Jun 25, 2013

If you ever needed an example as to why Black people can't stand Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and why we continually compare him to Uncle Ruckus from the Boondocks, then look no further than his concurring opinion on Fisher v. University of Texas at AustinThomas' used his opinion to rail against affirmative action policies while comparing the University of Texas at Austin justifications to those of Jim Crow-era segregationists.

Thomas basically says in his arguments that there are no educational benefits from a college having a diverse campus.

It's as though Thomas is going out of his way to tear down the very institution that played a big part in his being a Supreme Court justice.  To think that this is the man that is sitting in the same seat that was held by Thurgood Marshall is so disheartening and disgusting.

Here’s a sampling of what Thomas said in today’s opinion:

* “Finally, while the University admits that racial discrimination in admissions is not ideal, it asserts that it is a temporary necessity because of the enduring race consciousness of our society. Yet again, the University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists.”

* “The University’s arguments today are no more persuasive than they were 60 years ago. … There is no principled distinction between the University’s assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists’ assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits.”

* “The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”

* “Unfortunately for the University, the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity—assuming they exist—hardly qualify as a compelling state interest. Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950’s, but emphatically rejected by this Court. And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then … the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today.”

* “It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. … The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks. … Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.”

* “The University also asserts that student body diversity improves interracial relations. … In this argument, too, the University repeats arguments once marshaled in support of segregation. … We flatly rejected this line of arguments in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U. S. 637 (1950), where we held that segregation would be unconstitutional even if white students never tolerated blacks. … It is, thus, entirely irrelevant whether the University’s racial discrimination increases or decreases tolerance.”


Post a Comment