On Monday, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had an editorial on the nomination of Samuel Alito.

Editorial: A nomination that will divide

The paper's editors opine that the nomination will divide America and therefore should be closely scrutinized.

The editorial contains the following passage:



A black justice deserves "an asterisk" because he does not "represent the views of mainstream black America"???

Did I read that correctly?

I guess I did.

It has long been a staple of such bigoted groups as the KKK to demand "racial loyalty" and to cast out the "traitors" who disagree with them.

Questions for debate:

Is this comment racially insensitive?

Is this comment the type of racist would make?

Should the paper apologize to its readers over this comment?

What is the views of mainstream black America? Bill Cosby and his desire for young African American's to have more self respect or 50 Cent and the hip hop culture and their masogonistic attitudes? I think it's pretty hard to categorize the views of an entire "race" when within that "race" are Christians, Muslims, Republicans, Democrats, educated and uneducated alike. The comment is definitely insensitive, but I don't think "we" need an apology. Freedom of Speech? Yes. With that, you also get the Freedom to look like an idiot.

Is this comment racially insensitive?

"he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America"

Well, aside from the fact that it seemed sort of thrown in there, it IS a fairly true statement. Thomas does NOT represent the views of the VAST majority of Black Americans. The asterisk comment, I can assume, serves the purpose of saying "you can say that we're 'represented' but when that representation is in the form of a man who shares almost NONE of the views of 'mainstream Black America', then that representation is largely non-existent".

Is this comment the type of racist would make?

Nope. It's the comment that a person who understands how important it is to have Black representation who ACTUALLY represents Black America would make. For most Blacks (in my experience anyway), Clarence Thomas is the antithesis of a leader and representative.

Should the paper apologize to its readers over this comment?

I don't see why. They didn't call him an Oreo or an Uncle Tom. And they didn't say he is somehow wrong for having beliefs that are not in line with the vast majority of African Americans in the country. They certainly could have worded it differently, but I don't see any reason for an apology. Of course not all African Americans share the same ideals and ideology, BUT, I don't see anything wrong with this editorial. *I* personally wouldn't have written it, but I don't think the readers deserve any sort of apology for it, either.

Is this comment racially insensitive?
Yep. But since the tone takes a liberal point of view, ie. Thomas is a conservative, so it's OK to denigrate him, it will not be viewed as insensitive by civil rights leaders and race hustlers.

Is this comment the type of racist would make?
You better believe it. Race traitor is one of the standard epithets of racist groups. While that is not the exact wording for Thomas in the editorial, the meaning is clear in the light of comments by black pundits, politicians and commentators.

I thought we had been trying to move away from the premise that monolithic herd mentality and groupthink exists, or does this statement just confirm that blacks who think and believe outside the edicts of the 'the party line' are to be castigated?
We seem to equivocate between the content of ones character and skin color being representative of segments of our society. It can't be both. Does Ruth Bader-Ginsberg's views represent mainstream white America?

Should the paper apologize to its readers over this comment?
No, it's an editorial and we have freedom of speech. If the readers and subscribers of the paper take offense, then the paper will surely realize it come renewal time.

Is this comment racially insensitive?
Maybe its just a cry for attention and or money on the part of the comment maker, its possible after all. Race is a rather heavy issue in America, so a statement like this could be rather amplified by such. Most politicians can become scrutinized under the microscope of labels. Such as example would be saying W really does not reflect mainstream liberal thought, it just does not carry the same connotations while be a label that reflects much, the term liberal that is.

Is this comment the type of racist would make?
This is a comment a person with views could make. People can lose themselves at times, and say things like the current administration reminds them of Hitler. Maybe this person attempts to stay on top of political groups in America and feels it has a strong grasp of African American political thought.


Should the paper apologize to its readers over this comment?
If a public outrage over the comment is made that such a comment was received largely as racist I would expect such to be made.

It would also help to maybe have more info on the person to make more of an objective statement.

