Is Maureen Dowd's column racist?

Great Debates
41

Excuse me while I do a partial hijack of this thread. This is going to be long on opinion, and only tangentially related to the OP, with as little personal history as I can get away with, but I’d like to share this because it’s something I’ve been struggling with since I started the Ask the Black Guy thread. I was asked in that thread about my feeling on AA and I more or less punted having always been more or less ambivalent.

My one experience with AA was my Mom. She attended law school at night back in the 70’s under some type of AA program, while working days. For nearly six years she was someone I only saw sometimes at night and on weekends. Or at least that’s the way I remember it. She graduated in 80; I remember that well because of the party. She wouldn’t get work as an attorney until 85. It something she doesn’t speak of much, and I have no idea of how she interpreted the continued rejection. Currently she doesn’t practice.

Now in 2003, I own my own business, having never finished college. I never participated in AA to my knowledge, but in my previous dealings at my former company as a VP in Sales and other highly visible positions. I know, not suspect, know some thought I received my position through AA. It’s in the treatment, the looks, and it’s normally barely concealed. I hope some other Black Dopers will contribute and explain this better than I can.

I live in the flatlands of Oakland, in a good, very diversified neighborhood blocks from the kill zone that plagues the city. I could easily move to an area like the central valley and pay about the same on a mortgage as I pay for my apartment. It was a conscious decision on my part. Partly because my friends live here and partly I don’t won’t to forget where I came from (rhetorically speaking)) and more importantly I want my sons to see the differences that spring from the choices we make.

In many ways I hate AA; I wish it weren’t necessary. Yet, I can’t call for its removal either, I see too many people who could benefit, whether they avail themselves of the mechanism or not. I don’t want to criticize the Thomas’ and the Connerlys; but I do it anyway. Not because I think they’re wrong, in many ways they’re right, but I don’t want to see a generation of young people without some sort of safety net that promises at least some sort of a roadmap out of here.

That’s my piece, you may now return to your regularly scheduled debate.

42

Why, if the columnist could point to a lackluster record? (not that that is true of either Marshall or Annan.)

nonsequiter? How? The second sentence does follow from the first; not only was Thomas appointed on the basis of his color, if had not been that color, he would not have been considered for the position. He had been the EEOC chairman under Reagan/Bush and then was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit where he didn’t even serve a year before he was appointed to the vacant seat.

Thomas’s sole qualification was being a lackey to the right-wing of the GOP.

43

Stuffy: I know, not suspect, know some thought I received my position through AA. It’s in the treatment, the looks, and it’s normally barely concealed.

Whereas most non-minorities never even think about the advantages that non-minorities often have in obtaining their positions: the absence of racism, the “old boy” network, the superior socioeconomic background that often means a better education (including “alumni-preference” admissions policies) and better connections, etc. Whites in general still have a lot of residual racial benefits in this society, but most of us just take them for granted.

(I was reading an unintentionally funny article the other day in a (quite liberal) Northeastern newspaper, all about how a couple of high-scoring white applicants were likely to achieve their longstanding dream of being firemen because the city had rescinded its minority-preferences policy. The author made a big deal of how these guys’ fathers and uncles and even grandfathers had been firemen, and stressed how especially unfair it was to have passed them over for minorities “despite their family connections and high scores.” :eek:

See, when you award preferences to minorities based on their genes, that’s unfair and demoralizing and sabotaging and patronizing and not letting them make it on their own, right? But when you award preferences to non-minorities based on their genes—i.e., the mere fact of their being descended from people who had the advantage of earlier racial exclusion policies that shut out minority competitors—well, that’s just upholding a noble tradition of service, right?) :rolleyes:

I agree that there are a lot of difficult things about affirmative action, in theory and in practice, and I can respect people who think that on the whole we’d be better off without it. But it’s very hard for me to respect affirmative-action opponents who vociferously resent “unfair advantages” for minorities and don’t even stop to think about all the “unfair advantages” that non-minorities still have in this culture.

44

Well, color me confused here. If family connections are a key factor in getting on the fire department in this city, what’s the deal with high test scores? Is the city now ignoring candidates with high test scores in favor of people whose relatives served previously? Were there candidates with high test scores who were previously excluded in favor of minority candidates with much lower scores?

I think we need an actual link to the story in question; otherwise this has the air of a december claim based on “something I heard the other day”. :rolleyes:

And by the way, december, this is your feeblest attempt yet at demonstrating ethnic insensitivity on the Left. It doesn’t even meet the standard for low cunning.*
*uh oh, I’m in trouble now.

45

Jackmannii: I think we need an actual link to the story in question

Sure thing, Jack: it was in the 15 June (or 16 June?) Boston Globe—apologies for not remembering the exact title of the article.

46

Martin Luther King’s speeches indicate that he might have agreed with Clarence Thomas. Dr. King’s dream was a color-blind society, not racial preferences. He said:

47

Or else it’s pistols at dawn, Sam?

