Skip to main content

Reply to "Black and white in America"

THE 'INGRATITUDE' OF THOMAS: It would be hard to find a more
appalling example of racial animus than in Maureen Dowd's column
this morning. For some reason I guess I do understand, Clarence
Thomas isn't just opposed by many on the Left; he is hated. He is
hated because he is, in Dowd's extraordinary formulation, guilty of
"a great historical ingratitude." The good negroes, in Dowd's
liberal-racist world, are those grateful to their massas in the
liberal hierarchy: they are grateful to Howell and Gerald and
Arthur; and they know their place. For them to express the
psychological torment of being advanced for racist reasons, to
explain in graphic, brave and bold terms the complexity of emotions
many African-Americans feel as 'beneficiaries' of racial
preferences, is unacceptable. To describe such a person who has been
courageous enough to put these feelings into a powerful dissent as
"barking mad" is nothing short of disgusting. Yes, there are all
sorts of psychological inconsistencies in Thomas' journey. But that,
in part, is the point! If Dowd supports "diversity" as a good thing
in elite institutions, why isn't it a good thing for one black
Justice to contribute his own experience as part of a landmark
judicial ruling? Of course I don't know whether Dowd supports
diversity in this sense. That would require her to argue something -
of which she is apparently incapable. And then Dowd, of all people,
complains that Thomas is more interested in his own personal dramas
than "bigger issues of morality and justice." When was the last time
you read a Dowd column that grappled with "bigger issues of morality
and justice"?

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/opinion/25DOWD.html

www.andrewsullivan.com
×
×
×
×