Consider Tim Russert’s 2004 interview of Harry Reid of Nevada, then the Senate minority leader. Reid feared that George W. Bush might name Thomas to replace William Rehnquist, who had just died, as chief justice. Reid granted that Thomas was “one smart guy” but said that he couldn’t support him for chief justice because “he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don’t—I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.”

Many people of good faith disagree with Thomas’s opinions. But they can’t plausibly accuse him of poor writing. In a 2001 speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Thomas said: “Whenever possible, the Court and judges generally should adopt clear, bright-line rules that, as I like to say to my law clerks, you can explain to the gas station attendant as easily as to a law professor.” Thomas has passed this demanding test of lucidity pretty successfully. “It’s a shame Russert didn’t press Reid to name some Thomas opinions he considers to be poorly written,” the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto commented. “In the absence of such examples, one can’t help but suspect that the new Senate Democratic leader is simply stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because he is black."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_clarence_thomas.html

it's disgusting to hear all the "clarence is an uncle tom 'shell of a man' who hates light-skinned blacks and is afeard of the white man" comments on this site. yes, disgusting. but that's the way a substantial number of blacks truly feel about their successful brothers. and it apparently doesn't matter whether those successful blacks are "uncle toms," democrats, republicans, or anything else.

when charles barkley was asked about the whole "you're not black enough thing," here's what he said:

"Well, that's because black people are f*cked up. One of the reasons that black people are not going to be successful is because of other black people. We tell black kids that if they make good grades, they are acting white. If they speak well, we tell them that they are acting white. We have a lot of demons in our own closet--in our own family--that we have to address. But first of all, we want black men to be intelligent and articulate and things like that. That's not acting white. That's the way it should be. ... We become our own worst enemy with random black-on-black crime, teen pregnancy, single-parent homes. You know we cannot blaming white America for our ills. Does racism exist? Of course it does. But, at some point, I have to make sure I am educated. I don't have ten kids and no job. I am not killing other black people. At some point, you have to grow up."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=mXVcyBJOJ29DDJB1k%2BHYry%3D%3D

barkley doesn't hold back. and he's right: blacks are f*cked up.

it's hard not to notice the stupidity of most if not all of the anti-thomas attacks on this thread: "he's scared of whites and seeks their approval," "he hates light-skinned blacks," "he has a white supremist [sic] complex." i guess the good news here is that, judging by their absurdly childish comments, the blacks attacking thomas just aren't that smart to begin with, so their opinions really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. i think thomas, obama, and all the other victims of black self-hatred should take solace in that fact.

Chauncey,

Firstly, your comparison of the black opposition Thomas to Obama lacks substance. The "Obama not black" issue was overblown by the MSM, and most african americans are simply adopting a wait and see attitude with regards to his candidacy.

You are disingenuous to attribute opposition to Thomas to the "crabs in a barrel" mentality. Surely you know something of his salient anti-black positions and history? Unfortunately, the label "uncle tom" fits quite well with Thomas.

His legal brilliance notwithstanding, I don't know why we have to hold back our disgust at this man. Maybe you feel that being a supreme court justice is such a noble profession, he is beyond reproach.

Chauncey: For you to claim that Blacks' hatred of Thomas is "irrational", indicates that you are either a Black idiot or a White apologist for rightwing consrvatism. Their nothing irrational about the Black community disapproving of one of its' own doing everything possible to destroy the progress of Black people and other minorities in America. It is no more irrational than the Jews in Vichy France who stalked and killed the Jewish collaborators of the Nazi regime in WWII. Were they irrational in their hatred of fellow Jews? I will state for the record that yes I do HATE Clarence Thomas. He is a sell out. He is NOT intelligent. He has no business on the Supreme Court regrdless of his political views and I find it amazing that any lawyer, if he is intellectually honest, can state with a straight face that he is not an embarassment to The Court and to the legacy of George Bush I. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for even defending him.

keto,

that's where you're mistaken. i'm not saying that clarence is beyond reproach. i'm not saying that blacks should always agree with him. all i'm saying is that it's incredibly stupid to attack the guy simply because he has conservative views. i'm saying it's incredibly stupid to attribute his conservatism to some sort of mysterious, hidden "anti-blackness" within him. clearly, not all conservatives hate blacks, and it's even less likely that black conservatives hate blacks. your childlike stupidity prevents you from recognizing this really, really obvious fact. yes, fact.

and i'm going to have to call you out on this one. you said clarence has held "salient anti-black positions." let's see if you know what you're talking about. please identify these positions and explain how they're "saliently anti-black." i can guarantee you right now that you're going to look foolish, just like harry reid did when he said clarence is a poor writer. think carefully because unlike you i actually know what i'm talking about.

the stupid assumption underlying your dumb views is that blacks in important governmental positions who don't think and act like al sharpton are "uncle toms." this stupid assumption dictates how you live your life, yet you're too ignorant (or too dumb) to realize it.

you're disgusting.

cmoney,

stop being foolish. (ok, i know that's possible, but indulge me.) i'm not defending thomas' politics. i'm not defending his opinions. but you're a damned, damned, damned fool if you think he's not intelligent. that, or you haven't read his any of his opinions. consider Warner v. Hilton, an influential patent case, or his early and recent 14th amendment opinions. (query whether you even know what i'm talking about.)

clarence thomas is much more than a black guy on the supreme court. he opines on much more than race. the problem with dimwits like you is that your pea-brain can't appreciate that. and anyone who prefaces a critique of a supreme court justice by noting that: "I HATE HIM. HE IS EVIL!!!") is certainly no less irrational than than the crazy jews you mentioned in your post.

