The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 9, Ed. 1 Friday, October 25, 1991 Page: 3 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RICE THRESHER FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1991 3
Now forgotten that Bush lied about race when nominated Thomas
by Mark David Schoenhals
Now that the Clarence Thomas
confirmation hearings have con-
cluded, many columnists have taken
it upon themselves to reflect upon
them. The reflections of these col-
umnists are representative of the
didate. (Actually, Bush probably said
something like, "He's the best man
for the job," The public perception of
his remarks is the same either way.)
Bush denied categorically all allega-
tions that race may have been a fac-
tor in his choice of Thomas.
This, despite the fact that race
was almost certainly an issue, if not
Bush could have defended his
nomination ofThomas without sacri-
ficing his stand against racial quotas.
Given the clumsiness with which the
mass media conveys a complicated
political position to the American
public, however, Bush's reluctance
to discuss the nuances of the nomi-
nation is understandable.
... [the media] has emphasized the last stretch of the hearings at the
expense of covering up what I found most interesting when Bush
originally nominated Thomas.
general media coverage of the confir-
mation process, which concentrated
disproportionately on the finale of
the hearings: the allegations of Anita
Hill.
Although this emphasis in media
coverage has been important in pro-
voking people around the country to
think and talk about sexual harass-
ment in all sorts of meaningful ways,
it has emphasized the last stretch of
the hearings at the expense of cover-
ing up what I found most interesting
when Bush originally nominated
Thomas.
In announcing his choice to the
press, Bush insisted that he had se-
lected "the most qualified" individual
for the job. In a clamor to maintain
the dogmatic anti-race-conscious
stance of the Republican party, Bush
adamantly and repeatedfy defended
Thomas as "the most qualified" can-
the issue, for Bush as he selected
Thomas. When Souter was nomi-
nated, the names of other prominent
competitors were leaked to the press.
Clarence Thomas was nowhere to be
found among these dozen or so
people who Bush evidently believed
were "the most qualified" at that point
Bush should have spoken truth-
fully to the public about his nomina-
tion of Thomas, admitting the role
that race undoubtedly played in his
decision. We could have realized then
that we are unsure as a nation what
role race ought to play in such deci-
sion-making.
Only one thing is for sure: the
issue is too complicated to be polar-
ized between those emphasizing race-
consciousness (with strict quotas at
the extreme) on one side and those
demanding absolute colorblindness
on the other.
The fact that it is clearly easier for
him to deny the use of race in his
decision than it is for him to defend it
says as much about the state of com-
munication in our country as it does
about Bush.
Still, Bush's refusal to discuss the
role which race played in his deci-
sion-making is inexcusable. He could
have simply acknowledged that there
were dozens of candidates he be-
lieved were eminently qualified.
Thomas, he could argue, was among
this group of eminently qualified can-
didates. He was chosen, then, be-
cause he would bring something
more to the Supreme Court, an other
voice — partly because he is black.
The American public, I am convinced,
would have appreciated such a deci-
sion.
Of course, it may not be true that
Thomas was among those eminently
Intolerance quote misunderstood
To the editors,
I need to correct an assertion of
Amit Mehta and Mark Schoenhals'
in their opinion piece "Public dis-
course is victimized, no matter who
claims to be a victim" in the October
11 issue of the Thresher. In discuss-
ing the Rice Sentinel, Amit and Mark
misinterpreted a quote from me in
Mark Bennett's most recent Thresher
column, "Tolerance and agreements
to disagree" (October 4). Bennett
stated in his latest Thresher column
that I wondered "why students, while
tolerant of most religious and irreli-
gious expression, are so intolerant of
the C.C.C. [Campus Crusade for
Christ]." In response to this in Amit
Mehtaand Mark Schoenhals'article,
they wrote that "The context of this
statement in Bennett's article sug-
gests that the CCC is subject to more
intolerance and intimidation than are
the homosexuals at Rice." While the
juxtaposition in Mark Bennett's ar-
ticle of my opinions with some state-
ments by the president of GALOR
may suggest that Mark himself saw
some comparison between intoler-
ance toward both GALOR and Cru-
sade, (Although he may not have...),
I myself was attempting to make no
such comparison.
