The strange case of Clarence Thomas

Perhaps you saw Justice Clarence Thomas' interview with Steve Croft on Sunday's "60 Minutes." The appearance was part of the Justice's media-blitz, coordinated with the release of his new book, My Grandfather's Son.

Though no friend of Justice Thomas' judicial philosophy, I did feel that the interview served to humanize him. That is a valuable contribution given the ridicule and parody to which he has been subject, mainly by those of us who disagree with his judicial philosophy. Jokes at the expense of a powerful person with whom one disagrees may be fun, but they risk turning him into a caricature.

I was especially struck by the Justice's reaction to the difficulty he had at getting a job upon graduating from Yale Law School. I fee safe in suggesting that most black graduates in the '70's would have seen such an experience as evidence that law firms were racist. To Justice Thomas, however, the cause was entirely different cause: the school's affirmative action programs, which devalued his degree. He told Croft that he still has a "15 cent" sticker on his diploma.

Croft also asked Thomas about his confirmation hearing. The Justice seemed genuinely regretful and, when Croft said, "But you won," Thomas responded with something like, "What did I win?" He went on to suggest that it was not a contest. I, for one, found his reaction heartfelt, if perhaps more bitter than the experience justified; he was, after all, before the Senate to demonstrate his competence for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

Thomas also used the occasion to take a couple of swipes at Anita Hill, who struck back with a powerful op-ed piece in The NYT. Even if you did not see the Thomas interview, I strongly suggest that you read Hill's piece; it tells the story that those of us who represent employees who are victims of discrimination hear over and over: how, having been demeaned because of their sex or the color of their skin or their national origin, they are humiliated again by the employer's false description of their ability and work. (Hill backs up her description with facts and references to others' findings, so it is not just her opinion.)

Crooks and Liars has a link to the '"60 Minutes" interview, and some interesting comments on Thomas, including this from his colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia. When asked the difference between the two men, Scalia said, "Look, I’m a conservative. I’m a texturalist. I’m an originalist. But I’m not a nut." (Some of us would quarrel with the last assertion.)

Thomas described himself to Croft as having been a radical in his younger days. My sense is that he has the radical personality that seeks certainty in rigidity and simplification. Having been a radical on the left in college and law school, he veered all the way over to the right later. He seems to have retained all of the anger that he must have had as a young man. Unfortunately, he gives no evidence that he has much capacity for growth.