First things last:

you're disgusting

Boo--f***ing--Hoo.

the stupid assumption underlying your dumb views is that blacks in important governmental positions who don't think and act like al sharpton are "uncle toms." this stupid assumption dictates how you live your life, yet you're too ignorant (or too dumb) to realize it.

I'm beginning to think you are white. In any case, I never expressed this opinion.

and i'm going to have to call you out on this one. you said clarence has held "salient anti-black positions." let's see if you know what you're talking about. please identify these positions and explain how they're "saliently anti-black." i can guarantee you right now that you're going to look foolish, just like harry reid did when he said clarence is a poor writer. think carefully because unlike you i actually know what i'm talking about.

OK. First, let's define an 'anti-black' position. I regard this as either a) a position that the overwhelmingly majority of blacks would be against, and/or b) a position that would do indirect or direct harm to black folks.

Also, I am not a lawyer, but I will give your question my layman's take:

Using the above definition, Thomas' position and aim to dismantle affirmative action qualifies. It's even more striking since he has benefited from affirmative action all the way up to his current position.

In addition, his views and opinions on the death penalty, in a nation when so many blacks are disproportionatly and unjustly given this sentence, are anti-black.

I also consider his various supports of unreasonable and intrusive police/law enforcement behavior to be anti-black, given the prevalence of racial profiling and harrassment by the police.

all i'm saying is that it's incredibly stupid to attack the guy simply because he has conservative views. i'm saying it's incredibly stupid to attribute his conservatism to some sort of mysterious, hidden "anti-blackness" within him. clearly, not all conservatives hate blacks, and it's even less likely that black conservatives hate blacks. your childlike stupidity prevents you from recognizing this really, really obvious fact. yes, fact.

When you stop hiding Thomas behind this cloak of 'conservatism', and actually examine his stated views, and published opinions--and do it from the perspective of the black proletariat--you will understand why so many revile him.

Chauncey: Yes I hate Clarence Thomas. At least I am honest. For you to claim he is intelligent, well, I don't think you're that dumb to really believe that, I just think you're intellectually dishonest. Those "crazy Jews" that killed the Vichy collaborators were people of integrity, freedom fighters. People who actually stood for their OWN KIND, even if it meant their own deaths. Something Clarence Thomas would never understand. I've wasted enough of my time thinking about this fool. Out.

keto,

what, is that supposed to be a response? you didn't quote any of his opinions or cite anything he has said publicly. is that supposed to "qualify" as an "examination" of his "stated views"? please. please stop wasting my damned my time. reading your post killed about 20 seconds of my life i'll never get back. thanks for that.

look. i understand you aren't a lawyer. but that doesn't mean you can mindlessly parrot other people's mindless criticisms without explaining why they make sense. indeed, since you're a non-lawyer (actually, it'd be more accurate to say that you have absolutely no idea what thomas' opinions mean or say), maybe you should shut your mouth about legal stuff.

let's take a look at a couple of your comments:

"OK. First, let's define an 'anti-black' position. I regard this as either a) a position that the overwhelmingly majority of blacks would be against, and/or b) a position that would do indirect or direct harm to black folks."

i'll give $20 to anyone who can identify the logical fallacy inherent in a). b), a dumb, blanket statement, doesn't provide any guidance whatsoever as to what "direct," "indirect" or "harm" mean. therefore it's pretty useless and meaningless.

is there anyone here capable of delivering a better-reasoned, more rigorous argument than "he doesn't agree with affirmative action; therefore, he's an uncle tom," or "he supports the death penalty, and since blacks are put to death a lot in the US, he's anti-black"? if anyone is up to the task, let me know. idiots need not apply, thanks.

does anyone else find it interesting that cmoney keeps calling clarence "unintelligent" without any support or analysis or argument whatsoever? telling, no?

Chauncey:
does anyone else find it interesting that cmoney keeps calling clarence "unintelligent" without any support or analysis or argument whatsoever? telling, no?

I would have to say that cmoney is calling a spade a spade, pun intended. 2nd pun: he's a modern day Uncle Tom. And the list goes on.
And if you can remember, he was accused of sexual herrassment on the job by a black woman. Even though he's married to a eight hundred pound white gorilla!(I want to laugh but I wont).

He confuse, and suffuers from low self esteem. He's ignorent of our history and worst of all: He's one of my "black heroes"! Dragon Horse. Need I say more. LOL!
Maybe that's what cmoney ment by a lack of intell; the writing is on the wall.

