The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in their Sunday Symposium section, defends their recent editorial that attacked on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Today the newspaper's editors are declaring, "Asterisk now, Asterisk forever!"To our readersFor those of you that are counting: one reference to "Conservative talk radio", two "single sentence", and one "small portion" to try and diminish the importance of the issue and make it seem like the issue was taken out of context. In response we would note that this "single sentence" just took nine paragraphs and 432 words to try to explain it away.
A single sentence in a Nov. 1 editorial on the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito attracted quite a lot of response, as you can see. ("A nomination that will divide" can be read at jsonline.com/links/alito-edit)
The central point of the editorial was Alito's nomination and various red flags this raised, but we reserved judgment on whether he should be confirmed until hearings are completed. But a small portion of the editorial dealt with diversity on the court. The line read: "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."
Conservative talk radio seized on this last clause, and many respondents said they felt the line was racist, contending that we were implying Thomas is not black enough. Not at all. The sentence only meant to call attention to the lack of diversity the court will have if Alito is confirmed, a position that many others have stated as well. With the asterisk comment, we did indeed call attention in particular to Thomas, the sole African-American on the court. That's because, though much progress has been made, we continue to believe that the condition of black Americans, particularly here in the Milwaukee area, remains quite dire in many important respects and deserving of acute attention and sensitivity at all levels of government.
Also, it's clear that racial diversity was a factor in Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court, whether it was overtly stated or not. He replaced civil rights legend Thurgood Marshall on the court. We did not invent this issue.
That Thomas' stances while on the Supreme Court are outside the black mainstream is fairly evident, we believe, on such matters as the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action, diluting black voting power, proving discrimination and on what constitutes "cruel and unusual."
The single sentence in this editorial did not say Thomas is not black because he departs from other views on these or other topics. It did not, as some respondents contended, insist that all black people must think alike. We are well aware that there is diversity of thought in the black community, but we are also aware that there are some fairly evident common themes derived from common experiences among African-Americans in the United States.
We were remarking, however, that the views this theme has helped shape elsewhere in the country are not always well-represented on the Supreme Court at this time.
- The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board
"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."
This was not taken out of context. That editorial began by questioning the "diversity" of the Alito nomination (2nd paragraph) and then added two more paragraphs about "diversity" later in the editorial.
It's quite clearly a statement that Thomas isn't a true African-American, that there needs to be a qualifier on Thomas' racial status.
Now the Journal Sentinel digs the hole deeper for itself:
We are well aware that there is diversity of thought in the black community, but we are also aware that there are some fairly evident common themes derived from common experiences among African-Americans in the United States.So they're aware there are African-Americans who think differently, but they don't want "that kind" of black person on the Supreme Court. Apparently conservative African-Americans just don't have the "common experience" of being black.
We were remarking, however, that the views this theme has helped shape elsewhere in the country are not always well-represented on the Supreme Court at this time.
We're waiting for the editorial asking that Justice Thomas be given only a 2/3 vote.
