Meet Clarence Thomas, Self-Loather

From a Washington Post article about the new autobiography from Clarence Thomas:

Thomas has been a sharp critic of affirmative action and the use of racial classifications in schools, but he acknowledges in the book that he was admitted to Yale Law School in 1971 partly because he was black. "I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools -- but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value."

That's the most bizarre thing I've read in some time. In effect, he's saying this:

"I got into Yale because I'm black, but they shouldn't have accepted me based on that, and the fact that they did makes me feel diminished."

His achievement has been robbed of its true value, he claims? The man now has a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court, for God's sake. The foundation for getting the job was surely his prestigious Yale parchment.

Let's be clear: racial preference helped get him in the door of a law school that historically lacked African-American representation, but it damn sure didn't sit through class for him, take exams for him, or pass the bar for him.

He had to do all of that on his own, even if his skin color were green (which it seems to be, with envy).

I'm no psychiatrist, but Justice Thomas strikes me as someone who doesn't like himself.

Comments

[laocoon]

I remember one comedian summarizing his testimony. "If I went into a job interview I would not respond to questions with I am too important to be expected to answer these questions. How dare you ask me." the indignant huff and self righteous bluster is the counterargument of choice for the reactionaries.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Well said!.... I found Thomas' assertion that he was being "lynched" particularly galling considering he was "applying" to be confirmed for Thurgood Marshall's seat.......tm

[realpolitic]

It is extreme self-loathing. It is hardly believable Anita Hill would make up her accusations. Thus, it is an issue of character. Clarence Thomas blames racism for his acrimonous confirmation hearings. Thus, he is playing the victim, which is exactly what he says that blacks should not do.

[mommamia526]

One must go a little beyond what the judge writes. Whether or not he is correct that racial prefererence robbed his achievement of its true value, those of his generation may think that it does in any case. For that reason, the judge may not have made a clear definition of what is at stake, or what he feels, and why that is so. Coming out of a history of desegregation and being one of the first generations being given an opportunity plays into all this. And it is not the first, and only, experience of this kind. For other minorities, too, it took quite a long time to be given an opportunity to enter universities, and then, upon graduation, they had the leave their countries for a chance to apply what they had learned, start in sales and small business enterprises, and after a few generations, they were still remaining in second tier positions. Such often is the personal experience of minorities. Judge Thomas has written his book. Let us hope that it delivers him from his personal chains and becomes an impetus for further growth. The glass may be seen as half empty, or as half full. Affirmative Action was necessary at the time. It is up to the black community to judge if it is still needed, or, if instead, we should move on, institute better and smaller neighborhood schools and more universities, fund all schools and higher learning, i.e. free schooling, and admit and keep students on the basis of their capacities and abilities to compete. There may now be other and more profound obstacles, such as time wasted sitting in transit (buses and cars), inability to take advantage of schooling because of other obligations, physical limitations such as not being able to combine employment with studies, as is needed here in the U.S., and more. So, maybe the next step is fully funded education and stipends for university students?

[CrimsonTom]

I hate to burst the public's perception about the "achievement" of graduating from Yale Law School (or, for that matter, Harvard Law School, where I earned my law degree) but it is virtually impossible to fail out of an elite law school. The difficulty is being admitted in the first place. Graduation, absent an incarceration of some type, is assured.

Graduates of these schools know this--though few ever discuss it, as it may be seen as diminishing the value of the degree, which is huge--and this is what Thomas is alluding to. If he didn't get in on his merits, he can't run around touting the degree to anyone of equal stature. They know that merely graduating is no big deal.

The general public, who've seen The Paper Chase or even Legally Blonde, think it's attending these institutions is nightmarish. It's not. This is why Thomas' comments are misunderstood.

This is not meant to denigrate graduates of these schools who are, virtually to a person, crazy bright. It's just that the accomplishment is in being accepted, not in graduating in and of itself.

If Thomas wants to be judged on his accomplishments, he should be concerned with what he's done since law school, which includes a highly undistinguished government career and years of stupid and mindless Supreme Court votes. It isn't all that difficult to point to Scalia and write, "What he said." His most memorable decision involved the claim that torture in not unconstitutional because it is not "unusual."

[SkippyJones]

I think George W. has done more than any other American to burst our country's perception of the Ivies! Unfortunately, though, he suffers no comparable self-loathing as to the affirmative action that paved his way!
Your point is well taken and speaks to a myriad of issues not the least of which is the phenomena of professional failing-upwards. No matter what one's maturity level, work ethic or natural brightness, earning one's laurels at acceptance rather than completion is bound to set some otherwise very bright people up for failure.

[TheHandyman]

So, if he feels that way about the appointment, why doesn't he resign and let a better person take his spot. Given his record, his time spent on the court has not resulted in any way measured or thoughtful outcomes but rather has given us nothing but grief. He has exacted nothing but revenge in the form of rulings that have deprived the People of their Constitutional rights.

So, Clarence, resign and take your self-loathing hubris with you off into the long, long night. Judicial history will not speak kindly of you ever.

[MellowDrama]

"I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools -- but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value."

He's certainly not planning to give any of it back, so this is really only an attempt to justify his opposition to anyone else receiving such considerations. What a convoluted mentality. One of the reasons we're saddled with the great destroyer in GWBush.

[connski]

George Bush got into Yale due to class preference.