I think some are reading far too much into the author's rather straight-forward statement. Let's examine again.


Simple as that.

kmsouthern put it perfectly. Clarence Thomas does not represent the views of mainstream black America. Arguing with that would be pretty pointless.

Where does this imply that Thomas is a "race-traitor?

So.. because other people have referred to Thomas as a race-traitor this author must be doing so as well?

Classic non-sequitur.

I think you're tilting at windmills with this one.

Certainly there are some irresponsible commentators who say such things, I see no reason to count this guy among their number.

Is this comment racially insensitive?
Not at all, it's entirely accurate and not insulting to either Thomas or black America.

Is this comment the type of racist would make?
Heck no. Belafonte referring to Powell and a "house slave" was racist, this is just an acknowledgment of political realities.

Should the paper apologize to its readers over this comment?
No offense no apology.

What bothers me the most about this editorial is not that a justice may or may not represent the views of his race. It is that the editorial implies that a justice is expected to judge according to the views of a certain segment of America, whether his own or another.

Justices are not representatives. They do not listen to the voice of the people and judge accordingly. At least they shouldn't. They are solely to interpret the Constitution and related laws, and make judgments based on what they find there. To make the statement that a Justice "deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of" [insert any subgroup here], is to imply that the Supreme Court is effectively a third house of Congress.

Is this comment racially insensitive?
Not so much insensitive, although it's not unreasonable that some would find it so. More based on a false premise of the role of a judge.

Is this comment the type of racist would make?
Some would, some wouldn't.

Should the paper apologize to its readers over this comment?
I'm not so much looking for an apology as a re-evaluation of the basic ideas of government that the author was mistaken on.

So the editor admits he's a black man, but he's a black man*.

*The views of this black man may not represent the views of mainstream black America.

First off, apparently the race or sex of the candidate is more germane than the qualifications. Harriet Miers was lambasted as an unqualified, crony pick but hey, at least she was a woman.

The author, instead of making the straightforward point that there are no Latinos on the court, or that women are under-represented or that blacks on the court do happen to fulfill some perceived quota (1 of 9 is 11%, close enough to the national average of 12.3%). Instead, the author extends the argument to include the fact that Clarence Thomas may not be the right kind of black to "count" as an actual black.

Although not in so many words, this type of reasoning is exactly the same that was (is?) used by the KKK. Whites act this way!! Don't act that way!! Dismissing a man from a racial group because of the way he acts is abhorrent.

To me, that is racist on its face and it should not be tolerated from the editorial board of a newspaper.

"Count" in terms of representation in his viewpoint.

I agree with jaellon that this is a mistaken view of the purpose of the Supreme Court, it's not really a populist entity, but racist?

Absolutely not.


Again this is "reading between the lines" also know as the strawman argument.

The text makes no claim that Clarence Thomas is not black, only that he does not represent the majority of African-Americans.

To attack his remarks as racist while ignoring the context is not the way to encourage discussion on what has been a real issue of charges of race treason.

Save the powder, this will only make you vulnerable to charges of playing the race card.

Well, then I guess you and I are reading two entirely different things in the writer's words. I see no assumption about "dismissing a man from a racial group" anywhere in that article, nor do I see anything that says he's not "the right kind of black to 'count' as an actual black". What I see is someone noting that while Clarence Thomas is indeed a Black man, his views do not represent that of the majority of mainstream Black America.

You say "although not in so many words", but as I am reading it, it's "not in any words" the same type of reasoning used by the KKK. They never implied anything about Clarence Thomas not being Black enough or anything of the sort. They said his views aren't representative (and the implication there is merely that there is no societal 'gain' to Black Americans as a group by his being in office other than as a statistic). It seems that this is a larger issue of the whole race issue in the U.S. - two people seeing the same sentence and getting something COMPLETELY different out of it. That's pretty much the crux of the racial division in the U.S. (from my experience). And of course it's on both (all) sides of the coin.

