Thomas’ affirmative action view not best for near future

UNIVERSITY WIRE

This past week, headlines abounded in our nation’s
newspapers recording the Supreme Court’s historic decision to
uphold affirmative action in higher education admissions
policies.

Interestingly enough, what most papers included were the
profiles of Supreme Court justices and how they voted on the
decision ““ with, of course, conservative Justice Clarence
Thomas in the dissent.

As I picked up The Washington Post and The New York Times in
order to more clearly understand how our nation’s foremost
justices ruled on preserving the race factor in college admissions,
I had to admit to myself that there was one disturbing fact:
Clarence Thomas, the only black justice, joined the other
“dissenters.”

Thomas opposes counting race as a factor in college admissions
policies, with or without quotas or point-systems.

Like many other black college students around the country, I
always scowled at the thought that “our” one voice at
the supreme level of justice in the United States would vote
against “us” ““ so I tried to overlook his
presence and discredit him as an Uncle Tom, or even as a traitor to
“our” people.

But he can’t be ignored and the questions need to be
answered. That is, why wouldn’t he agree that universities
should consider the invaluable effects of one’s culture, race
and background in addition to their past experiences?

Wouldn’t he have wanted the world to consider those things
when he was facing adversity, discrimination and racism while
growing up?

How could he not consider the effects of race and culture on our
collective past ““ and how they plague our still unequal
present?

How could someone who rose to such a degree of importance in a
society which was so willfully against him in his own youth hold
such a proud countenance when asked if colleges shouldn’t
consider all factors about students when admitting them?

Fortunately, I had the chance to talk to Thomas the day after
the rulings were made public, and I had the chance to ask him about
those very issues. It was probably one of the most enlightening
moments in my life.

I came face to face with the man in the pictures, and I wondered
aloud quite abruptly, “How do we rectify the injustices of
the past that are based on precedence ““ especially those that
are so intrinsically value-laden in our society?”

Thomas replied that it is not as simple as correcting history.
Thomas noted that he ““ just as well as the rest of us ““
cannot go back in time and change the past, and he remarked that
those of us who think we can might be doing ourselves a disservice
for fighting for something that seems so right in the present.

I was torn by his sentiments. I know that changing the ills of
the past cannot be done. We cannot rectify the injustices of
yesterday, even through our laws. But I’ve always hoped that
one day I would see a society that was color-conscious without
being color-concentrated.

I could hear for the first time, out of Thomas’ very
mouth, who he really is and why he thinks the way he does. And
although I might not agree with every statement, I was fortunate
enough to learn not to believe everything you may see or hear in
print.

Throughout his dissenting opinion, Thomas states that the
government’s use of “racial registers” eventually
demeans us all as citizens. This idea clarified to me one important
point: Thomas is a Supreme Court justice.

And although I may not agree with his opinion or ruling in this
case, I take away at least some value in knowing that he is working
toward setting a legal precedent that would allow this country to
have true equality instead of value-laden judgment.

On one hand, Thomas made clear the distinction between
attempting to apologize for the past by compensating in the future
and upholding the rightful rule of law on the other. Thomas also
made it clear that the Supreme Court is present to uphold the
fundamental rule of law.

For at least one moment in time, I could finally believe that
someone on high was actually looking out for our collective best
interest, and even though he may be looking a bit too far into the
future for some of us, at least I could assure myself he was
looking.

Justice Thomas was at least able to enlighten me to his concern,
and as a result, I cannot blame him for what he did. I can
recognize in some ways that it is a question of whether or not you
think what you’re doing is what’s best. And in the
very, very end, he probably will be right.

However, for right now, it might still be best that Thomas is in
the minority.

Pinkard writes for University of Virginia’s Cavalier
Daily.