While the Smithsonian’s new National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) opened to rave reviews, one group of Americans are upset – conservatives. Why? Because the museum does not specifically honor Justice Clarence Thomas.
This allegation is, to put it mildly, totally without merit. Here are four reasons why.
- Honoring Thomas Would Detract from the Museum’s Focus
I don’t think that the museum’s conservative critics have actually visited the museum. If they had, they would see that the museum has a particular design and focus.
My biggest takeaway from my visit to the museum is that it was trying to counter what has been called the “Great Man” theory of history. Under this theory, history only changes when “great” people do things. However, more recently, historians have rejected this theory in order to focus more on people and movements.
It was clear to me that the creators of this museum were trying to give visitors a glimpse into the lives of everyday African Americans throughout history. There are numerous quotes and artifacts from ordinary African Americans highlighting their stories, their hopes, and their dreams.
Despite the museum’s focus on everyday people, some individuals do get special recognition. There is a statue of Phillis Wheatley. There is a brief film about the efforts of Ida B. Wells, W.E.B. DuBois, and Booker T. Washington to fight for change in the early twentieth century. There is a display case featuring the dress Rosa Parks was sewing the day she was arrested. There is also a sacred space featuring the casket of Emmit Till.
Even though there are some spaces honoring specific individuals, as you slowly move through the main exhibit, these “great” pieces are few and far between. The majority of the exhibit focuses on items and issues that mattered to the daily lives of average African Americans. For that reason, there aren’t very many opportunities to single out particular African Americans for “great man” or “great woman” treatment.
Given the design and focus of the museum, I don’t think that Thomas was “left out” because of his views. I think that the museum is simply not set up in a way to honor every significant African American that ever lived.
- Honoring Thomas Doesn’t Make Sense from a Historical Standpoint
Jackie Robinson was the first African American to play major league baseball. Who was the second?
Jesse Owens won a gold medal at the 1936 Olympics in a show of strength against Hitler. Who took the silver?
Madam C.J. Walker was the first African American millionaire. Who was the second?
My point here is that history makes special note of those that are the first to break a barrier. However, we generally don’t focus as much on those who come after. So, why would we want to take special pains to celebrate the second African American on the Supreme Court? The logic doesn’t follow. Thomas’ status as a “second,” rather than a “first,” is a reason apart from his conservative views to deny him special recognition.
- Honoring Thomas Doesn’t Make Sense from a Legal Standpoint
Though I’ve never done so, I’d imagine that when planning a museum, the point is to highlight excellence in a particular field. If this is the case, Thomas does not meet the criteria. Thomas is not widely respected in legal circles. In fact, a recent book discussed the five worst justices of all time. Thomas was the only current justice to be “honored” in the book.
Moreover, one of the most important functions of an appellate judge is to ask tough questions that will push the attorneys to defend their arguments.
In the past ten years, Justice Thomas has asked exactly one question.
It is true that some judges prefer not to pepper attorneys with constant questions. However, in appellate circles, it’s rare indeed to ask one question per decade. Thomas has tried to justify his silence, but the fact is that being an outlier in this area doesn’t help the argument that Thomas is an outstanding jurist.
Moreover, Thomas has some truly odd beliefs about the constitution. Thomas is the only current justice who argues that the Commerce Clause – that part of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate goods that travel between states – cannot extend to practices that, though carried out in one state, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. To give you an idea of how unusual Thomas’ view is, even Scalia, the conservative stalwart, wrote that the constitution would allow this.
When examining Thomas from a purely legal standpoint, he is not incompetent, but there doesn’t appear to be any reason why he merits special recognition.
- Honoring Thomas Doesn’t Make Sense from a Racial Standpoint
Again, when building a museum that honors and celebrates African American history and culture, I’d venture that the museum would focus primarily on those that have helped African Americans fight racism in this nation. Thomas fails this simple test.
To be fair, I do not think that Clarence Thomas hates African Americans. He has, on several occasions, pointed out racial realities that his colleagues have missed. In United States v. Fordice, he spoke out forcefully in support of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). In Missouri v. Jenkins, he gave the Court a forceful rebuke when he said, “It never ceases to amaze me that the courts are so willing to assume that anything that is predominantly black must be inferior.” In Virginia v. Black, he disagreed with the Court that cross burning should be protected speech and took great pains to explain to the majority, in a way that perhaps only a Black man of his background could, the history and horror of cross burnings.
But these flirtations with blackness are all too rare. When the rubber meets the road, Thomas invariably votes with the bloc that is against racial progress. He has voted against affirmative action at every opportunity. He voted against schools being able to use racial methods to integrate. He voted to destroy important provisions the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In fact, Thomas would have gone even farther than the majority in gutting the Act.
In short, with a few exceptions, Thomas’ voting record on racial issues has brought little for African Americans to celebrate. While he may not hate African Americans, he’s done next to nothing to remove the racial barriers that harm us. At best, Thomas is, as the young people would say, a “frenemy.” At worst, he is an active collaborator who is building racial barriers rather than knocking them down. Neither view seems to justify special recognition in a museum dedicated to African American progress.
—
In the end then, the conservative furor over the “failure” to honor Thomas at the new museum is rooted not in reality, but white privilege. It is the height of privilege to tell people of color whom they should honor, respect, or admire. Even if the refusal to honor Thomas was based on his conservative views – and I don’t believe it was – African Americans can honor whoever we want, however we want, and in any manner we wish. It is not the job of conservative whites or their black lackeys to tell us that we’re doing it wrong.
Perhaps instead of focusing on what is not in the museum, conservatives would do well to focus on what is there – the story of a people that chose not to be crushed by a horrible history of slavery and segregation, but rather to continue to live and love in spite of the racial barriers in the path. In fact, if conservatives visited the museum and took the time to really understand African American history, perhaps they wouldn’t remain committed to making new barriers for us to overcome.
But no matter. One day, we’ll defeat these new obstacles too.
I’m pretty sure our story will be told in the NMAAHC when we do.