Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Uncle Tom and Clarence Thomas: Is the Abuse Defensible?

I am putting the finishing touches of my article on Clarence Thomas entitled "Uncle Tom and Clarence Thomas: Is the Abuse Defensible?" I argue that there is an argument to be made that the Justice is indeed deserving of the Uncle Tom appellation. The problem, though, is that Thomas is almost solely indicted for racial betrayal because of his antagonism to affirmative action. I don't think that's quite fair. Can't a person believe that affirmative action isn't in the best interest of the black community and not be a sellout?
Feb 3, 2010 2:53:27 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Brief excerpt of my book This brief sketch of how blacks have been treated within the law establishes how often black legal claims lost to competing societal interests. Professor Derrick Bell calls this phenomenon the “interest convergence dilemma.” In short, the principle dictates that, “The interest of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of whites.”[1] This enduring legal posture undoubtedly impacted black Americans and, more specifically, black culture. Booker T. Washington’s racial uplift strategy was one such response to the pervasive racism which abounded during the late nineteenth century. His intellectual rival, W.E.B. Du Bois, crafted the talented tenth idea, a strategy to help black Americans achieve economic parity in a country dedicated to ensure it never materialized. Marcus Garvey advocated that blacks leave this hostile land, and immigrate to Africa. Black preachers often taught blacks to ignore the pervasive racism and instead concentrate on the...
PREVIOUS POST
Inconsistent Originalism and the Need for Equal Protection Re-Invigoration Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives will be publishing this paper. Abstract: After Washington v. Davis, the Equal Protection Clause, as in Plessy v. Ferguson, was interpreted to prevent racial justice for communities of color. The Davis Court announced the intent doctrine; that the Equal Protection Clause only protects those discriminated against pursuant to a discriminatory motive. But as Charles Lawrence announced in his piece entitled The Id, The Ego, and Equal Protection, discrimination is frequently the result of an unconscious mind. By focusing on a motive inquiry, moreover, courts limit remedy to the most overt of discriminatory acts. The evidentiary burden is too high. With the Equal Protection Clause no longer an effective tool for stigmatized minorities, it needs to be re-invigorated to further racial equality. Those seeking to overturn Davis must, though, grapple with the reality that the original public understanding of the Equal Protection...

Brando Simeo Starkey

Ohio State University 2004; Harvard Law School 2008.

The TypePad Team

Search

Recent Comments