Regarding New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s latest fulmination against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:
It seems to drive Dowd up the wall that Clarence Thomas opposes affirmative action, even though he (allegedly) benefited from it.
She doesn’t seem to grasp that someone could benefit from racial preferences, yet still decide they are morally and constitutionally wrong.
As a practical matter, I wonder what she thinks Thomas should have done when he was offered opportunities for advancement. Did she want him to refuse those opportunities, saying something like ``I think you’re giving me this opportunity only because I’m black, and that’s wrong. Therefore, I’ll decline and take a job at Burger King instead.’’
As another practical matter, in a world where racial preferences are policy, how can any black (outside of pro sports) ever know for sure whether an offer of advancement is genuinely based on his abilities, or comes because of his skin color? The white people who offer the opportunity are naturally going to tell him it’s because he’s the best candidate, even if the real reason is his color.
It’s also interesting that she mocks the idea that Thomas was the best candidate for the Supreme Court when he was nominated. When nonliberals even hint that a black advanced because of his race rather than his ability, liberals scream RACISM in capital letters and exclamation points.
Dowd should face the fact that what really fuels her rage is that Thomas is a black who isn’t being properly deferential, respectful and GRATEFUL to the kindly liberal white folks who think they "gave" him his success. He ran away from the liberal plantation and for that Dowd wants him brought back and horsewhipped.