It wouldn't even suprise if he wasn't a undercover brotha... No I'm not against Gays. I'm just making a point.

Tar, Feathers, and don't for get the matches.

OP

I am not qualified to dig out the nuance in supreme court rulings. What I follow are 1) what was at stake 2) what was the court's decision 3) who voted how, and sometimes 4) why they voted in such a way.

When it comes to legal matters, only one thing concerns me: the practical affect a ruling will have on me and on black folks in general. Everything else (to me) is window dressing.

If you disagree then it's on you to provide evidence for these issues that have been widely reported on and openly archived.

On affirmative action, the practical results of Mr. Thomas' views, if they were followed, is the ranks of degreed african americans would be reduced. We have seen precedents of this from Connerly's meddling. This in turn would have a whiplash effect on the ranks of professionals in the future, and on the class status of blacks and their ability to build economic wealth and political power. To me, this constitutes harm to black people, and until someone can convincingly demonstrate how abolishing AA would practically help black people, I consider anti-affirmative action positions to be anti-black.

On the death penalty, the practical results of Mr. Thomas' views, if followed, would be a more liberal application of the death penalty. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but his votes have consistently been to allow the expansion of the class of persons that could be given the death penalty and to give latitude to courts in dismissing mitigating evidence. All legal mumbo-jumbo aside, I interpret these opinions as facilitating the institutional biases that lead blacks to be disproportionately given the death penalty, and the facilitating the processes that cause so many innocent black men to be given the death penalty. Net result, more blacks, innocent or not, will be executed in our racially biased system. I count this as harm to black folks.

Lastly, as a black man that has been harassed by the police quite often, and have heard similar stories from my black, law abiding colleagues, Thomas' views and opinions on the fourth amendment are alarming at best to a black man. One gets the impression that the man simply does not take many drives out of his robes. Whenever I see or hear of a case that has to do with unreasonable, random, and intrusive searches, Mr. Thomas votes in favor of law enforcement. Net result, cops will be given more reign to stop, harass, and unjustly arrest me and my black fellows. Again, to me, an anti-black ruling.

I don't think I am unreasonable in expecting a black man to act in his own self interest on some of these rulings.
Though I believe that the reason Thomas was appointed was to serve as a bizarro-representative of black people on the high court. This in my view was 41's cynical response to pressure to have a suitable replacement for Marshall.

keto,

you said: When it comes to legal matters, only one thing concerns me: the practical affect a ruling will have on me and on black folks in general. Everything else (to me) is window dressing. If you disagree then it's on you to provide evidence for these issues that have been widely reported on and openly archived.

interestingly, you didn't provide any real-life evidence of the practical affect [sic] of any of thomas' opinions, but that's ok. you don't know what you're talking about so you get a pass. anyway, here goes:

you: On affirmative action, the practical results of Mr. Thomas' views, if they were followed, is the ranks of degreed african americans would be reduced.

this is so false i almost died. after connerly "meddled" with the university of california's affirmative action policies (i.e., after he heroically got rid of them), black graduation rates at UC schools actually increased, as did the number of blacks placing at the top of their classes. pretty interesting, huh? you didn't know that, right? you don't believe me, correct? of course not. so this is where i provide actual "evidence" of what i'm saying:

Only in 1998 did the university’s admissions processes operate without either explicit racial preferences or stealthy surrogates for race. The results were telling: at Berkeley, the median SAT gap shrunk nearly in half, to 120 points; black and Hispanic admits logged an impressive 1,280 on their combined SATs. The six-year graduation rates of this class would increase 6.5 percent for blacks and 4.9 percent for Hispanics, compared with the class admitted two years earlier.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_prop209.html

blind, willful ignorance tends to make us miss little facts like these. but that's ok, because like i said above, you get a pass.

further, richard sander, a law professor at UCLA, as shown that affirmative action actually decreases the proportion of blacks who graduate from law school, pass the bar and thus become lawyers. the same thing applies to undergraduate school. pretty interesting, huh?

don't believe me? check it out: http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

what does all of this mean? well, in addition to the fact that you're completely wrong, it means that thomas' views on affirmative action do not hurt blacks at all. in fact, his views help blacks more than any liberal black or liberal white could ever imagine.

you know what else it means? it means that you're anti-black. this is because you support a policy that has a detrimental effect on blacks. does this statement make any sense? of course not, but it's the sort of dumb logic you used to demonize clarence thomas. remember that.

on the death penalty: i'm not going to get into a debate on whether we should allow the death penalty. suffice it to say that if blacks didn't commit as many death-penalty-worthy crimes, then they wouldn't get lethally injected so often. the key isn't to get rid of the death penalty; the key is to prevent blacks from committing murder and other violent crime. if the death penalty acts as a deterrent in this regard, then it's a good thing. thus thomas' views on the death penalty, at least as you've described them, benefit, and do not negatively impact, blacks. that's that.

the same idea applies to thomas' pro-law enforcement view of the 4th amendment. the best example of this is crime in new york city during the early 90s. during that period, the city was ravaged by a crime epidemic of epic proportions, mostly involving black-on-black crime, until giuliani and his police chief, informed by george kelling's broken windows theory, told cops to get more aggressive. investigative stops increased and violent crime decreased significantly. the black community benefited greatly because of the reduced black-on-black crime. pretty neat, huh? now, this doesn't mean that clarence's 4th amendment opinions were responsible for NYC's crime decline, but it does mean that clarence's views here aren't hurtful to blacks. at all.

anyway, that's about it. you really have to open your eyes. stop reflexively attributing thomas' views to some sort of anti-blackness within him. such anti-blackness clearly doesn't exist. indeed, he's about the most pro-black justice on the court.

