Is Maureen Dowd's column racist?

Great Debates
1

Maureen Dowd’s column today says

One could find racism in this article, because[ul][li]Dowd says Thomas is “cunning” – meaning “given to artful subtlety and deceptiveness.” In her view, he’s not intelligent, he’s deceptive. This is a common bigoted stereotype.[]She implies he was unqualified for Yale and got in only because of his race. AFAIK there she has no basis for this statement except that he is black. She assumed that a black Yale law school graduate is automatically inferior.[]She calls him “barking mad” and “crazy”, but has not a word of criticism for the three Caucasian Justices who agreed with him.[]She says his opinion is unworthy, using his id. In Freudian theory, the id is “the division of the psyche that is totally unconscious and serves as the source of instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs.” The idea that blacks are are driven by instinctual, primative needs rather than by intellectual rigor repeats an ugly, long-standing racist stereotype. []She criticizes his opinion’s alleged lack of legal footnotes. AFAIK his opinion was as properly written as the opinions of the other Justices.[]She mocks him for writing his own own opinions, instead of assigning that job to his clerks. She disapproves of a black man putting in more effort than his Caucasian collegues.[]She criticizes him for having a received a large book advance, even though it’s OK with her when Caucasians like Hillary and Bill Clinton get large book advances.She arrogantly assumes that she knows more than he does about affirmative action, even though he’s black. Presumably his understanding merely comes via his id, while her understanding comes through her super-ego.[/ul]For these reasons, one could argue that Dowd wrote a racist column. [/li]
However, she has a perfect defence:

  • It’s never racism when a liberal criticizes a conservative.*

Seriously, what if the shoe were on the other foot. Can you imagine the reaction if some conservative wrote a similar “analysis” of a Thurgood Marshall decision? Would the New York Times dream of publishing such an “analysis”?

2

I think you;re missing the point. Dowd is criticizing Thomas because he sides with the conservative wing of the court on decisions that are inimical th ethe interests of black American sin general.

She’s not judging merely because he is black, but because he is a black man who is allied with those who hate black people.

Dowd is absolutely right. Thomas is a second-rater whjo nominated by Bush Sr. only because Thomas is a black man who can be relied upon to support right-wing decisions.

you are misreading dowd. She is commenting on Thomas’s well-known penchant for self-pity and claims of victimization.

You’re quoting out of context. It’s not a criticism., but a reason why he should be happy.

Sorry, December, but you’ll have to do better than that.

Do you ever really understand the columns you cite?

3

Because, naturally, all conservatives hate black people. :rolleyes:

Are you looking to set some kind of rolleyes record, gobear?

4

Interesting. Would Dowd have said the same thing about Thurgood Marshall, that he wouldn’t have been picked if he weren’t black?

Seems racist to me, based on the fact that she asserts that the guy was chosen simply because he’s black. That’s not really fair. Not that I’m a Clarence Thomas fan, but he worked the system and got chosen; so, congrats, CT, you’ve done what so many white people have done before you.

5

[QUOTE]

[ul] [li]Dowd says Thomas is “cunning” – meaning “given to artful subtlety and deceptiveness.” In her view, he’s not intelligent, he’s deceptive. This is a common bigoted stereotype.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

A common bigoted stereotype?!? What, that’s the only definition of “cunning” that applies?

[QUOTE]

[ul][li]She implies he was unqualified for Yale and got in only because of his race. AFAIK there she has no basis for this statement except that he is black. She assumed that a black Yale law school graduate is automatically inferior.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

No, she does not imply that. She implies that his race was a benefit - not the sole factor - , which, while there is probably no proof, would be very difficult to refute.

[QUOTE]

[ul][li]She calls him “barking mad” and “crazy”, but has not a word of criticism for the three Caucasian Justices who agreed with him.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

So criticisms of Thomas should include criticisms of others why?

[QUOTE]

[ul][li]She says his opinion is unworthy, using his id. In Freudian theory, the id is “the division of the psyche that is totally unconscious and serves as the source of instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs.” The idea that blacks are are driven by instinctual, primative needs rather than by intellectual rigor repeats an ugly, long-standing racist stereotype. [/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

It’s interesting that you omitted all the anectodes Dowd gives to support her point on this one. And at no point does she rely on or mention Freudian theory. (Just because someone uses the word “id” doesn’t mean they’re presenting an argument solely based on that word’s origin.)

[QUOTE]

[ul][li]She criticizes his opinion’s alleged lack of legal footnotes. AFAIK his opinion was as properly written as the opinions of the other Justices.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

Once you do know, you can get back to us on that.

[QUOTE]

[ul][li]She mocks him for writing his own own opinions, instead of assigning that job to his clerks. She disapproves of a black man putting in more effort than his Caucasian collegues.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

The article you linked to gives absolutely zero indication of this.