C’mon, let’s put on our thinking caps, here. The KKK … racists? To be sure! Social conservatives? You betcha! Maybe not the particular brand of social conservative YOU are, Sam, but still social conservatives. Sames with Trent Lott’s buddies … I forget their names … and a whole slew of racist organizations … admitted racists, and for the most part, social conservatives. Furthermore, I think we can add that there are a whole lot of social conservatives who, while not belonging to any organizations devoted to racist beliefs, share those beliefs. Almost all social conservatives.

There are, in fact, many social conservatives who are racists. I’m not saying all social conservatives are racists. Many are not. It’s hard to get exact numbers on racists, though, because most racists will not admit to their racism. So I’d say the membership of the groups that are obviously racist would be like the tip of the iceberg.

Hence we reach the conclusion that:

Many social conservatives are racists.

Easy as pie.

48

I want to follow up on Maureen Dowd’s putdown of Thomas’s dissent of lacking footnotes. It followed a putdown by the Times’s legal reporter Linda Greenhouse that he “took as his text not the briefs but his own life story.” These descriptions are completely false. You can see for yourself be reading Thomas’s dissent. It’s 30 pages long, starting on page 46. I have skimmed it.

If you read Thomas’s dissent, you will conclude that Dowd surely didn’t read it. Greenhouse also seems not to have read it. Thomas’s dissent has nothing to do with his life. It’s about relevant past cases, legal reasoning and how various legal justifications comport with the real world. His logic and facts expose the weakness of O’Conner’s majority decision. Her decision was political, not legal.

It’s striking to compare the wisdom and maturity of Thomas’s dissent against the naiveity of Dowd’s article. For her to correct him and lecture to him is just stunning.

Go back to Dowd’s criticism:

Why would getting into Yale thanks to his race (if he did) prevent him from making a powerful legal argument?

But, in fact, he did make a powerful legal argument. Dowd simply didn’t read it. I invite you to read his legal argument and make up your own mind. And, if Dowd is correct that he didn’t rely much on clerks, then the dissent is a credit to his intelligence, legal knowledge and hard work.

Several posters here have alleged that Thomas is second rate. I especially invite you to read his dissent. You may change your minds.

In short, Thomas is a mental giant compared to Dowd, particularly in the field of civil rights law. I would assume her inappropriate contempt for him is due to to some combination her arrogance, disdain for conservatives, racism and specific hatred of Thomas.

49

Well, decemberr, seems to me you could tie this all up rather neatly. Simply refer us to the case law, etc., that derives from Mr. Thomas’ standing as a giant of jurisprudence. It has been claimed that he sits where he sits because he is a reliable conservative vote and the conservatives could make political hay out of his minority status. Evidence offered is his apparently rather scanty resume as a legal scholar of nation wide reputation.
So all you need do is refute that evidence. What, precisely, are the rulings, etc., that caused the legal world to gape in wonder and astonishment at his probity and prescience?

50

Dowd wrote a keening caterwaul of an op-ed there. If there was ever a blog to justify all the nasty things people say about blogs, that’s the one.

Are all African Americans with conservative leanings Uncle Tom’s, or just the ones the went to college?

51

You know, minty’s post above actually had a point to it. If december said that Dowd’s use of the word “cunning” was intended as derogatory, I’d agree with that. But since when has “cunning” ever been an epithet commonly directed at African-Americans as a stereotype. This is the first I’ve heard of it. Has anyone else ever heard of a “racist” usage of “cunning”?

december’s first point in the OP is pretty much twaddle, unless he can prove otherwise. The dictionary definition certainly says that it’s less than complimentary, but also nowhere near racist.

52

You have confused two separate issues, elucidator. When Thomas was appointed to the SC in 1991, he had a thin resume, having been an appellate judge for less than two years, although his Civil Rights Division leadership compensated to a degree.

Today Clarence Thomas has a resume that makes him a giant of juriprudence. He has been a Justice of the US Supreme Court for 12 years. During that period, he has written many opinons. Since he’s a Justice, his writings would automatically have weight even if they were of low quality. In fact, they are of high quality. How can we tell? By reading them.

If you want evidence of Thomas’s scholarship, just read his Dissent cited above. It skewers O’Conner’s decision from a legal POV. Furthermore it’s so well written that it makes sense to you and me. It’s not just jargon phrases thrown around, which much of O’Conner’s decision is.

I challenge you to read Thomas’s Dissent and refute any of his points if you can.

Avalonian, I agree that the word “cunning” isn’t typically used as an epthet about blacks. But, the word "cunning includes the element of deceptiveness. The idea of dishonesty or deceptiveness has been a part of the racist stereotype.

Furthermore, the word “cunning” is often used to avoid giving someone credit for real intelligence. I’m sure you’ll agree that a part of the racist stereotype is an unwillingness to acknowledge black intelligence.

53

Link?

I’m especially curious if the purported sentiments of the article’s author have any relation to current realities in hiring in whatever city it is you may be referring to.