Believe me, *if* the authors had said anything about Clarence Thomas not being a 'real' black man or used any racial epithets, I'd be the FIRST person to cry foul. I really, really hate when people get into that because it detracts from anything else worthwhile they may have said (kinda like the whole comparing Bush to Hitler thing). But that just isn't what's going on in this article.

btw, I tried to read the article a second time and now, for some reason, it's saying I have to register. I was able to access it before without registering...weird.

Maybe I should change my signature to Clarence Thomas, black man with an asterisk.

If your argument is that the editor has a point that Thomas does not represent blacks and thus should be asterisked when referring to him as a black, I am just astonished.

I guess Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be asterisked when referred to as a white? Since the majority of whites label themselves as conservative she isn't really a white is she?

The editor through in an irrelevant point and said Clarence Thomas is a black* man. Please explain to me the relevance of that entire paragraph.

* Well, not really.

He is a conservative, which must make any attacks against him fair, I guess. I just don't understand it. Then again, I'm a white man from Ohio**.

**Note, I may or may not actually represent the "mainstream" of whites (or men) in Ohio and thus should be asterisked when referring to me as a man, a white, or an Ohioan.

Quite amusing, Amlord. I have to agree with jaellon, though, on all three answerss.


The only thing I would add to his post is this:

At some point we need to quit stereotyping people and carving out quotas for Supreme Court seats. The sooner we start, IMO, the sooner we'll achieve King's dream.

I never said that was my argument and I think my argument was quite clear. My argument is that the editor never said "black*" as you are misrepresenting in your quote. You are inferring what the asterisk means (and where it goes) based upon your own interpretations of the words. It doesn't say "asterisked when referring to him as black" anywhere in the article. That's probably because that's not at all what the author meant.

When I read the sentence (and when turnea reads the sentence, from what I am gathering) I infer that the editor is point out that Thomas's being black is not in any way 'representing' Black America. NOWHERE does it say "he's not REALLY black" nor should it be implied based upon the sentence.

I never said it was wisely worded, I just don't see how it could at all be construed as anything other than a commentary on Thomas not representing the majority of Black America with his views. I really don't know how I can explain this any better.

Edited to add...

It is reasonable to infer that Clarence Thomas and not black would have the asterisk based upon sentence structure:

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

The black man, Clarence Thomas, deserves an asterisk...not the word black. If the author was implying that black deserved an asterisk, it would read:

"in losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman, and a black* man (deserving the asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America)"

You are completely changing the intended meaning (if we're looking at it from a purely semantic standpoint) by making the assumption that it's supposed to be black*. The person is asterisked, not the person's color.

Is this comment racially insensitive?

It's more clueless than insensitive. The editors were talking about the need for "diversity". If they mean diversity of opinion, then you can get that regardless of the skin color or gender or ethnicity of the judges. If they mean diversity of social experience, then Thomas is just as "black" in that regard as any other black man. Any prejudice that blacks receive on a regular basis - the sneering kind of racism, as well as the patronizing kind that comes from liberals, and not to mention the overbearing racist expectations that often come from fellow blacks (particularly the "entertainers") - would have been felt as much by him as by others with his skin color. The fact that the conclusions he draws from it all are different from what the editors of this paper might expect, in no way negates that.

Of course, even all of this is a completely separate question from what should be the main qualification of a judge, which is whether he knows the law and applies it honestly. Diversity of social experience, while it certainly can help to prevent sclerotic thinking, is still a distantly secondary consideration.

I can appreciate both sides of this argument.

When I read the sentence, I interpreted it in the same way that Kmsouthern and Turnea are interpreting it, but I'll admit that it is poorly worded, and Clarence Thomas has received a lot of slack for being both black and conservative. Because of that, it's not difficult to also look at that sentence as being dismissive of his contributions to the court.

Moving from the opinion that Justice Thomas "deserves 'an asterisk' " because his views are so unlike the typical black American to an association with the type of tactics used by the KKK is in my opinion some of the worst type of debating. This is association at its worst. Asterisk is not akin to a Klan attempt to cast out race traitors. Asterisk is not like a lynching.