To give an idea of the actual "con-
text" of my statement, what I was
asked at one point in my interview
with Markwhether or not I perceived
any intolerance toward religion on
campus. My reply was: "Not really.
All I have really heard from students
is an occasional remark about Cru-
sade." When I was asked why this
might be the case, I didn't have an
immediate remark on hand. Later I
posited that if there is some intoler-
ance to Crusade, it might be because
Political Correctness a threat to all
To the editors,
This letter is written in regard to
an article that appeared in the
Thresher on October 11 concerning
the inherent goodness of Political
Correctness. First, I would like to
note that David Hale, the author, was
correct when he said, "If no one
voiced an opinion, America would
not be a democracy ...." But he fails
to realize that Political Correctness
threatens the opinions of every indi-
vidual. For example, it is impossible
today to hold an intelligent discussion
with someone on the validity of af-
firmative action without being
branded a racist The first amend-
ment to the Constitution guarantees
the right to free speech. Nowhere in
the constitution does it guarantee
the right to form other people's opin-
ions for them, not does it guarantee
the right to protection from the "in-
sults" of others.
Second, Hale calls for respect to
be given to everyone simply because
they are human beings. Does this
mean we should respect the likes of
Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein be-
cause deep down inside they are
human? I think not I respect a person
because of his or her ideas and their
PtNCHBmLEUSTER/'
abilities. This however, does not nec-
essarily mean that they need to have
the same opinions as me — they are
entitled to their own opinions. The
fact remains that there are a lot of
people in the world that deserve re-
spect from no one.
Lastly, I consider Hale's use of
altered Shakespeare to open his ar-
ticle extremely ignorant.
Shakespeare was not what I would
call, by any definition, a politically
correct person. On a sexist scale,
Shakespeare probably weighs in with
the likes of Hemmingway, but this
should not be construed as an attack
on Shakespeare. I am merely point-
ing out that Shakespeare is not a
good spokesman for PC. If we con-
sider whether or not Shakespeare
was a man with "a sense of morals
and decency" we probably would not
be studying him today, but we do.
I know that the people who read
this letter might brand me a right-
wing reactionary, but that is their
prerogative, and I really dont care
what they think. I only hope that
others will be able to voice their
opinions without fear of PC repercus-
sions.
J. Patrick Frantz
Jones '95
qualified. Perhaps Bush had to by-
pass candidates who were arguably
more "qualified" in order to put
Thomas's perspective on the court
In this scenario, Bush's attempt
to explain his decision would have
been more difficult He would have
been forced to justify his choice of a
less "qualified" candidate. It would
have been more difficult to convince
the public that this was a good idea.
What Bush could not have done is
argue that all standards, all ways of
measuring a candidate's "qualifica-
tions", are biased — as some aca-
demics are prone to do. He could not
have argued effectively, for example,
that all existing standards are merely
the artifact of ahistory in which white
men prevailed, with the consequence
that such standards continue to ben-
efit white men unfairly.
Even the Democrats in Congress
what the court needed most — a
different perspective, influenced by
his background. Because Bush re-
fused to make his reasoning explicit,
however, the public assumed that
Bush believed that Thomas was "the
most qualified" in terms of the tradi-
tional factors mentioned above. Bush,
I suspect, did not intend to give us
any other impression.
Bush should have admitted that
he considered race when he decided
to nominate Thomas, and he should
have defended his decision. He must
have believed that the difference in
qualifications between Thomas and
those others understood to be more
"qualified" would not negatively af-
fect Thomas's performance on the
court Since many of the candidates
would suffice intellectually, the
choice could be based on other fac-
tors. Bush chose Thomas because
Bush should have admitted that he considered
race when he decided to nominate Thomas,
and he should have defended his decision.
that is the most visible Christian or-
ganization on campus, and thus the
most likely target at which to strike if
one felt any antipathy at all toward
Christianity. I made no attempt to
compare student reaction toward
GADOR with that toward Crusade,
my comments on religion were not
made in reference to reactions to-
ward gays on campus, and I made no
attempt to quantify levels of intoler-
ance.