[thesimulacra]

That and because his daddy went there. Don't forget, legacy admits are a-okay, because somehow being born into a powerful family is an achievement.

[BillZBubb]

Logic and Clarence Thomas are not friends, in fact, they aren't even acquainted. His statement on affirmative action "diminishing" him is absurd. Diminish him to whom? Hmmm, right wing racists, that's who.

Clueless Clarence needs a dose of truth: You are diminished not by the affirmative action that provided you with a great opportunity in life, but by the fact that you have squandered it. Instead of championing that opportunity for others, you have used every chance presented to deny them the same opportunity based on an illogical, ideologically insane premise.

[jsantiago]

Very well said!

[maddogbitesback]

I ditto that.

[BrighterStar]

Does a black man in America have the freedom to think for himself or must he follow liberal dogma? I think the hatred for Thomas on the left shows the inherent racism among the so called progressives.

[clevelandchick]

What a load of crap. I'm a progressive and think that Thurgood Marshall was an outstanding Justice on the Supreme Court. So, what do you say about that? Or do you even know who he is?

[JudgeMoonbox]

"Does a black man in America have the freedom to think for himself or must he follow liberal dogma? I think the hatred for Thomas on the left shows the inherent racism among the so called progressives."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." Was he being prejudiced against all sorts of people who disagree with him--sight unseen as to which bigotry may apply?

You're dismissing the possibility that any disagreement from the All-Knowing Clarence Thomas MIGHT be because of a difference in perspective--that we have a world view which you don't try to disprove; and according to this world view, Clarence Thomas is in the wrong.

If you had a reality check, you would have given it to us several posts ago. You do not have any concrete disproof of our world view, and you certainly aren't proving that we apply it inconsistently. Still, you feel entitled to jump to the conclusion that our disagreements are because of racism. You're a troll, pure and simple.

[marko77]

"I think the hatred for Thomas on the left shows the inherent racism among the so called progressives" by BrighterStar
---------------------

BrighterStar, you are wrong. Clarence Thomas is an arch-conservative who has to know that virtually all arch-conservatives he somehow identifies with, consider minorities inferior.

In addition, Thomas made unbelievably crude remarks to women such as Anita Hill and others, in his Office - many of them "inspired" (if you can call it that) by his favorite porno films.

[maddogbitesback]

He would agree with you but since Thurgood Marshall was admired and respected I would say you are wrong.

[ShamusDaedal]

Thomas lied under oath during the hearings. Forget Anita Hill (who likely told the truth). For a lawyer to claim that he'd never even discussed Roe v. Wade shows him to be either a liar or a fool. Take your pick, but I think he's both.

[laocoon]

Clarence Thomas only testified in very general and conclusory terms. No cross examination. You never let a witness state categorically something about the ultimate question and leave it at that. They never asked if any of the specifics from Anita Hill were true or not. They really did not. Anita Hill was cross examined to the hilt and very specifically. Even at that she never accused him of any quid pro quo threat or offer. If I wanted to stop Thomas with false accusations I would have made up some better ones than just that he was suggestive and maybe a little awkward. I would have made up a threat if I were lying.

[Neaguy]

Is Thomas suffering from an "inferiority complex"?

[pangardenguru]

He is disgusting, typical, hardly enlightened,is wrong about everything he talks about and has a shitty attitude. Nothing he has done has helped anything. the worst appointee ever.

[oldpotsmuggler]

I would say that you have absolutely no basis for concluding that "preferences" ended upon law school admission. If the guy has got anything on the ball it would have shown on the Supreme Court after twenty years. By my informal count, Thomas has produced less published text on cases than any other Justice with the same number of years tenure. Given the fact that he doesn't even have to write his own stuff, because the Clerks always provide at least the foundation of every Opinion for their Justice, this is a singular accomplishment. The only thing really required of him is a level of understanding of any particular case to direct the effort of his Clerks, and the confidence in the end result to attach his name to it. Quite frankly, there is ample indication that he simply does not rise to even that level of competence.

Thomas was quite clearly an affirmative action hire on the Court, also. Reagan had to have a Thomas at that point in time, and a review of the situation shows that there was no other black "legal scholar" who even had a chance of making it through confirmation, and who could also be trusted to toe the party line. Clearly all of these appointments are always ultimately a gamble, but I would say that Reagn got the jackpot with this one. Sit him next to Scalia, require him to do no more than "yeah, what he said", and there was no better choice on the planet.

[BillZBubb]

Bush I appointed Thomas, not Reagan. Other than that, your post is correct.

[mtrav]

It was daddy, not reagan, although I"m sure he would have nominated him too.

[laocoon]

Not Reagan ---Bush.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Thanks for the help.

[BrighterStar]

I think your point about pages equaling judicial competence is exactly wrong. More pages does not equate with better decisions. I think long windedness is usually a crutch for poor reasoning.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Not pages per opinion. Total pages in his career. He doesn't contribute because he can't contribute. Scalia authors, Thomas joins.

[readyforchange]

After reading several reviews of this book, I come away with the impression Thomas is a bitter man with a strong sense of self-righteousness and self-entitlement. I remember watching his nomination hearings many years ago, and was very surprised he was appointed to the highest court of the land.

[OneTop]

Yes indeed, and he has done everything he can to live down to your and everyone else's level of surprise.

It's a shame

[BrighterStar]

More than any other justice, Thomas is consistantly correct in his legal judgment.