I mean, let's take a close look at this, do you suppose that if a poll was taken by all African-Americans in the country and the choice was between Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas who do you think would get the nomination from the African-American population?

There is obviously an intense distrust of the American judicial system among African Americans. As exhibit "A" I pose the O.J. Simpson trial.

The Supreme Court is part of our political system. While we would love to believe that there is a perfectly candidate out there to blindly apply justice regardless of race, gender, creed, class, region, or background, it is equally obvious from all of the "of course President Bush should be able to appoint a conservative" arguments in recent days that none of us believe such a creature exists.




now we move from association to name calling. To me this is a collection of exaggerated opinions about the "asterisk" comment.

And to the last question, I would argue that Ruth Bader-Ginsberg represents a clear demographic of female voters in this country and in that way i would call her mainstream.




Again, going beyond the text. I don't see the editorial arguing that the race or sex of the candidate is more important than the qualifications, I see this being added into the debate here.

Who is being the target of racism here? Italians for being dismissed as non-diverse? Clarence Thomas? I think this is gross overreaction, accented by a second reference to the KKK. Dismissing a man from a racist group. Is he being expelled like a hooded cowardly racist from a cross burning club, or is he being described as not representing the typical African American perspective?




Or is this all because there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to try to undo the progress made by the right in the last decade? Unlike liberals who are never the target of attacks.




And here I have an honest disagreement with the distantly secondary issue, but I think that is what goes a long way in defining the difference liberals and conservatives in this country. To me diversity is not a dirty word.

sclerotic though was a new one for me, thanks definition

Is this comment racially insensitive?
No. See What Rice Can't See. I’m not vouching for the article's accuracy, but is the author’s intention racist?

Is this comment the type [a] racist would make?
No. Read below.

Should the paper apologize to its readers over this comment?
No. Read below.



Would it be wrong to suggest you’re not black and you’re exhibiting the same kind of patronizing liberal “racism” you just exorcised? Blacks can be just as racist as whites but mocking a black kid who prefers reading books over playing video games is not racism. That explanation is too simplistic. Do we think of white supremacists as being racist first for shunning “wayward” whites or for believing they are hereditarily superior to non-whites?

The 35 words in question are along the lines of one white person calling another white person trailer trash (though this jab is economic instead of political). There’s nothing unique about liberal/moderate African Americans "outing" a "traitor” to the "cause." This article is child’s play compared to the witch hunts hard-line anti-Castro political organizations in South Florida have executed (see Slate: Slander). "Real" Cubans wouldn’t have a problem confronting me for my liberal views, starting with "turning my back" on those who've died on the Bay of Pigs, or just pityingly clumping me with the brainwashed commies. Should we start an apology drive or is this racist outing an African American phenomenon?

Of course, a justice’s ideological views should be completely beside the point and his/her job is to interpret the Constitution. Not interpret the Constitution for blacks and Hispanics.

No, I don't think you did, Amlord. I think that the most important word in this passage, which everyone so far has missed, is "arguably"

The author is not saying "this man does not represent the views of mainstream black America". He's not even saying "I do not think that this man does not represent... etc.". What he is saying is "it could be argued that this man does not represent..."

And clearly, this could be argued, because people on this thread have argued that case.

But on the other hand, the "deserves an asterisk" comment doesn't come with any qualifiers. If the author had said "arguably deserves and asterisk" then maybe there wouldn't be a problem here. However, you said:



I'm not ready to condemn this article on the basis of the positioning of the word "arguably", which could just as easily be poor sub-editing as any intentional meaning.

Questions for debate:

Is this comment racially insensitive?
No. It may be politically insensitive, and it certainly seems to be a bit naive - as has been pointed out, the USSC isn't meant to be a representative body (does the "one white woman" represent the views of all white women?). But I don't think it's racially insensitive.