"I don’t think it’s likely to change anyone’s mind about Thomas."

My sentiments exactly. I read some of this yesterday. Like most of us, he's quite complex and makes little sense. But I still found it hard to stomach.

Chauncey:

Respect. You are wasting your time, but I'm sure you know that already. It has been an entertaining read as you get to the essence of the black liberal mind, which is reactionary ignorance and denial. Most of these people are cheer leaders, they know next to nothing about Thomas but what some black leftist wanna be blacka-than-black told them, as you have revealed.

I agree with you Clarence Thomas is not anti-black and the Supreme Court should not be basing decisions on what is in the best interest of black liberals, but what is constitutional and what is the intent of that document as it applies to current laws/rulings.

If Clarence Thomas ever said he decided a decision based on the fact "it is good for black folks" I would want him removed immediately, and I'm black 24/7 all 30 years of my life, but some things are not about black folks. He would not be a man of principle and doing his job if he kowtowed to racialist pressure groups and name calling.

In fact I would say Clarence Thomas is more of a man than the majority of black "males" on this site for standing for what he believe in despite all the ignorance he has to deal with from his own people. That is the mark of someone of strong character. A lesser man would get on his knees and kiss the feat of leftist radicals even knowing in his heart something ain't right.

I don't always agree with Clarence's rulings, and I read some from time to time but I also don't condemn him for having a different opinion.

Blacks are not and never have been monolith in this country and we have to understand that pluralism is good and necessary for our community and our evolution as a people in this country.

This reactionary ignorance hinders our intellectual growth as a people, like to the level of elementary school children on a playground. There is no excuse for that in 2007...Spike Lee told us to "wake up" in School Daze, some kneegrows still ain't grown passed a man's knee in their intellect and are sleep walking on the regular.

Chauncey, Let's make a deal. You stay out of statistics and math related subjects, and I'll stay out of the law. Your math capability reflects someone who was admitted to school using preferences.

I've got to run to a show, so I'll give you a quik debunk of one of your stats (pulled from a reactionary paper). Here is your fact about affirmative action:

The black graduation rate increased afterward by 6.5%.

OK. But what I'm interested in are absolute graduation rates, not some vague percentage of a rate.

What does that rate really mean? Well, the 6-year graduation rates for Berkeley was 58%; for lack of a better number, let's use this for the entire UC system. So, let's say, that the post-209 graduation rate was ~62%, as the 6.5% increase implies.

Now, what number actually was admitted? I haven't been able to find that number at such short notice, but I have found that the black admission rate decreased by 18% the first year of 209.

So as a thought exercise, let's use a mock number of admittees, say 100 students, as a round number. Pre-209, there was a graduation rate of 58 percent, so:

58 graduates pre-209;

Post-209, there was a 18% drop in admissions, so that 100 number would have become 82. But as you say, the graduation rate would have increased by 6.5%. But that only leaves:

50 graduates post-209.

Notice something? The absolute number of graduates has actually decreased.

But perhaps you have the actual absolute numbers, which would be interesting to see.

Clarifications: I'm interested in absolute graduation numbers, not rates.

And chauncey pulled his true stat (I'll assume) from a reactionary paper that shrouded the real issues (IMO).

Is that DH trying to recruit another ignorant white (Chauncey) to support his idiotic anti-Black, self-hating views?

Poor silly negro. He has reduced himself to recruiting from the lowest of the white trash. This Chauncey character knows that Clarence Thomas is another self-hating sambo like DH, and idiot Chauncey now wants to promote him as a model Black man who is supportive of Black advancement.

Where does the lackey idiocy stop?

DH,

very well said. i agree with everything in your post.

keto,

oh please. my stats are consistent with my claims. anyway, i doubt the absolute number of graduates declined significantly. pre-209, the problem was that black kids were "mismatched" for the schools that accepted them; the number of admits may have been high, but black graduation rates were miserably low. post-209, blacks enrollees and their UC schools were better matched, and, predictably, graduation rates increased. i doubt this "cascade" effect actually decreased the absolute number of black graduates. in any event, you made the claim, not i, so it's up to you to convince me that you're right. that's how arguments work.

oh, and facts are facts. you can't get around those facts by calling their source "reactionary." ad hominem arguments are tools of the devil (and stupid people).

keto,

just think about it. enrollments across the board haven't really declined (maybe a 1% decline), but graduation rates have increased substantially. basic logic should tell you that this should yield a net increase in the absolute number of black grads.

