Justice Clarence Thomas Let's Colleagues know he's Black Enough

United State Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used his opinion in the Seattle District and the Jefferson County School Board of Education majority’s opinion to take on the dissenting voices of the Court. Included in Justice Thomas's opinion is his response to those who are questioning whether or not he is black enough. Justice Thomas answers "the black enough question" quickly with a reference to his strict constructionist view of the Constitution being a colorblind Constitution taken from Plessy, as a similar view expressed by Brown vs. Board of Education, very own Justice Thurgood Marshall. As if his attack on Justice Stephen Breyers was not enough, Justice Thomas dismantles the argument of Justice Breyers' argument for allowing school boards plans to go unquestioned by the Court.

Justice Thomas expressed concerns about allowing school board that has designed a diversity plan without oversight of their own program. Justice Thomas does not agree that the school board is in the best positive to determine if the plan is marshalling in a state compelling interest a role more suited for the Court.

Justice Thomas suggest that allowing school boards this power would be returning to the role that segregatists played in circumventing the Constitution in allowing domination by one group over another group quoting from Dred Scott v Sandford., “[T]hey [members of the “negro African race”] had o rights which the white man was bound to respect”). Going so far as to suggest that school board spouting social theories that African-American students do better in school by attending integrated school may be on the same level with those in Plessy that argued to the Court to take into consideration the practicalities of the harm of upholding the meaning of the fourteen amendment. In other words, the school board knows what is best for its African-Americans students a similar argument that was used when the segregatist argued for deference to local authorities. Including the argument that the previous court did in upholding the societal practices, local expectations, and practical consequences by looking to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort and the preservation of the public peace and good order. The Court in deferring to such argument agreed that it was reasonable to separate the races.

Justice Thomas does not believe that what is occurring in Seattle or Jefferson County is segregation but simply racial imbalance in schools. Justice Thomas defines de jure segregation, “In the context of public schooling, segregation is the deliberate operation of a school system to ‘carry out a governmental policy to separate pupils in schools solely on the basis off race.’” Moreover, evidence of this would be a dual system, one black and one white. In addition, Brown II dismantled this dual system. What is occurring in schools today is a racial imbalance. “Racial imbalance is the failure of a school district’s individual schools to match or approximate the demographic makeup of the student population at large”, Washington v Seattle School Dist. No1. Justice Thomas argues that, other factors could contribute to racial imbalance besides past de jure segregation. Nevertheless, racial imbalance is not the same as re-segregation.

Seattle and Jefferson County is not experiencing a dual system, of black and white only segregation in its school system which is to the contrary of the evidence that shows that that various diverse groups are represented in the school system.