Is this comment the type of racist would make?
I think an overt racist would be a good deal less mealy mouthed than this example, so no.

Should the paper apologize to its readers over this comment?
Doesn't the first amendment cover freedom of speech in the press? Or are you arguing for a hate speech law to take precedence over that?
If the paper find that their readership drops because readers took offence at this comment, I'm sure the offending author will be asked to apologise - to the stockholders.
If not, the controversy will probably just act as free advertising for them.

I'd agree with you, Julian, if the asterisk was "arguable". But that isn't what the editor said. He said one black justice deserves an asterisk because he arguably doesn't represent the views of mainstream black America.

I wonder if anyone would care if Arlen's Specter's first question to Samuel Alito was:

"Sir, would you say that your views represent the mainstream of white America?"

Alito: "Respectfully, I don't think that question..."

Specter: "Sir, we need to know so that we can decide whether or not to put an asterisk next to your racial description of 'white'"

But wait, that would never happen since there is no mainstream of white thought. Whites are not a homogeneous group with only one viewpoint. We have liberal whites, conservative whites, libertarian whites, even anarchist whites.

If you are black, however, and you do not conform to the monolithic viewpoint called "mainstream black America", well, then you deserve an asterisk.

What on earth does "mainstream black America" think?

If I were black, I'd be offended. Are all black people supposed to love basketball and KFC? How on earth could you possibly not be offended by statements like these?

The fact is that the Supreme Court isn't designed to represent the thoughts of anyone in particular, as they're not establishing new legislation, but yet interpreting the law of the land so as long as it is consistent with the constitution.

I like the notion that there are no latinos, a very under-represented group, screaming for more "hispanic" representation. Would their Supreme Court representation have to speak with an accent and have a Jesus on the dashboard of their car? Come on. I suppose the argument would be that conservative hispanics share caucasian values... *hmmmf*

The reality is turnea, that as long as Americans allow racially-centered remarks (such as these) to become a part of the very thread of our society, nothing will change. They only breed animosity and distrust, and become a cycle of perpetuating stereo-types. I'm confident that there are some black people whom have similiar views to Mr. Thomas. Maybe they're not Puffy Combs (whatever the heck that means) or our buddy Jesse Jackson... but I'm sure we could find some.

I surely don't believe that most Supreme Court justices actually represent my viewpoints, nor those of my closest peers. Maybe I should employ the Dallas Morning News to run a story about judicial activism, it's historical fallacy, and how it never represented the views of White Americans... could you imagine the outcry of belligerant minorities for the paper running such a story?

I manage somehow...

Will people stop making up meanings for statements in this thread and just assume they have their typical dictionary significance?

Note the use of the qualifier "mainstream" for black America. That by it's very definition does not mean "all".

Prevailing ie. the most popular, the most typical, a generalization by definition.

In black America there are "prevailing currents of thought" ("mainstream" views) on a number of issues that come before the Supreme Court.

Everything from Affirmative Action to racial profiling.

Clarence Thomas is often outside the mainstream on black thought on these issue and that is all the author said.

Despite concerted attempts to cram words in his mouth.


What, is the asterisk the new Scarlet Letter now?

A mark of shame?

The authors meaning has been explained time and time again in this thread. If you choose to continue to invent meaning on his behalf, then by all means place an asterisk by it as we wouldn't want to confuse it with the author's actual views.

It's not a dirty word to me either. And in this case, I said that I thought it might be of some benefit. I just said also that it's a far less important consideration for a judge than whether or not he applies the law correctly. Do you disagree with this?


If he's being mocked for allegedly being "too white", then it absolutely is racist. There's no other description for it. It's making an expectation of a person's behavior based on his race. It's as if I were to walk up to a black businessman and start talking to him in street jive, just because I assumed from his skin hue that that's how he'd naturally talk. And that's just a simple matter of dialect. How much worse is it when it comes to things like expecting a black kid not to be too bookish?