One of the poorest justifications for controversial affirmative action programs is the implication by supporters that most or all of the non-minority applicants have a built-in advantage due to “legacies”, i.e. ancestors who have monetary or other influence with schools or employers. I’d like to see if this is actually the case with the nebulous city department you refer to; i.e. are high-scoring minority applicants being denied hiring in favor of less qualified non-minority candidates whose fathers were firemen?

54

I’d consider that a pretty major stretch. To make that interpretation plausible, you’d have to show the Dowd has used the word “cunning” as a racial stereotype in the past, referring to other African-Americans. To me, her column reads that she was accusing Thomas of being “cunning,” not all black people.

A derogatory statement about an individual does not a racist comment make.

55

It’s true that she didn’t insult all black people. Neither did right-wing talk radio host Bob Grant when he criticized Ron Brown. He was fired because of his comments anyhow.

AFAIK Dowd has never called Justices Scalia or Rehnquist “cunning,” even though she disagrees with them just as much as she disgrees with Thomas. She has no problem acknowledging their intelligence. What’s her problem with acknowledging Thomas’s intelligence?

56

Do you believe that was justified? Were Grant’s comments racist in nature, or simply critical of an individual? Do you see the difference?

shrugs Maybe she thinks the other two are intelligent, but Thomas is not? That still doesn’t prove that she’s racist, or that her use of “cunning” was racist, in any way. Again, you’ll have to prove that she holds this opinion about more than one African-American… more than two, even!

Put it this way… I think Colin Powell is a very intelligent and respectable man for the most part. I think President Bush is neither intelligent nor respectable. Does this mean I think all white people are stupid? All Southerners? All Texans? Pointing out Dowd’s opinions about other ndividuals does not prove your accusation.

57

Where do you get this stuff from? Since when did ‘cunning’ mean a lack of intelligence? You do know that despite what a dictionary may say, words have more than one meaningcunning depending on the circumstances.

As you know Bob Grant had a history of insentive remarks about African-Americans, it wasn’t just ONE incident. If you doubt it Grant
**

Yeah, December Grant got a bum deal. Of course in the alternate universe that you seem to live in, Dowd is as bad as Grant. Of course you have some cite to show this, right? There’s a pattern of her using words like ‘cunning’ to describe African-Americans, the way that Grant used ‘savages’. I await the link to Dowd’s racism.

58

Yeesh. I retract my questions about Grant earlier. I didn’t know who he was before. Sounds like he has quite a history.

59

It’s not easy to see the difference. I thought Grant’s comments were way out of line, given that Brown had just died. Grant prides himself on not being PC. It’s not always easy to tell whether some of his comments are racist.

Exactly. So, there’s a factual question. What if Thomas is highly intelligent, but Dowd doesn’t realize it. One could speculate that it’s his race which led to her misjudgment. I agree that we’d need more than one example to be sure.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you were prejudiced. As a New Yorker, I was prejudiced against Southerners and Texans, Later I went to college and met some who were smarter than I was. The caricatures of the redneck and the dumb Southern Sheriff are all over TV and the movies. (An unusual and refreshing aspect of the movie My Cousin Vinnie is that the Southern judge wasn’t dumb.)

Look at all the bigots who think Bush is stupid because he pronounces “nuclear” in a Texas or Southern dialect.

60

Or maybe you’d be surprised to learn that I’m not, and I dislike Bush on his qualities (or lack thereof) as an individual, while I do not dislike other Southerners, Texans, or white people. Is it so hard to believe that someone could dislike Bush as an individual and not be prejudiced? Is it so hard to believe that Dowd just thinks Thomas is unintelligent because, to her subjective opinion, he doesn’t fit her model of intelligence?

Why do you assume prejudice when there are other perfectly reasonable explanations?

Ah… perhaps you’re projecting your own former beliefs on others?

My wife told me a story once, about a young black girl who was a playground bully and generally unpleasant. For some reason, she sort of latched onto my wife as a potential friend, and when my wife didn’t want to be her friend, the little girl said, “You don’t like me because I’m black.”

My wife, a child herself at the time, responded “No, I don’t like you because you’re mean.” Was that a racist comment?

Similarly, I recently had to end a friendship because it was hurting both me and the girl I was once friends with. When I started to drift away from her and cut off ties, she accused me of being prejudiced because she is polyamorous and an escort (I am neither). I informed her, in as kind of terms as I could, that it was her qualities as an individual, not her lifestyle or her career choices, which I found painful. She was confrontational, arrogant, and often downright rude to my wife and I. I do not extend these views to all poly people or all escort girls… but it was how I felt about her, and since it didn’t change over time (it actually got worse), I broke off the friendship. Was that prejudiced?

It’s easy to assume prejudice, december, if you want to assume the worst about someone. However, unless you can prove it, it remains merely an assumption. You still haven’t proven that Dowd is a racist, just that she doesn’t much like Clarence Thomas. For that matter, neither do I.