Posted on 05/07/2002 1:59:27 PM PDT by South40
May 6, 2002
In March, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted an invitation to spend a day in discussions with law students and faculty at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill. The school's five black law professors boycotted Thomas' visit.
Few Americans, including law students, ever get to see a Supreme Court Justice in person; they can't watch how they conduct oral arguments before deciding a case because the justices refuse to allow television cameras within their sacred precincts.
So why would any law professors, of any color, give up a chance to join their students in direct exchanges with one of the nine Americans who make decisions that affect millions of us for many years to come?
Marilyn Yarbrough, one of the boycotting professors, told Tony Mauro, the very resourceful Supreme Court reporter for Legal Times: "We just questioned whether breaking bread with a justice was the appropriate thing for us to do."
After all, she continued, the only black justice on the Court has "lent cover" to his conservative colleagues by joining their "anti-progressive" decisions. "Since we are all black," said Yarbrough, "we did not want to lend cover to him. We have welcomed justices we disagree with, such as Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor." However, joining Thomas, she explained, would have been seen as an endorsement, or at least a tacit approval, of his views.
In their righteous self-approval, these law professors clearly had no idea they were failing their students. Here they were, in fundamental disagreement with Justice Thomas on a number of crucial constitutional issues and in front of their students, they could have challenged him directly. Talk about being role models – to all their students – as professors with the intellectual equipment to confront such a powerful figure in the law!
Professor Yarbrough came up with a lame excuse as a footnote. For some – not all – of the sessions, questions had to be submitted in writing beforehand. "That's not debate," Professor Yarbrough harrumphed. "He does not engage in the same way that you would expect at a university."
I have participated in many debates at college campuses, and at some of them, the questions were indeed submitted in writing beforehand. But that did not prevent a questioner from asking follow-up points, nor did it prevent other members of the audience from chiming in on the same issue when their turn came. Would these five black law professors have stayed to debate Justice Thomas if he knew none of the questions in advance? How could they, and not abandon the purity of their boycott?
What surprised me was the attitude of the dean of the law school, Gene Nichol. He told Tony Mauro that the boycotting professors were "very thoughtful" in their explanation for staying away from the exchanges. He saw nothing unprofessional in their refusal to engage the visiting justice. "Having a regime of free speech and academic inquiry," said the dean, "means you have a right to protest."
Of course, they have a right to protest, but how free is academic inquiry at his law school when these professors refuse to fully instruct their students about Clarence Thomas' "anti-progressive" decisions by not showing up to debate him right then and there?
The irony of this abdication of professional responsibility to students is Justice Thomas' record at the Supreme Court as one of the strongest voices for free speech. From the bench, he has said (as the lone justice who wanted to review an egregious repression of free speech in Avis Rent a Car System vs. Aguilar):
"A theory deeply etched in our law is that a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable."
While some students joined the five professors in boycotting Justice Thomas' appearance, about 700 students revealed greater respect for free speech by participating in various question-and-answer sessions during the day.
Professors who judge Clarence Thomas in rigid ideological terms are not engaging in scholarship. I disagree with a lot of his opinions, but I would be foolish to miss a chance to tell him why, and maybe learn something in the process. And if I were a teacher, I'd be embarrassed before my students to have fled the scene.
Justice Thomas offends those who would distort the Constitution, and violate their oaths to uphold it. Men of integrity always offend those who have none. For the rest of us, the call should not be very hard to make. Everything we ever learned as a virtue is on the Justice's side. Everything we ever learned to scorn as wrong is arrayed against him. It is not about free speech. It really is about integrity. The Justices are not engaged in a vacuum; they have a sworn job to do, whether or not many through the years have failed in that duty. The Constitution is a very specific document. The Liberals may have a point of view, but they have no legitimate beef with those who merely fulfill a sworn duty.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Chickensh!t, lightweight, kneejerk liberals, who can’t defend their lockstep boilerplate positions in the battleplace of ideas
So... what are you saying, exactly?
Dan
(c;
Bingo. And as much as I hate to say it, I've found more than one on this forum. Some of the resident "neocons" reserve a measure of venom for his writings on the Commerce Clause and Asset Forfeiture laws.
You have no idea at the amount of hate there is on the Left for this man, especially in the black community. If a bunch of Kluckers kidnapped him and tortured him to death, it wouldn't be considered a "hate crime" by the media. There probably would be cocktail parties to celebrate it ... and Toni Morisson would probably declare the KKK men "Honorary Black Men".
For years now I’ve been experiencing the same vitriolic hate from the left, simply because I am a conservative. I’ve also participated in many a forum. And never, I mean NEVER have I been called names by those on the right, the ones who the leftists love to call “racists”.
Contrast that to the vile obscenities that I hear regularly from the left. I’ve heard Nigger, Houseboy, Tokenboy, and of course the liberals’ all-time favorite, Uncle Tom. It speaks volumes on the hypocrisy and gross intolerance that exists in the so-called “all inclusive” party. The racist actions of these professors is right in line with what what I've experienced.
And to think, I always blamed it on their lack of education and/or understanding.
I thank you all for your comments.-SoFo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.