I don't think a lot of people realize just how damaging that kind of racism is to blacks. When you step back and look at it objectively, it's pretty awful.

No, it was childish and stupid. "You're not liberal, so you're not black, so we're giving you an asterik, na na na na na na." I don't take something that unintelligent seriously enough to pay attention to it, I fail to see how this is a big deal at all.


No, it's the type of a comment an idiot would make.


An editorial is not a promise not to offend anyone, editorials are almost intended to provoke or catch a reader's attention...They have nothing to apologize for.

Again, I don't know what exactly the big deal is, this isn't racist or gasp, "racially insensitive", it's just dumb and childish.

CP

I don't find them exaggerated at all. I think the asterisk in question is a symptom of the larger disease, the politics of skin color.
It was reprehensible during Jim Crow and prior, and it's reprehensible today. The asterisk symbolizes the prevailing line of thought that when one is a minority, they must think, act and vote in accordance with what the race establishment and the party that either owns or is owned by them (however one desires to view the relationship) dictates . When a minority colors outside of the lines, they are derided, humiliated and persecuted with various and sundry derogatory names, that would be deemed racist if cast by the other side.
In this strange bizarro world, if a minority believes in smaller government, lower taxes, school choice, the right to keep and bear arms, and individualism over collectivism......they are expected to subordinate those beliefs, or face the wrath of those who collect their paycheck in the name of the politics of race.

We now have idiots at an NAACP sponsored event throwing Oreo cookies at Lt. Gov Steele, R-MD. I guess black public officials the country over should have an asterisk attached to their name when they dare to be an individual. What a strange way to celebrate diversity.

I think you have taken this asterisk comment to stand for all things you see wrong in the world of African-American politics. To me this is clearly the logical fallacy of association.

Again I ask you, in an imaginary election between Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, which person do you think the African-American community would vote for for their choice as Supreme Court Justice. And how close do you think the vote would be.

Their is nothing about this particular comment that derides Clarence Thomas for being conservative. It, to me, is an assailable but defendable point that Thomas represents values that are not typically held by African-Americans. It would be lie having a concert dedicated to African-American culture and having the focal point be Charlie Pride. There is nothing wrong with Charlie Pride or Clarence Thomas, but neither are very representative of mainstream Black America.

As for shouting down people with name calling like Uncle Tom and Oreo, that really is the subject of other debates. Bucket started one tonight, you might be more on target with this line of argument there.

The derision and persecution and other items you are throwing into this debate have their place.

But to equate a columnist suggesting the Clarence Thomas deserves and asterisk by his name when we begin to celebrate the diversity of opinion of the Supreme Court with the days of Jim Crow is preposterous. The legal establishment of white supremacy is a far cry from a strongly worded opinion in a newspaper column.

In conclusion, I think you read far too much into this column. You have gripes with the way black conservatives are treated by liberal blacks. But piling all of those gripes into this issue to me is like looking at the Patriot Act and concluding that we are a fascist state here in the USA.

The question Amlord should have asked is Does Clarence Thomas Represent the Views of Mainstream Black America?

Then again the answer is so absurdly obvious on its face that it hardly bears answering. I'll do so anyway.

NO. Clarence Thomas has never represented the views of mainstream African-Americans. I suspect he loses precious little sleep over it.

That's the question that should have been asked. However, to do so would have deprived us of all this righteous indignation and phony outrage over the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel being so impolite to say openly what everyone already knew privately.

Except if that's the question that was asked (and assuming your assessment of the opinions of black citizens is accurate), then the editors simply could have answered by pointing to Justices like Ginsburg and Breyer. But the editors wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to exclude those two because of their skin hue, and exclude Thomas because of his opinions, in order to make their artificial case that the court is so "unrepresentative" and "out of touch". I don't care whether or not you want to call it racist, but it's nonetheless nothing but shameless propaganda used as a counterfeit for rational argument.

