Thomas faces opposition because of race


This letter appeared in the Advocate (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) on 12 September 1991.

This item may be cited as M. R. Franks, Letter to the Editor: Thomas faces opposition because of race, Baton Rouge Advocate, September 12, 1991, at 11B.

Copyright © 1991, M. R. Franks

Dear Editor:

Were Judge Clarence Thomas white, holding the same views, he would receive far less vitrolic opposition. The inescapable conclusion is that blacks enjoy less freedom of expression in America than whites. Judge Thomas is being discriminated against because he is black.

We should not plead surprise that George Bush nominated a conservative. If we want liberal nominees, let us work to elect a liberal president. How naive it is, however, to think that if a vicious Senate fight destroys this man, President Bush's next nominee will somehow be liberal.

The real question is whether a black should be denied his seat on the court because he is black, in favor of a white who will hold essentially the same views. Confirmation hearings have taken a ruthless turn in recent years, and the process tends to destroy all but the most insipid, non-commital, mediocre nominees. Do we really want a Supreme Court composed of milquetoasts?

The average Louisianian, black and white, wants Clarence Thomas' nomination confirmed. His views against affirmative action are no worse than those of the next nominee, and his views on abortion are shared by the overwhelming majority of Louisianians.

M. R. Franks
P.O. Box 281
Baton Rouge, La. 70821

Click here to return to Maurice Franks's Writings

Copyright 2002 by M. R. Franks - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED