Uncle Thomas, Affirmative Action, and the Recent SCOTUS Decision

Recently, the Supreme Court decided to uphold Michigan’s ban of affirmative action as it applies to college applicants. In other words, the Supreme Court said that Michigan was allowed to look at college applicants entirely on merit, with no consideration of their race. The decision passed the Supreme Court with six votes in favor, two against, and one abstention.

You would think most people would be happy about this. I mean, aren’t we all supposed to be color blind? Let everyone have a fair shake without regard to their race, right? Not right, apparently. Most leftists at least, think this decision against affirmative action is yet another “blow” to civil rights.

The most vehement dissenting voice in the Supreme Court came from Justice Sotomayor, who wrote a 58-page minority report lambasting the majority opinion. Among many other things, she said:

The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat. But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.

Sorry, Justice Sotomayor, but this doesn’t erect selective barriers. It actually removes them. Wait. Do you even know what affirmative action is?

Among liberal opponents to the majority opinion, criticism was most vicious toward Clarence Thomas, the only black member of the Supreme Court. He was called an Uncle Thomas, a traitor, a token black, etc. All because he firmly holds the opinion that applicants to jobs and colleges should be judged on their qualifications, not their race.

Of special interest here is the fact that Sotomayor was a beneficiary of affirmative action laws. She was admitted to Princeton and Yale Law School through the “special door” of affirmative action (her own words). So it makes sense she should be a supporter of the very legislation that made her career possible. Because, let’s face it, she’s not otherwise qualified.

Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, has been outspoken about how destructive affirmative action has been to him personally, mostly because he hasn’t actually needed it to succeed.

Thomas has recollected that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by law firms to which he applied after graduating. He said that potential employers assumed he obtained it because of affirmative action policies. According to Thomas, he was “asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated.”

Notice the reality here. Clarence Thomas earned his degree and his place in the court. So, to him, affirmative action calls into question that he really is on equal footing with his peers. Sotomayor, on the other hand, proves every day just how unqualified she is for this job. So, to her, affirmative action is a golden ticket to unearned success. She actually doesn’t care if it’s racist. She actually wants minorities given opportunities she doesn’t believe they could get otherwise. And who is the real racist?

Affirmative action is racist. Kudos to the Supreme Court for leveling at least this one strike against it.