As opinions differ, so do role models
Campus Times
February 21, 1997
by Lori Cruz
Editorial Director
He managed his high school yearbook and wrote for the school paper.
He graduated cum laude from Yale Law School. He is the 106th associate justice
on the highest court in the land. He is a black man and yet, in honor of
Black History Month, he has been called an "inappropriate role model
for black youths," by the Maryland chapter of the NAACP.
Justice Clarence Thomas has been publicly lynched by members of his
own race from the get go. But all their and supposed sexual harassment victim
Anita Hill's hard work did not stop him from obtaining a seat on the Court.
Yes, his opinions may differ from those of some leaders involved in
the NAACP, but that does not automatically condemn him to being "inappropriate."
By the way, by whose standards does the NAACP reserve the right to say who
is appropriate or inappropriate in their role modeling? Do the standards
of their efforts differ from those of other law-abiding, courageous, self-determined
individuals?
The constant backlash that surrounds Justice Thomas is unprecedented
and uncalled for. Is it because he is a conservative? If so, why are Colin
Powell, Rep. J.C. Watts and Charles Barkley not ridiculed by the public?
Is it because of Anita Hill? If that is the argument, since when does character
mean anything?
No, it is because Thomas, in a sense, replaced former NAACP lawyer and
loyalist Thurgood Marshall, as the sole black on the court, and it has been
expected that because of the color of his skin, he must think like his predecessor.
Since Marshall left the bench, it must have been understood that the
next black man on the court would share his views. But the next man did
not. And why should he? Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
both women with strong opinions, have diametrically opposed views.
No one has challenged former Chief Justice Earl Warren's views because
they differ from those of Chief Justice William Renquist.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to establish laws, based on
their personal views, but to interpret laws and make sure that the values
set forth in the Constitution are respected. It is not the place for any
justice to advance any political agenda, whether it be the NAACP's or the
NRA's. Clarence Thomas is not a politician and should not be subjected to
administer any groups political agenda.
The African-American Encyclopedia said Thomas is a "believer in
a color-blind society" who does not believe the courts should solve
the "social problems that should be handled by the legislative or executive
branches."
Thomas's religious convictions have been central throughout his life.
He has said in his household that "God was central. School, discipline,
hard work and knowing right from wrong were of the highest priority."
Does this sound like a man who is capable of being an "inappropriate
role model?" Although Thomas has sided more conservatively, he refuses
to discuss his views on such hotly debated issues such as abortion and affirmative
action because they would "compromise his impartiality as a judge,"
he has said.
If diversity is to be embraced, differing views must be a catalyst for
conversation and debate. The Supreme Court definitely leans to the right
these days, but has not always. The Court tries to refrain from making sweeping
laws that would change the overall fabric of this country. One man, one
Clarence Thomas, will not bring down all the work of black groups such as
the NAACP as they fear, just as one chapter of the NAACP will not harm the
integrity, convictions or work ethic of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Lori Cruz, a senior political science major, is editorial director
of the Campus Times. She can be reached by e-mail at cruzl@ulvacs.ulaverne.edu.