[QUOTE]

[ul][li]She criticizes him for having a received a large book advance, even though it’s OK with her when Caucasians like Hillary and Bill Clinton get large book advances.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

She criticizes him? Read the article again. She claims his $1.5 million advance puts him “at the pinnacle”.

[QUOTE]

[ul][li]She arrogantly assumes that she knows more than he does about affirmative action, even though he’s black. Presumably his understanding merely comes via his id, while her understanding comes through her super-ego. [/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

I thought that was sort of the point of writing an op-ed piece - to fill in the holes you think your target missed.

6

Dowd is white, so she isn’t entitled to use terms like “Oreo” or “Uncle Tom”. Accusing Thomas of being id-driven is the white liberal equivalent of a Klansman saying that black men want to rape white women.

Fifty years ago, she would simply have labelled him “uppity”. Nowadays it takes a whole column to avoid the term while saying the same thing.

Regards,
Shodan

7

I think she’s pointing out the double-edged sword of affirmative action, of which CT is painfully aware (and hence opposes it): while it gives minorities chances for advancement that subtle racism, etc., might have denied them, it also can forever haunt them: Was CT really the best man for that school, that job? Or did he just get it because he was black?

CT is being haunted by the implication that he’s NOT worthy of his current position, and hence wants to erase the system that enabled him to get there, so that there can be no question that he deserves his position.

Dowd says that he got into school b/c of AA–I don’t know. If he didn’t, then I think she’s pretty far off base. But to deny that his race had a major influence on his selection as SCJ is naive, IMO.

8

Not racist, just wrong.

My argument to Dowd would be A/A was a tool to right past wrongs. During Thomas’ college days, racial impediments both a reality & a very recent memory.

Nowadays, I think even Ms. Dowd would be hard pressed to find similar circumstances impeding today’s college & grad school applicants.

9

Dewey, I’m a conservative, which is not the samne thing as a reactionary, which this current adminstration is. and yes, they hate black people.
The GOP leaders are Southern racists (Tom DeLay, for example), the Chief Justice was a segregationist (and has never apologized fo rthat stance, BTW). Clarence Thomas is allied with people who wish to keep black people in their place.

10

That’s the first definition, and it’s the one that describes people, so it seems fair to assume that it’s the one she meant. It fits the remainder of the article better than the other two definitions:
**2. Executed with or exhibiting ingenuity.
3. Delicately pleasing; pretty or cute: *a cunning pet. ***

One could assume that any black graduate was helped by his race, and it would be difficult to refute. So, affirmative action leads people to disparage black achievement. Oddly enough, this was one of Thomas’s arguments. Ironically, Dowd’s column attacking Thomas’s opinion actually illustrates its correctness.

When four people do something you disapprove of and you criticize only the black, there’s a question of whether he was chosen for criticism because of his race. The column makes it clear that he was.

Anecdotes? What anecdotes? She offers no evidence of her characterizations. In fact, from other things I’ve read, it’s not at all true that Thomas is an “angry, bitter, self-pitying victim.” The only place he comes across that way is in Maureen Dowd’s mind (and the minds of other liberal opponents, like gobear.)

That’s the only relevant meaning for the word. (Unless Dowd meant that Thomas relied on his small fresh water cyprinoid fish ;))

No, I think it’s Dowd’s responsibility. She accused Thomas of having written a legally weak opinion, but she offered not a scintilla of evidence.

The OP quoted the sentence where she mocked Thomas for not using clerks.

You are right about this, as was gobear, and I was wrong.

As a columnist, she has a right to give her opinion of affirmative action. As a reader I have a right to point out her arrogance.

11

Read the sentence again. Please note the use of the words “help with” and not “write.”

You mean like his quoting of Douglass? Or his “snide dismissal”? What his description of AA as “a faddish slogan of the cognoscenti”? Yup, no characterizations there…

How about relevant uses? Or is Dowd completely beholden to www.m-w.com?

12

No, when four people each write separate concurring decisions (instead of simply signing off on the primary decision)
and three of them provide ample citations for their decisions
and one of them provides mostly argumentation without citation
and that one was, indeed, picked for his color (he replaced Marshall–as there is currently a “black” seat in the sense that we had several decades of the “Jewish” seat–and he has never been considered a great legal scholar in the sense that Marshall or Scalia were before their appointments),
and since it was widely reported at the time of his confirmation (perhaps incorrectly, but that reamins to be demonstrated), that he received every single one of his government positions under Affirmative Action hiring practices,
then the fact that he was the only member of the bench who both profited by his race and deplored the conditions under which he profited makes an interesting story.