What I find interesting is that everyone is posting statistics but forgetting that the "spin-masters" are at work. Chauncey posted info from the City Journal, which is referred to as "the nation’s premier urban-policy magazine, 'the Bible of the new urbanism,' but if one looks at the articles, one will find conservative viewpoints.

I looked up anti-affirmative action info and found the following statistics:

- "When the ban on affirmative action was implemented at the University of California (UC)-Berkeley law school, the number of black students admitted dropped from 75 in 1996 to 14 (out of 792 applicants) in 1997; none enrolled."

-"In its first year without affirmative action, the UC-San Diego School of Medicine did not admit a single black applicant, of the 196 who applied."

So who's right????

Cracka:

It stops when you get your own site and stop complaining like a 12 year old girl who the Prof allow to post on this one. Oh yeah and stop using school yard insults and hiding behind fake militant behavior and deal with the issue like a man and stop cheer leading from behind someone else. I might think Keto and Cmoney are wrong but they are more of a man than you will ever be.

Veronica and Keto:

You are not getting to the root of the issue, and it is not the quota system that is causing this or the lack of, it is blacks being competitive.

What you posted is true, what you didn't post is that in the UC system the black rate of college interest actually has increased since the end of affirmative action based on racial quotas overall, just not at the top schools. Basically the black students were not competitive to get in the top universities so they went to lower ranking ones, but still went to a university. Also the drop out rate decreased (because they were not put in a situation where they were over their head).

Also having conservative view points does not automatically make one wrong or a liar. That is a logical fallacy.

"Ten years later, a lot has changed. The numbers of black and other underrepresented minorities at the University of California have rebounded at the undergraduate level, although they haven't kept pace with high school graduation growth for those groups. At the same time, there's been a redistribution within the system, with more blacks and Hispanics going to lesser-known branches of the 10-campus system and fewer to the flagships of Berkeley and UCLA, a trend that troubles some."

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_5829263

Without further analysis you can not determine that because it has not kept pace with high school graduation rates something is wrong. I am pretty sure the problem is many of the students are not even competitive enough to get into a low level school so they go to community colleges or technical schools.

That means the problem is not the university but with the high schools and the student body.

You can have the best school in the world, with the best teachers, and the most funding (actually most predominately black school districts in America have more funding than rural white schools that perform better on standardized testing).

"As far as kids in urban schools…I would agree but there is a trend here. The trend is simple. It doesn’t matter the income level or the how much the school spends on the kids, on average black kids typically do worse GPA wise than black students. There have been many studies on this and the results are always the same. Less parental involvement at home, less serious attitude toward education, not doing home work, not studying, not reading, etc. It does not matter if it is urban or in the suburbs. The urban kids just do worse, but no kids are doing better. This was broke down by several studies in McWhorter’s book “Loosing the Race”. I actually looked into a few of the studies he sited…he did not mis-state the findings.
In States were people spend far less, like Utah, or where kid are quite poor on average (West Virginia) white kids still outscore black kids.

www.nea.org/newsreleases/2003/nr030521.html
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp

"One of the most disturbing, I think perhaps the most disturbing fact in our whole book is that black students coming from families earning over 70,000 are doing worse on their SATS, on average--it's always on average--than white students from families in the lowest income group. You want to cry hearing that figure. I mean, it's so terrible."

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/ interviews/thernstrom.html

No school funding is not the issue...what we value is the issue, the morality in our homes is the issue.

Here is what I said in the other thread concerning blacks and school spending:

"As far as kids in urban schools…I would agree but there is a trend here. The trend is simple. It doesn’t matter the income level or the how much the school spends on the kids, on average black kids typically do worse GPA wise than black students. There have been many studies on this and the results are always the same. Less parental involvement at home, less serious attitude toward education, not doing home work, not studying, not reading, etc. It does not matter if it is urban or in the suburbs. The urban kids just do worse, but no kids are doing better. This was broke down by several studies in McWhorter’s book “Loosing the Race”. I actually looked into a few of the studies he sited…he did not mis-state the findings.
In States were people spend far less, like Utah, or where kid are quite poor on average (West Virginia) white kids still outscore black kids.

www.nea.org/newsreleases/2003/nr030521.html
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp

"One of the most disturbing, I think perhaps the most disturbing fact in our whole book is that black students coming from families earning over 70,000 are doing worse on their SATS, on average--it's always on average--than white students from families in the lowest income group. You want to cry hearing that figure. I mean, it's so terrible."

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/ interviews/thernstrom.html

No school funding is not the issue...what we value is the issue, the morality in our homes is the issue.

Instead of trying to pull black students up who underperform into top schools push them up from the bottom by making them more competitive. Affirmative action is not just about quotas.

Thomas is intelligent enough to see that.

cmoney:

". It is no more irrational than the Jews in Vichy France who stalked and killed the Jewish collaborators of the Nazi regime in WWII. Were they irrational in their hatred of fellow Jews?"

