“Kim” from Dallas, Texas messaged me recently.
“Hey Terry, have you read the latest article by Percival Duke?” I told her that no, I didn’t recognize that name nor was I familiar with the article.
“Well Duke is a Dallas native, artist and musician who has lived in Germany for decades. His article, “What do Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas talk about?” is a must read for those of us who have had serious issues with supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. Shortly after hearing from “Kim” I located and read the article.
It begins with Duke’s answer to the question the article’s title poses; what do these two African American supreme court justices talk about away from the court and out of public scrutiny?
Now the truth is that’s not a question that’s ever crossed my mind since I presumed that because of their political differences – he’s staunchly conservative, she liberal – and their recent hotly worded dissents in major court decisions, they rarely if ever spend time with each other outside the bench. But what if they do? That’s a darn good question.
So, what do they talk about? asked Duke. “I have absolutely no idea. But as an American and man of color, I would give almost anything to be a fly on the wall.” Well, you and me both Mr. Duke. I would love to join you with my eyes and ears on that wall. Who wouldn’t?
But seriously, there’s no question that Duke’s question is intriguingly thought-provoking. Would he greet her with a man hug and high five like he probably does to his male colleagues? Yeah, right!
Would Anita Hill’s come up? Nope!. Would Thomas bring up his chummy relationship with his billionaire buddies or the financial source of his quarter of a million-dollar RV. Nah! Would Brown Jackson apologize for her strong dissents to his opinions? Well if you believe that I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I’m willing to sell you.
“Two Black Americans, two supreme court justices,” wrote Duke. “Two people who reached one of the most powerful rooms in the world carrying the history on their skin – and who seem again and again to look at history and see two completely different Americas.”
First for historical context, many Black leaders, liberal organizations and legal scholars strongly oppose Thomas’ jurisprudence. They argue that his opposition to affirmative action, voting rights protections, and diversity programs actively harms systemic progress for African Americans. Much of that disapproval dates to his contentious 1991 Senate confirmation—featuring accusations of sexual harassment brought by Anita Hill—and his conservative opinions consistently aligned with dismantling long-standing federal civil rights remedies.
On the other hand, Thomas’ supporters praise him, viewing his emphasis on personal responsibility, individual agency and family structure as a truer path to empowerment than government-led preferential programs. Many of them argue that Thomas represents a distinct, independent strain of Black political thought rooted in self-determination, rejecting the idea that African Americans must hold uniform political or ideological views.
Among his staunchest supporters is Thomas’ longtime acolyte Mark Paoletta. In his, “Forty Years of Attacks and Slurs Against Justice Thomas,” Paoletta asserts that much of the Black Democratic leadership in this country has been on a 40-year crusade to destroy Justice Clarence Thomas, calling him an “Uncle Tom” because his views are supposedly anathema to most Black Americans.
Joining in the grift against Hill was David Brock in his “The Real Anita Hill,” in which he described her motive for her romantic attraction to Thomas as “nutty and slutty.”
Now back to Anita Hill, here we are 30 plus years later and I still think about her after Thomas deviously “race carded” his way onto the supreme court. It’s impossible not to think about the impact Thomas’ confirmation still has on her whenever his name surfaces in the news. The reputational hits she withstood will follow her for the rest of her life while having constantly to relive her horrific experiences with Thomas while he enjoys a life of luxury and privilege.
As to the process itself, I remember how well Ms. Hill weathered countless insulting queries by a collection of old white men on the Judiciary Committee who interrogated her mercilessly; one of the most idiotic of which was from the senator from Alabama who asked in a deep southern drawl if she was a “scorned woman.” That question was dwarfed in incredulity by ones posed by other committee members – some themselves with questionable histories of their treatment of women – further amplified my disgust leaving me hard pressed to not regurgitate my spaghetti dinner.
Anita’s demeanor, poise and inability to be rattled were on full display during that so-called “hearing.” Now imagine for a second had she – and, more recently Judge Jackson – lost their cool or raised their voices in anger during such grueling questioning. (Think the “angry Black woman slur).
By contrast, when Thomas angrily played his “high tech lynching” race card that discombobulated and tongue tied the committee – and later when Bret Kavanaugh screamed in anger against strong evidence that he harassed several women while a student at Yale – well unless I missed the memo, no one tagged either of these men with the “angry man” label.
Fast forward to the day that Joe Biden announced his 2020 presidential run. The New York Times reported that earlier, Biden called Anita to discuss “what she endured” during the Thomas 1991 hearing. As the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, Biden oversaw the proceedings during which she testified that Thomas had sexually harassed her but was grilled by a committee of men who trivialized her accusations. Even more damaging, Biden would not allow testimonies from three credible women who were prepared to share their similar experiences with Thomas. For that he apologized and later said that he believed her version of what happened to her. Well thank you Mr. Biden.
Which takes us back to the “What do talk about..” piece by Percival Duke.
Behind the scenes, do they make eye contact and fist- bump each other or talk about each other’s families? Is Thomas’ relationship with justice Jackson as cozy as it is with his “brothers from other mothers” Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh?
Now although the chances that they meet socially are slim, what would they talk about when sitting across the desk from each other in their private chambers? Well, I’m willing to wager that they wouldn’t chat about how Affirmative Action programs got Thomas into Yale and onto the supreme court. Or about how Anita Hill rebuffed his romantic advances while they both worked at the EEOC. Or about Thomas’ wife Ginnie’s late-night call in 2010 urging her to issue a public apology for what she “did to my husband.” Or about Thomas’ alleged love of pornography.
“Again and again,” wrote Duke, “they sit inside the same building, read the same Constitution, carry the same history of the same country – yet arrive somewhere completely different. What the hell do they say to each other?” Perhaps he stares at her. Perhaps she stares at him. Perhaps Thurgood Mashall and Shirley Chisholm are turning over in their graves watching this (expletive) and wondering what the hell happened.”
Further writes Duke about Thomas, “How does a man whose own journey through America was made possible, at least in part, by generations of Black Americans fighting to open doors in the country appear so willing to slam it behind him?” To answer his question with concrete evidence, he laid out the facts:
Thomas joined the majority that ended race-conscious admissions to universities. Jackson dissented. Thomas dissented in a major case protecting Black voting power under the Voters Rights Act. Jackson stood on the other side. Thomas joined the majority granting the president broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Jackson dissented.
So, if I’m ever fortunate enough to join Duke in a seat across the wooden desk from Thomas in his chambers my follow-up question to Clarence would be contingent upon how he responded to this question posed by Duke at the end of his “What do they talk about…”article:
“Clarence – what the (expletive) happened to you?”
Terry Howard is an award-winning writer, a contributing writer with the Chattanooga News Chronicle, The American Diversity Report, The Douglas County Sentinel, TheBlackmarket.com, recipient of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Leadership Award, and third place winner of the Georgia Press Award.