I'd be willing to bet that I don't represent the views of mainstream white people [if you could call me white], does that mean that I should be asteriked, Nighttimer? I agree with you that what the Sentinel did isn't racist, but it's the most childish thing I can think of.


Nighttimer, they essentially said that Clarence Thomas isn't black [despite photographic evidence ]. They justified that by saying he doesn't represent mainstream black people, but who cares? That's not his job, just as it wouldn't be the job of a Jewish Justice to represent mainstream Jews...His job is to interpret the law, so honestly, who cares if he represents black people, that's simply not on his job description.

CP

Only if the author was interested in counting representation of certain racial viewpoints on the court, which of course is precisely what he was trying to do.

It's funny that "asterisked" is being verbed the way is, as if it were something to be ashamed of.

Does being asterisked hurt?


That is simply false.

Never did they say or imply that Thomas wasn't black and everyone saying otherwise in this thread is merely seeing what they want to see.

Show me where the article claims that Thomas isn't black and we can talk... but the strawmen have got to stop coming up.

Turnea they're saying that the only black man on the Supreme Court deserves an asterisk...what exactly do you think that they're getting at...come on. They're implying that he's really not black because he's not a liberal. That seems pretty clear, otherwise why even mention the asterisk? If they didn't intend to question Thomas' "blackness", then what would be the purpose of the asterisk?

CP

The purpose was to point out what the author explained in the next sentence, that even though Thomas is black, he does not subscribe to the political views of most blacks and therefore it is somewhat difficult to say he counts as black "representation" on the court.

That's all the author meant.

Not that is isn't black, just that he does represent popular black legal thought.

C'mon Turnea, so they're not saying he's not black, they're saying that "he doesn't count as black representation"...splitting a hair or two aren't we? Seems like six of one half a dozen of the other to me.

CP

The difference is key. The article is not at all ambiguous about Thomas' race. It refers to him directly as black.

If only says that his decisions to not line up swith the opinion of most black people, that they don't look to him as "there man" on the court.

..and they don't.

I couldn't find another time in the article where they even mention Thomas' race, Turnea? The only sentence I can find where they refferred to him as black was the same one that they said he should be asterisked...and that seemed pretty ambiguous to me. Asterisks are used to point out an exception of some kind very often, like in the movie 61*, and maybe I'm just cynical, but it looks like the same thing is being implied in the article. Yeah, sure, there's a black guy on the court, but he doesn't really count...That is what I think is childish.

CP

I don't think it's germane at all to make comparisons involving white people "representing mainstream white people." I think this, because of history.

In our nation's history, white people have received a wide variety of treatment, and have represented every part of the economic spectrum. Because there has been no mistreatment en masse of white people because of their whiteness, they have not been forged over time into a mostly monolithic voting bloc.

Blacks in this country have been enslaved and mistreated as a group based on skin pigmentation. It is unsurprising that this collective experience has molded them into a fairly uniform group, politically. We may wish to have moved beyond any ideological positions based on skin color, but unfortunately we haven't yet. The history of blacks being oppressed is still so new that the ink hasn't dried. Many would contend it hasn't even finished being written yet. Is it really any big surprise that blacks tend to a much more solidified politics than whites?

I don't think the editorial was really well thought-out, because certainly it isn't the USSC's job to represent any interests. However, without serving the interests of particular groups, justices could be said to reflect the interests of certain groups. One might find that Scalia reflects the interests of a certain monolithic voting bloc of conservatives. One might find that Ginsberg reflected the interests of certain moderate liberals.

In this sense, Thomas does not reflect the mainstream, monolithic voting bloc that most blacks can be said to be a part of. And that 'black voting bloc' arises from the same source as any interest group - a shared set of interests. While blacks today can be found in every strata of economic society, it is also true that they compose a disproportionate percentage of those in poverty. As such, they share the economic interests of others in poverty. One can argue whether or not someone like Thomas has an ideology which is beneficial to the poor, but one can't argue that most of the poor don't think so.

