Lessons to Be Learned

In the recent past, I've had several folks make faces when I mentioned I heard something on this or that radio program.  Two, one local and one national, hosts were particularly noted as "racist" and "bigoted." That, when I asked what makes the host "racist" and "bigoted," there was no response at all, not even an attempt at an example, is not the point here.  A third instance, when I brought up another host, my conversant asked, "You listen to...?"  Before anything else could be uttered, I quickly said, "No, he's not a racist.  No, he's not a bigot."  That seemed to nonplus the questioner, but again, that's not the point.

I'm about halfway through the autobiography of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  I don't hold him in reverence as I do, say, Holmes, Harlan, and a few others.  But I also resent the unwarranted vitriol usually tossed his way by the so-called "intelligentsia," well, at least those arrogant enough to believe they are the intelligentsia.

My Grandfather's Son is easy-to-read, somewhat insightful, and gives a glimpse of the man who I came to at least respect after the bigoted (yes, bigoted!) onslaught against him at his confirmation hearing.  This isn't to suggest I fully agree with his rulings/decisions from the bench.  But I think perhaps from personal experience I recognize the dignity he displayed when vehemently attacked by his political opponents in 1991. (How interesting that the same people who lambasted Thomas in the Anita Hill accusations, either strongly defended Bill Clinton or remained noticeably silent when the President was accused of mulitple like offenses.)

But those are matters for another day, perhaps.

Politics, Constitutional and legal opinions aside, I've already been reminded of an important lesson from My Grandfather's Son.  People, at least I, should think as individuals, not as members of some group.  For instance, as a black student who had graduated from Holy Cross and Yale Law, Thomas was expected to think the way, well, the way a black student who had graduated from Holy Cross and Yale Law should think.  And, originally, he did--and acted on that way of thinking.  Soon, however, he became conflicted with what he was supposed to think and how he really did, especially based on his personal experiences and research.  And, he became vilified from straying from that accepted thought.

Because I was/am a teacher, I'm expected to think, speak, and act according to a certain "teacher way" of thinking, speaking, and acting.  That I didn't and don't has made me, in many eyes, an apostate of sorts. That I saw weakness, stupidity, incompetence, etc. and refused to go along with it (to the degree I could refuse) was/is seen as treason, well, of sorts.

All of this leads me back to my opening.  Each of these people, in speaking of these radio hosts, weren't offering their own reasoned opinions, not at all.  (Of course, a clue was they couldn't offer any examples, any bases for their claims of "racist" and "bigot.")  They merely parroted what they've heard from people like them.  They said what they were supposed to say, whether they believe it or even knew what they were saying.

I suppose such reasoning is in the same intellectual domain as "just 'cuz."