Mailbox: Pro and Anti Clarence Thomas

E-mail and letters from our readers

By:

Posted: 4/23/08

Affirmative action views conflicting

In addition to the evidence that Justice Clarence Thomas was a sexual harasser (which I find persuasive), University President Michael Adams' choice of Justice Clarence Thomas as commencement speaker also is controversial in another way.

Although Adams has earned the respect of many educators on the state and national levels for his principled support of affirmative action, Justice Thomas' opposition to affirmative action is notorious.

On January 3, 2001, Kenneth J. Cooper reported in the Washington Post that "Michael Adams, president of the University of Georgia, faced a simple choice after a federal judge struck down the University's policy of affirmative action in admissions. Adams could fight or he could fold. He chose to fight - all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be. Professors gathered on this sprawling campus encircled by Confederate landmarks burst into applause when he announced his decision."

In direct contrast, according to Joshua M. Levine, writing in the California Law Review, Justice Thomas' "Grutter" dissent "presents a bracing case against affirmative action, but more importantly, his opinion sets forth a legal argument about a potential cost to racial minorities from affirmative action: stigmatic harm" (CLR 94, March 2006).

If the invitation to Justice Thomas is not withdrawn, I certainly would hope Adams will take this opportunity to remind Justice Thomas of his support for affirmative action.

Or, as it appears, is the Thomas invitation a sign that Adams' own commitment to affirmative action is beginning to weaken? Only time will tell.

DAVID SCHILLER
Faculty
Hugh Hodgson School of Music

Reactions expressed in poor manner

Clarence Thomas has been denounced as an "unapologetic sexual harasser" by a University professor. Not only was a Supreme Court justice of the United States belittled by a University professor, but the comment then was published in the school newspaper.

Monday afternoon, I excitedly opened The Red & Black to find the article about this semester's commencement speaker, Clarence Thomas, a man whose life is amazingly inspiring and a man who I deeply admire. However, as soon as I reached the end of the article, I was overwhelmed with a sickening feeling that has yet to leave my body. The fact that a University professor who undoubtedly is admired by many on this campus would publicly incriminate a man of Judge Thomas' stature is absolutely appalling.

The work to fight sexual harassment on campus should be commended by all means, but there is a difference between supporting a worthy cause and making an inappropriate comment about a Supreme Court justice for the whole community to see.

Both The Red & Black and Professor Chris Cuomo went about expressing their opinions the wrong way.

BARRETT BROOKS
Sophomore, Dunwoody
Finance

Allegations unparalleled with finalities

It is sad that in this country, where a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, that a woman can claim she was sexually harassed and everyone assumes she is correct before hearing the entire story.

Anita Hill is nothing short of a jealous, attention-seeking blood sucker who tried to ruin the career of a great American.

I hope the people who despise this man read his autobiography and see what he overcame and how it was almost ruined by the equally racist and disgusting media. Those of you who think otherwise can just not get your diploma for all I care.

SANDERS MONSEES
Freshman, Savannah
Pre-Medicine

Politics and professors need not mix

Dear Professors, (i.e. Janet Frick, Amy Ross) Thank you for being exceptional instructors at our public institution, but please stop regurgitating your own political agenda all over your students.

I understand you feel strongly that Justice Thomas would not be a good speaker to have this year in light of recent circumstances, but let your students have their own opinions. If you wish not to come to graduation, good. That's fine with me. You have a right not to come just as much as I have a right to enjoy my graduation with my family and friends without interruptions and distractions.

This is not your graduation, it is the students'. So please, mind your own business. Besides, if it was Bill Clinton coming to speak (who also has been accused of sexual harassment), this would not be an issue at all. Thank you for understanding.

RYAN THOMAS HAVERMANN
Senior, Reston, Va.
Finance

Justice 'distinguished,' inspiring man

George Orwell once said that some ideas are so stupid that only an academic could believe them. Pamela Voekel, an associate professor of history, embodies that maxim. Voekel is quoted in Tuesday's story about the decision to invite Justice Clarence Thomas to speak at graduation.

She believes the invitation is inappropriate because of the bogus, 11th-hour allegations of sexual harassment leveled against Thomas during his confirmation hearing. Anyone with a lick of common sense and decency realizes those allegations are baseless and absurd.

Thomas, one of our most distinguished public servants, has an absolutely flawless record except for the charges which were dragged out of the closet at the last minute during the most politicized confirmation in history (what Thomas called "a high-tech lynching"). Apparently Voekel is too obtuse and narrow-minded to think it worthwhile to have our only black justice, who rose out of abject poverty, speak to our graduates.

Who would mind having former President Bill Clinton speak even though he is a man who has been accused by multiple women operating independently? Voekel's problem with Thomas goes no further than his mode of interpreting the law. She should muster the courage to say so.

BRADLEY ALEXANDER
Senior, Macon
Political Science and Newspapers

Graduation focused on students only

To Professor Amy Ross, Professor Janet Frick, and all other complaining faculty:

I just want to remind you that commencement is a ceremony where students graduate. What right does a faculty member have in saying who should or shouldn't be speaking at the student commencement ceremony?

Just because Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer were not available to speak at the student commencement ceremony, you don't need to get up in arms. We should be honored that a sitting Supreme Court justice wants to address our student commencement ceremony regardless of his political positions.

If you don't agree with Justice Thomas, that's fine. Don't come to the ceremony. Many of my friends who are graduating - regardless of their politics or thoughts on Justice Thomas' character - are excited to have someone so important speak at their graduation.

I just hope that Justice Roberts or President George W. Bush will be available for my commencement ceremony.

GREG WILSON
Freshman, Marietta
Political Science