I think working class Republicans are wrong in thinking that the Republican party actually represents their economic interests. Likewise, some people think that blacks, as a group, are wrong in supporting the Democrats. But these things still happen, whether we agree or not.

In the context of what I am saying, the asterix is appropriate and not racist. However, the gist implied by it is mistaken, as I said.

I don't think that anyone, black, white, conservative, liberal, would NOT rejoice if our society can reach a point where "blacks" cannot be said to have a fairly monolithic set of interests. That will mean an evolutionary progression in our society, one we will all welcome. Sadly, that day is not this day.

I guess we're not reading the same thing and reaching the same conclusion, ConservPat. All the editorial said was: ...and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

That has nothing to do with whether Thomas is a liberal or a conservative unless one draws the conclusion that conservatives do not have the interests of mainstream Black Americans at heart.

There are numerous Black and White conservatives that have given their all to bring about racial equality, protect civil rights for all and support diversity in all aspects of American society.

Clarence Thomas is just not one of those conservatives.

Quark, you make some very salient points, but in the grand scheme of things, are we to sit idle while skin color is used as a political football, by either side? Conservative minded blacks find themselves in double jeopardy, they have to contend with issues of racism from whites and of racialism by fellow blacks.

That's wrong no matter what type of spin one can put on it. Call me overly principled, but I can't fathom how anyone can defend this action.

Identity politics only creates political tokens and the only winners are the diversity commissars. I'm not blind to the present reality, I just desire real and actual equality for all races.....shame on me for bucking the system.

An asterisk placed by someones name on the basis that he or she somehow does not represent their race, when in fact, that is not a facet of the hired or elected position is ridiculous and only further divides racial, cultural and political divisions.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it's an important consideration whether the various members of the Supreme Court reflect the various interest groups throughout society, and assuming most blacks have the views you ascribe to them, would you not conclude that Ginsburg and Breyer largely reflect their views? They're both quite open to affirmative action, against racial profiling, and generally have been favorably disposed to interpret the Equal Protection Clause in a rather broad fashion.

The problem comes when people like the editors of this paper inconsistently apply two different standards for evaluating whether blacks are represented. On the one hand they use skin pigmentation to exclude Ginsburg and Breyer from their view, and on the other hand use Thomas's opinions to exclude him. They need to stick with one or the other. Playing the game they're playing is dishonest and cynical.

No I think you are analysing it in a certain way so it conforms with your own opinions. The context in which it was written will show what I mean.



The point the writer wanted to make, in my opinion, is that the USSC is becoming dominated by a "white men", while it should be representing American society as a whole. That's why he pointed out the fact that besides 7 white male justices, there is only one woman and only one black man. The asterisk placed besides the name of black man should be viewed as an indication that his personal views, who guides him in his work as a justice, are more in par with the ruling white men, than with the black community. The asterisk is not racially inclined, it only stresses the atypical stance of justice Clarence Thomas compared to the general opinion of Afro-Americans.

So then should any of the white justices get an asterisk if their views are more in par with what's alleged to be the views of the black "community"? Or is the arrow of evidence supposed to point in one direction only?

What evidence? Point to what? To racism? I still do not get why I should believe this is racism. The writer just made an observation. Aparantly Clarance Thomas is black and he is very conservative. This observation was made in the context of Alito's disputed appointment. Clearly the writer feels something is wrong in the supreme court and feels it doesn't represent the U.S. society. I do not see any racism in any of his comments.

I wasn't allgeging racism in his comments. I was pointing out his inconsistency. If he's making an assessment of the extent to which blacks are represented on the court, he needs to pick a standard of measurement and stick with it. If his standard is skin color, then Thomas qualifies, without asterisks. If his standard is opinion, then he should take a hard look at Ginsburg and Breyer, and ask himself just what it is about them that makes them unrepresentative of what he understands to be the views of most blacks in this country.

But to apply an inconsistent standard the way he does is dishonest and cynical.