During the past week, I have followed with dismay the reaction of the press and the public to the comments of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. During a hearing of oral arguments for the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, he voiced an opinion that has variously been characterized as “racist”, “disgusting”, “insulting”, “impeachable” and so forth. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid addressed the matter on the Senate floor with these words: “It is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court Justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation’s highest court.” If one had checked the social media in the days following Scalia’s comments, one might have read this tweet by an alumna of an Ivy League university: “…he (i.e. Scalia) is saying that black people should go to ‘lesser’ colleges because they can’t keep up.” In the midst of this deluge of condemnation, it would seem prudent to recall the actual words of Justice Scalia. In the transcript we read: “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”
In recent years, I have heard quite a bit about “critical thinking”; I have heard talks on the subject in various clubs, and I have read references to it in the “Opinion” section of the Villages-News.com. When a heated debate becomes excessively emotional and the lack of rational thought is painfully obvious, the participants are frequently admonished to employ “critical thinking”. I have been told that critical thinking requires us to analyze statements carefully, to search out the relevant data in order to confirm or to refuse the statements and to attempt to pass an unbiased judgment on the correctness or incorrectness of the statement. Although I find the method of critical thinking somewhat limited in scope, I concede its value on an elementary level in political dialogue.
Coming now to the main point: There is, in my opinion, a disturbing disparity between the call for critical thinking and the castigating reactions to the comments of Justice Scalia. Nota bene: I do not wish to defend Justice Scalia, nor do I wish at the present time to pass judgment on the validity of his comments. Perhaps the term “racist” is rightly applied to him as an individual or perhaps not. In any case, there was nothing in the formulation of his statement that was explicitly racist. He was expressing what he views to be the present state of affairs, without hinting at genetic inferiority. In reacting to his comments, it is the statement, not the man that should be the focus of our attention. It is a basic principle of logic that ad hominem arguments are invalid in evaluating the correctness of statements about an objective state of affairs. The statement “2 + 2 = 4” is correct, whether it is said by a saint or a sinner. Likewise, “2 + 2 = 5” is incorrect, whether it is uttered by a Democrat or a Republican. The substance of Justice Scalia’s statement was the two-part claim (1) that the admission of African-Americans into the University of Texas does not benefit them (2) because they do not do well there. If by the phrase “do not do well”, he means “excel academically”, then that part of the claim should be easy enough to verify or refute. On the other hand, what counts as “benefitting them” would be more difficult to ascertain. In any case, his statements should be evaluated in a proper manner, utilizing the available information that we possess. According to Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago, there are sociological studies that present views on both sides of the affirmative action issue, although the majority of the studies seem to contradict the position of Justice Scalia.
Senator Harry Reid said that he found Justice Scalia’s statement “deeply disturbing”. What I find deeply disturbing is that the call for critical thinking seems to be more an admonition than an actual practice. When others disagree with us and react irrationally, we charge them with the responsibility of critical thinking. But when our views are challenged, critical thinking becomes little more than an interesting theory. Perhaps we are afraid of the consequences of open discussion. Perhaps we fear that affirmative action will dissolve right before our eyes if we criticize the current model. If that is the case, it is very unfortunate because we are stifling the possible generation of new ideas. In serious political dialogue, we might arrive at new models of affirmative action that are even more effective than our current one. In short, I think that Justice Scalia’s claim deserves consideration apart from his overall worldview or his particular character traits. To reiterate, my opinion piece is “In Defense of Nobody”.
Villager Jack E. Brush is a frequent contributor to Villages-News.com
