Thomas joined the majority Supreme Court opinion in sending the dispute back to the federal appellate court for further proceedings.
In classic Thomas fashion, he argued against Affirmative Action policies and compared the school’s justifications to those of Jim Crow-era segregationists. The magistrate’s current opinion is a stance he has certainly taken before, such as in the 2003 case involving the University of Michigan’s use of race in Law School admission policies, reports The Washington Post.
Thomas, a self-loather and a willing tool of the White establishment, has long held the belief that racial preferences do a horrible injustice to their purported beneficiaries. Now Thomas, the man who has said that Affirmative Action made his law degree worthless, has revisited the divisive issue with regards to higher education.
Here are some of Thomas’s bizarre reasoning with regards to Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin:
* “Finally, while the University admits that racial discrimination in admissions is not ideal, it asserts that it is a temporary necessity because of the enduring race consciousness of our society. Yet again, the University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists.”
* “The University’s arguments today are no more persuasive than they were 60 years ago. … There is no principled distinction between the University’s assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists’ assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits.”
* “The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”
* “Unfortunately for the University, the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity—assuming they exist—hardly qualify as a compelling state interest. Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950’s, but emphatically rejected by this Court. And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then … the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today.”
* “It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. … The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks. … Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.”