THIS PAST week, headlines abounded on our nation's newspapers recording the historic decision of the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in higher education admissions policies. Interestingly enough, what most papers included were the profiles of our Supreme Court justices and how they voted on the decision -- with, of course, conservative justice Clarence Thomas in the dissent. As I picked up The Washington Post and The New York Times to more clearly understand how our nation's foremost justices ruled on preserving the race factor in college admissions, I had to admit to myself that there was one disturbing fact: the one African-American justice joined the other "dissenters" -- those who oppose counting race as a factor in college admissions policies, quotas, point-systems or not.
Like many other black college students around the country, I always scowled at the thought that "our" one voice at the supreme level of justice in America would vote against "us," but I tried to overlook his presence, and discredit him as an Uncle Tom, or even as a traitor to "our" people. When I thought about how it might appear, I began asking myself those same old questions again: Why wouldn't he agree that universities should factor in the invaluable affects of one's culture, race and background in addition to their past experiences? Wouldn't he have wanted the world to consider all the same things when he was facing adversity, discrimination and racism while growing up? How could he not consider the effects of those things that have existed in our collective past, and how they plague our still unequal present? How could someone who rose to such prominence and such a degree of importance in a society which was so willfully against him in his own youth, hold such a proud countenance today when asked if college's shouldn't consider all factors about students when admitting them?
Fortunately, I had the chance to talk to Thomas the day after the rulings were made public, and I had the chance to ask him about those very issues -- it was probably one of the most enlightening and authentic moments in my life. I came face to face with the man in the pictures, and I wondered aloud quite abruptly to him, "How do we rectify the injustices of the past that are based on precedence -- especially those that are so intrinsically value-laden in our society?" And informatively, Thomas replied that it's not as simple as correcting history. Thomas noted that he, just as well as the rest of us, cannot go back in time and change it and remarked that those of us who think we can might in the end be doing ourselves a disservice for fighting for something that seems so right in the present.
I was torn by his sentiments. We cannot rectify the injustices of yesterday, even through our laws. I know that changing the ills of the past cannot be done. I've always had hope that one day I would see a society that was color-conscious, but not so color-concentrated through some mechanism that we established in the present.
I could hear for the first time, out of Thomas' very mouth, who he really is and why he thinks the way he does. And although I might not agree with every statement, I was fortunate enough to learn not to believe everything you may see or hear in print.
Thomas, who throughout his dissenting opinion states that the government's use of "racial registers" eventually demeans us all as citizens, clarified to me, at least one important point: that he is a Supreme Court justice. And although I may not agree with his opinion or ruling in this case, I take away at least some value in knowing that he is setting us up for a legal precedent that would allow us, or perhaps our children, to one day live in a fair society that is not based on some of the values that we covet today. Thomas made clear the argument of setting invalid precedence versus upholding the rightful rule of law is part of his job, and that no matter what circumstances our society is faced with now -- which are sometimes a hard pill to swallow in this ever-changing, incongruent society -- the Supreme Court is present to uphold the fundamental rule of law.
For at least one moment in time, I could finally believe that someone on high was actually looking out for our collective best interest, and even though he may be looking a bit too far for some of us into the future, I could at least assure myself that he was looking. I never once thought whether or not it was the Supreme Court's responsibility to rectify the amoral values of society's past with the proactive support of policies to reverse history, or whether they should be more concerned with upholding the greater good: equal practice in the here and now, despite what problems the past has presented us with.
Justice Thomas was at least able to enlighten me to his concern, and as a result, I cannot blame him for what he did. I can recognize in some ways that it's a question of whether or not you think what you're doing is what's best. And in the very, very end, he probably will be right. However, for right now, it might still be best that Thomas is in the minority.
(Kazz Alexander Pinkard is a Cavalier Daily columnist. He can be reached at kpinkard@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 2 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