13

I hate Dowd passionately, and I think this collumn is utterly out of line. Whether Thomas is black is not relevant to whether this decision is just (it’s not, IMHO: it makes a nonsense compromise: AA is okay as long as your’re sloppy about it?) and yet her pop-psycho-analysis style demands that she make everything a personal issue of character that she is rarely ever qualified to judge.

However, hasn’t Thomas himself said that he benefitted from AA? I’m going to have to check back to the bio material I have on him, but it seems to me that Dowd may not be assuming that he got into Yale because of AA, but is in fact simply pointing out something Thomas himself said.

And of course, we have the usual december dishonesty: she doesn’t criticize him for his advance: it’s used an example to show that he is “at the pinnacle.” So your comment about the Clintons is pure driven nonsense. We wouldn’t know this unless we read the un-december edited version of course… Much of the same goes for all the other inferences, where december plays the same game with Dowd that she’s played with Thomas. for once, you would have benefitting by copying Sullivan’s dead on blog.

14

december: *For these reasons, one could argue that Dowd wrote a racist column. *

Piffle. One could apply exactly the same kind of strained nitpicking to any criticism of a black person by a non-black person (e.g., Kristol and Kagan’s complaints about Colin Powell) to try to argue that the real basis of the criticism must be racism.

You keep trying to have it both ways, december: whenever a conservative critic of a black person is called racist, you whine about how unfair and unjustified it is to play the race card. But you never miss an opportunity yourself to call liberals racist if they criticize a black conservative, for whatever reason.

Make up your mind, december: is the “any criticism of a black person = racism” strategy legitimate or not? If it is, then quit whining about far-fetched liberal claims of conservative racism. If it isn’t, then quit making your own far-fetched claims of liberal racism. Your eagerness to “play the race card” yourself is seriously undermining your claims that you think “playing the race card” is a misleading and unethical thing to do.

15

I think I understand. One could interpret Dowd’s comment to mean that Thomas makes less use of clerks for legal research purposes than he ought to. However, she has no reason to think that’s the case. OTOH it is well known that Thomas is more apt to write his own decisions than are other Justices. When clerks write the opinon, I suspect that they do a better-looking job of jutifying the decision which the Justice has already made.

How do those two points support the opinion that Thomas is “barking mad” and “crazy”? And BRW, what’s wrong with the Douglass quote (except that it goes against the liberal ideology)?

:confused: Dowd used a word and I looked it up in a dictionary to find out what it means. What’s your point?

kimstu, instead of an ad hominem, how about looking at the eight actual points I raised. You might agree with some of them.

Apos, I made an error, which I already admitted. It wasn’t dishonesty.

You made an error when you wrote, “Hasn’t Thomas himself said that he benefitted from AA?” I’m quite sure he hasn’t ever said that, and I’m fairly sure he has said that he has claimed that he didn’t benefit from AA at Yale.

tomndebb, it’s surely true that Thomas has the “black seat” just as Ginsberg has the “Jewish seat”. But, can you imagine someone mentioning the fact that she has the Jewish seat in a critique of an opinion she wrote? Of course not. They’d take the actual words of her opinion and show why the opinion was. Note that Dowd quoted very little of Thomas’s decision, devoting most of the column to ad homimem instead.

16

I could if she was very vocal about opposing the notion of a Jewish seat. Thomas benefitted from the actions he claims to oppose, even though he never seems to have turned down any of the offers made under their aegis. It was OK for him; then it was time to shut the door.

17

I am emphatically NOT a liberal. Take that back!

18

No, no, no. Don’t you people know anything?[ul][li]Jews are “cunning.”Blacks are “lazy.”[/ul]Sheesh, at least try to get things right.[/li]
Ow! Stop hitting me!

19

If there were a SC case claiming that the Jewish seat was unconstitutional, I would hope that Ginsberg wouldn’t take her personal benefit into account. I’d hope that she would follow the Consitution.

You think Thomas benefited from AA. He sees the downside of AA. Pardon me, but I think his opinion of how AA affected him is more accurate than your opinion of how AA affected him.

Liberals think they did a lot for blacks. They want blacks to be grateful to them because of all they did. Liberals don’t like it when some ungrateful, uppity black person says that blacks made it by their own efforts. They really don’t like Douglass’s comment,

gobear, I take back the claim that you are a liberal and apologize. In fact, an insult that vicious belongs in the Pit. :smiley:

20

Oh, piffle. I have no idea who these imaginary Liberals are, but if Liberals cannot speak to what Thomas truly understands, you are certainly in no position to claim to know what they understand.

I have never seen a statement by Thomas regarding how he, personally, was harmed by AA. You are confusing him with Sowell who claims to have gotten where he is without help. Thomas just took the AA jobs, then complained after he got a chance to get on the SC bench.