This is not to say that this was my
only point of of dissension with Amit
Mehta and Mark Schoenhals' piece,
but I thought, in the interest of cor-
recting the "victimization of public
discourse," that I would bring this
particular matter up.
John Clay
WRC '92
Editor, Rice Sentinel
— sometimes open-minded and tol-
erant to the point of being unable to
say that anything is right or wrong —
seem to have a sense that there are
"objec. , standards in these mat-
ters. In saying there were "more
qualified" candidates than Thomas,
these Democrats were probably right
— but only in a narrow sense. Other
potential nominees had more experi-
ence, had demonstrated greater ab-
stract brilliance in jurisprudence,
knew the history of constitutional
interpretation much more intimately.
These are, undeniably, characteris-
tics of great importance in a Supreme
Court nominee. And, Thomas seems
to fall short of "the most qualified" by
these measures.
Nevertheless, it is Bush's pre-
rogative to define "qualification" more
generally, proclaiming the impor-
tance — for all kinds of reasons — of
having someone with Thomas's
background on the court Maybe
when he originally defended the
nomination, Bush meant that Tho-
mas was "the most qualified" in this
broad sense, that Thomas provided
he could bring something different
to the Supreme Court without dam-
aging its integrity.
Whatever there was to be learned
by our nation if Bush had possessed
the courage to defend his actions
candidly, we have not learned it.
Practical political considerations like
the ones which dominated the Bork
hearings are not what we will re-
member about the Thomas hearings.
As a nation, we will remember the
allegations of sexual harassment
against Thomas.
Because Bush was not entirely-
honest about the factors which led
him to nominate Thomas, and be-
cause we accepted the reasons he
gave without questioning them,
however, we will not remember or
even acknowledge publicly the role
that race surely played in his nomina-
tion. This is unfortunate. Exposure
in the media of Bush's reasoning
would probably have led to some
much-needed thinking in our coun-
try about the ways which race can be
used appropriately in decision-milk-
ing.
Take off your costumes
To the editors,
As a third-year Wiessman, I have
observed the typical hype that sur-
rounds the Night of Decadence
(NOD). I have also noticed one "im-
portant" part of this event is the cos-
tumes that most peoplewear. Months
in advance students will discuss NOD
costumes. The interest in these cos-
tumes made me ask something,
"What are they for?" Certainly some
would claim that the Halloween spir-
its have motivated them and that
NOD is nothing more than a sea-
sonal costume party. However, it
seems to me that at NOD these cos-
tumes are supposed to allow an es-
cape from oneself and one's natural
limitations. Why mask oneself if this
is a typical party for dancing and
general socializing? What makes this
party any different from the next col-
lege party?
I believe that the difference lies in
the fact that people go to NOD to do
things that they would not (and could
not) do anyplace else. Nowhere else
would you find a university adminis-
tration or student body that would
allow sexuality to be distorted like
this. Fundamental decency forbids
it Is our student body so perverted to
actually believe otherwise? I would
like to think not. Somehow those
NOD costumes appear to be an at-
tempt to hide day-to-day morality.
The problem is that right will always
be right and sometime we will have
to take those costumes off.
Personally, 1 prefer not to have to
switch costumes, and the best way I
have found to be able to thoroughly
enjoy myself is to let the person of
Jesus Christ live through me. In him,
my appetite for immorality is gone;
all the costumes of my past have
been forgotten. Christ took them
away with Him once I allowed Him
to. I can live in peace as the person
He made me to be. He will take your
old costumes, too! Let Him
Todd O. Moore
Wiess '93
DECEMBER
LSAT?
Yes, You Can!
Most Law Schools in Texas "ill
accept December scores for
Fall Admission.
• You can register for the
LSAT until Nov. 5
• and you can be ready...
• The LSAT format has
changed, but our superior
results have not.
• Classes start Oct. 26th. \
Call today for information.
c688-5500
Trash the Thresher
Please place in recycling bin when finished.
PR INC ETON
REVIEW
We Score More
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Zitterkopf, Ann & Howe, Harlan. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 9, Ed. 1 Friday, October 25, 1991, newspaper, October 25, 1991; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245794/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.