Dude if Thomas was cooperating with Klan during Jim Crow to lynch black folks or send them to concentration camps I would say we should lynch him...no I'm not joking, I mean string him up. That is genocide and that is no joke.

In my opinion the Jews in France and Germany who hunted collaborators and Nazi war criminals were justified.

With Thomas it is not all of that. This man has never, to my knowledge done anything personally wrong to any black people or said anything even negative about a black person due to their race. He has also not worked with any anti-black racist groups. You might consider some Republicans to be racist or anti-black but that is your opinion unless you have proof Thomas is in a conspiracy with them to do specific harm to black people.

Sorry, all Jews don't agree with Israel today. I don't see Jews threatening to murder them.

Is Israel sending the Moosad to kill them? Nope.

www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

In fact I know quite a few liberal Jews were very much against what Israel did in Lebanon last summer. Jews are very diverse you have right wing Jews, Zionist, antizionists, communist (Trotsky was a Jew and Lenin was 1/4 Jewish), atheist who believe Judaism is just an ethnicity (a good portion of the Jews in Israel are not religious at all)...Orthodox, reform, Hasidic...if you want to see some folks hate on each other, get all these Jews in one room and start discussing politics and religion and watch the name calling and screaming start. I used to date a Jewish chick in high school, her family was reform and trust me I have seen Jews go at each other.

Instead of trying to pull black students up who underperform into top schools push them up from the bottom by making them more competitive. Affirmative action is not just about quotas.

Thomas is intelligent enough to see that.

Please expound on the logical and moral premises by which Thomas, himself the serial beneficiary of affirmative action, has functioned as a serial opponent of affirmative action for other Black folks?

Has the enormity of his own inadequacy to occupy that position on the Supreme Court given him special insight into the weaknesses or deficiencies of affirmative action? If so, why hasn't he resigned the position in favor of a more obviously and objectively qualified jurist?

Personally, I have concerns about the ways in which many institutions have implemented affirmative action policies, specifically as it relates to the selection of egregiously unqualified folks to occupy positions they are poorly prepared to discharge, I'm talking mainly here about hires rather than school admits..., Of course, there is relevant recent history - all too often overlooked by the anti-affirmative action crowd - which warrants consideration when contemplating the question of affirmative action.

''When Affirmative Action Was White,'' which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's.

This history has been told before, but Katznelson offers a penetrating new analysis, supported by vivid examples and statistics. He examines closely how the federal government discriminated against black citizens as it created and administered the sweeping social programs that provided the vital framework for a vibrant and secure American middle class. Considered revolutionary at the time, the new legislation included the Social Security system, unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, protection of the right of workers to join labor unions and the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Even though blacks benefited to a degree from many of these programs, Katznelson shows how and why they received far less assistance than whites did. He documents the political process by which powerful Southern Congressional barons shaped the programs in discriminatory ways -- as their price for supporting them. (A black newspaper editorial criticized Roosevelt for excluding from the minimum wage law the black women who worked long hours for $4.50 a week at the resort the president frequented in Warm Springs, Ga.)

In fact I would say Clarence Thomas is more of a man than the majority of black "males" on this site for standing for what he believe in despite all the ignorance he has to deal with from his own people. That is the mark of someone of strong character. A lesser man would get on his knees and kiss the feat of leftist radicals even knowing in his heart something ain't right.

What precisely is it that he knows isn't right? The fact that he occupies that seat on the SCOTUS? The fact that his beliefs are inconsistent in terms of what he has accepted for himself, but which he adamantly opposes for others? That really is, after all, the crux of the matter.

I don't always agree with Clarence's rulings, and I read some from time to time but I also don't condemn him for having a different opinion.

He is scorned because of his egregious inconsistency, not a desirable characteristic in a jurist...,

Blacks are not and never have been monolith in this country and we have to understand that pluralism is good and necessary for our community and our evolution as a people in this country.

I've yet to read an argument here in opposition to pluralism. OTOH, logical and moral inconsistency are roundly rejected as they should be.

This reactionary ignorance hinders our intellectual growth as a people, like to the level of elementary school children on a playground. There is no excuse for that in 2007...Spike Lee told us to "wake up" in School Daze, some kneegrows still ain't grown passed a man's knee in their intellect and are sleep walking on the regular.

Your attempts to appropriate other folks coinages and usages are falling flat, what there's really no excuse for in 2007, or at any time for that matter, is parroting the arguments of liars and ahistorical propagandists who pray on the ignorance of their audience.., what's truly childish is being tricked into repeating nonsense and showing time and time again an unwillingness (or is it inability?) to surmount error.

cnulan:

I see your concern, and I am personally not against affirmative action, never have been. I see it as critical.

That being said quotas are not the only type of affirmative action. I believe we need more programs geared to make black people competitive where they are currently hurting. The primary and secondary school level.

In some cities, as you know, we have 50% of black students dropping out (DC is one of them), now I'm not sure how many go on to get GEDs but I would prefer they stay in school.

For my money more improvement would be accomplished by pushing black kids up then pulling a handful into college, many of who drop out due to financial problems and also because they don't have the work ethnic or study habits. Or worse yet because they are not bright enough to be there, but they are bright enough to be at a university, maybe just not Berkley.

That's my position, the emphasis needs to be put where it makes the most sense to do the most good and also move black people to a place where they don't need to be dependent on such programs and can compete with the best. Right now we are not there and not getting there.

As far as Thomas, the Supreme Court is not about who is the more intelligent, intellectual, etc. There are many law professors and judges in this country who are far superior to Thomas and anyone on the supreme court (liberal or conservative) who will never be on the court, because the court is a political appointment. It is not a meritocracy. The determination of who the president nominates and who the Senate approves is heavily bias, always has been.

So I do not believe he needs to resign because he received affirmative action in the past.

Also you are quite right to point out that white women have received more benefit from affirmative action and in the past whites received benefit just for being white.

However in modern times, white women usually are overrepresented at most universities, although in some programs (like hard sciences and engineering) they are not, but then again there is self selection bias, I don't see this as a problem. The key is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Many women are not interested in hard sciences and I have no problem with that.

In the end, we can't change what has passed, we can always go back to when times were not fair...for every group in America, but the upper-class WASP...pretty much everyone else has been a victim of discrimination at some time in some way, varying in degree.

We should not forget the past, but learn from it and move on from here. What can we do for the future to ensure that everyone has an equal playing field and we don't have such discrimination and racialism as we have had in the past. We are not learning from history if we keep repeating it by justifying current behavior based on past inequity.

That is somewhat like saying...your grandfather killed my grandfather so my family was poor because my grandmother had 10 kids to feed and this effect all of us, even the grandchildren, which likely is true. So now I come to your home and do what I like when I like to make up for it...

I don't think that is a rational way to approach this.

The goal should be making current generations of blacks competitive so they don't need affirmative action. If blacks still are not being hired despite equal education and ability then the institution can rightfully be sued for discrimination (as we do keep racial/ethnic stats) as required by law, at least for larger organizations.

Cnulan:

My only concern with Thomas is that he is doing his job based on his belief. His beliefs in strict interpretation of the constitution which he does not believe is an elastic document is consistant in all his rulings, if they relate to race or not. I might not agree with his reasoning, but his job is not about "doing what some folks think is best for blacks".

If he deviated from his framework on "black issues" but then went back to using it on nonblack related issues I would say he should be removed.

The issue it seems for most people on here is that Thomas is against affirmative action, not really how he views the constitution, the two things can not be seperated because his job is to interpret the constitutionality of rulings and desputes between states or states and the federal government. As I said he is always consistant so it is not just a "black issue" or an issue of him "trying to hurt blacks", etc.

So if this specific issue is THE ISSUE for black people on this site. What does Thomas say?

Clarence Thomas tells black lawyers, he'll still oppose affirmative action - National Report

Declaring his independence from other prominent Blacks, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently told the National Bar Association that he intends to continue to oppose affirmative action and hold fast to other conservative views.

"I make no apologies ... nor do I intend to do so in the future," Thomas told the audience of more than 1,000 Black lawyers and judges at the National Bar Association's recent convention in Memphis.

For years denounced by minority-rights groups, Thomas decided to attend the convention even after some members sought to rescind his invitation and keep him away.

"I come here today not in anger or to anger ... not to defend my views but to assert my right to think for myself," Thomas said. He told his critics to stop telling him, "I have no right to think the way I do because I am Black."

He noted, "I reserve the right not to have my views assigned to me as if I was an intellectual slave."

Referring to affirmative action, Thomas said, "Any effort, policy or program that (in some way accepts the notion) that Blacks are inferior is a non-starter with me."

Though he speaks on college campuses and elsewhere, Thomas often confines his comments to inspirational, up-from-the-bootstraps messages. Never before has he tried to take on his critics so fully.

He said he is deeply hurt when portrayed as an enemy of his race. "It pains me deeply, more deeply than any of you can imagine, to be perceived by so many members of my race as being a harm," he stated. "All the sacrifice, all the long hours studying, were to help, not to hurt."

He noted, "Isn't it time to move on ... to realize that being angry with me is no solution? Isn't it time that we respect ourselves and each other as we have demanded respect from others?" the justice asked.

Much of Thomas' 35-minute speech touched on such frequently visited themes as his grandfather's wisdom, the racism he experienced as a seminary student and his fling as a Black revolutionary in the late 1960s. He took no questions during his appearance at the convention.

Thomas was booed at times and also given polite applause during his speech. Some even gave him a standing ovation. A threatened walkout did not materialize. Some of those in the audience later explained they were applauding Thomas' courage.

While never raising his voice, Thomas ridiculed as "psycho-silliness" criticism that his conservative views spring from racial self-hatred or a denunciation of his roots.

"Despite some of the nonsense that has been said about me by those who should know better ... I am a man. A Black man. An American."

Prominent Retired U.S. Appeals Court Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr., who was instrumental in the move to keep Thomas from appearing at the recent convention, said he once had hoped that Thomas would eventually change his views.

"Sadly, I can no longer harbor such hopes, and I sincerely believe that those who continue to pray that Justice Thomas will change are casting their hopes on a man who will not reward their faith in him."

Higginbotham wrote in a letter in May that Thomas "has done more to turn back the clock of racial progress than has perhaps any other African-American public official in the history of this country."

After Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Bernette Johnson invited Thomas to speak, Higginbotham criticized her for having given Thomas "an imprimatur that he has never had from any responsible organization within the African-American community or any non-conservative groups of Whites."

Justice Johnson said she was never under the impression that Thomas' appearance would change his conservative views.

"But hope springs eternal, and dialogue and interaction are always good," she said. "This gives Justice Thomas an opportunity to interact with us. Progress is made in small increments," she stated.

Randy Jones, president of the National Bar Association, said after Thomas' speech, "You have to respect him for coming into this group and sticking by his guns." Jones described Thomas' speech as "a semblance of an olive branch."

Jones added, "He spoke from the heart. He's a man who's not afraid to come into the lion's den and face his detractors and critics. I think we all have to respect him for that."

COPYRIGHT 1998 Johnson Publishing Co.

Y'all men sure can argue, let me tell you. We could have gotten a lot more discussion of Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence in Supreme Discomfort. While the book was strong and subtle in its biographical work, it was weak in its analysis of Justice Thomas' jurisprudence. Here's Kenji Yoshino's review of the books analytical shortcomings:

For a biography of a jurist, Supreme Discomfort is surprisingly short on Thomas's legal decisions and philosophy. For instance, Merida and Fletcher repeatedly mention that Thomas benefited from affirmative action during his rise only to oppose it when in power. But Thomas explained that seeming inconsistency in a 2003 dissent criticizing governmental affirmative action. In Grutter v. Bollinger, he argued that affirmative action stigmatizes all blacks, who are either promoted above their abilities or subjected to the unfair suspicion that they would not be where they are absent a racial preference. Regardless of the category into which Thomas would put himself, this response suggests how even beneficiaries of affirmative action can oppose it without hypocrisy. Merida and Fletcher also fail to grapple adequately with the justice's jurisprudential methodology. Thomas is the court's most ferocious originalist, believing that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly according to the intent of its framers. But what does it mean for Thomas to interpret the Constitution according to the intent of those who would have considered him to be chattel?

As usual, the discussion in this thread has collasped off topic and denigrated into bickering. Aren't we better than such bickering in the blackprof.com online discussion community? Just an advanced middle-aged black woman's view.

Also you are quite right to point out that white women have received more benefit from affirmative action and in the past whites received benefit just for being white.

Though not open to factual dispute, I didn't write any such thing and the materials I linked to didn't state any such thing either.

try to stay on topic.

This isn't even a discussion about affirmative action, rather, it is a discussion of a book which posits a jarring duality in the psyche and resulting juridical behaviour (I hesitate to call it jurisprudence) of Clarence Thomas.

Now, either you have something dispositive to say about the man and his obvious inconsistencies or you're just engaging in your typical antics.

Try to learn from your own recent history and do better

cnulan:

My view on Clarence Thomas is pretty clear, i don't always agree with him but he is quite consistant in his rulings and how he interprets the constitution. He is a strict constructionist.

All his rulings show this. If they rae black related or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

As far as his personality. He has not publically said anything I object to. I wish he would talk more about the effect of racism, but that ommission does not mean what he says is wrong or incorrect.

As far as his beliefs about light skin blacks, black upperclass when he was growing up and discrimination he got from whites and light skin upperclass blacks, I believe it.

My grandfather was a lowerclass light skinned black man from Lousiana and used to call my father names for being "a darkie" among other things..."big lipped" etc. Needless to say my father and maternal grandfather did not get along at all.

So yes I have seen this, and I think if my grandfather was above working class it would have been much worse as he used to sit on his porch and when he saw black people acting a fool in the street he would say "typical n!gger behavior". He would also refer to himself as creole or colored and said he was not "black" and didn't know anything about Africa, so was not African AMerican. LOL

SO yes these attitudes existed and I'm sure that Thomas got it twice. Once for being black in the South during Jim Crow, another for being dark skinned and poor by other "black" people (really mulatto upperclass blacks who were using the brown paper bag and ruler test).

Nowhere I have read have I seen him disparage all black people, just stuck up light skin blacks (as he saw them). He also has stated over and over again he believes black people can compete on a level playing field and are equal to whites.

Is he color struck because of his upbrining? Probably, but many black people are, especially the older generation, nothing new. Does this make him hate black people? I doubt it, he might have bias against light skin wealthy blacks...but the entire race? Never seen an evidence of that.

does this effect his court rulings? It does not appear to as few of his cases have to do with black people or affirmative action and he always rules in a conservative strict constructionist fashion.

Okay that is about it, got to go, in-laws flew in and I have to be tour guide. :-( They have already started with the