TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• About Justice Thomas' memoir: My Grandfather's Son
• National Urban League
• Civic Frame
• Institute for Research in African-American Studies Columbia University

E-mail a friend

Tavis: First, I'm pleased to be here at the studios of WNET, channel 13 here in New York City, for the first of five shows this week in the Big Apple. Tomorrow night, filmmaker Ken Burns is here to discuss his latest acclaimed documentary, "The War," and then on Wednesday night, "New York Times" columnist Frank Rich on the ongoing debate over Iraq and, of course, the 2008 race for the White House.

Thursday night brings us Tony-winning actress Phylicia Rashad with a look at the life and legacy of August Wilson, and then on Friday night, a visit from the legendary and iconic Ruby Dee.

But we kick off this week here in New York with a conversation about what everybody's talking about today, it seems: the new book by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Pleased to be joined tonight by this terrific panel. First up, Dr. Cornel West. The Princeton professor and bestselling author is out with a new CD mixing hip-hop and inspirational spoken word. The disc is called "Never Forget: A Journey of Revelations."

Next up, Dr. Farah Jasmine Griffin, a distinguished professor at Columbia and the former director of the Institute for Research in African American Studies. And this guy, we all know - Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League and of course, former mayor of New Orleans. Dr. West, Farah Jasmine Griffin, Marc Morial, nice to see you all.

Marc Morial: Great, Tavis, good to be with you.

Professor Cornel West: A blessing to be here.

Farah Jasmine Griffin: Great to be here.

Tavis: Marc, let me start with you, since you're closest to me. You saw the "60 Minutes" piece last night; what'd you make of it overall?

Morial: I liked his grandfather.

Tavis: You liked his - (laughter). You liked his grandfather. The book - I didn't mention it, of course; the book is called "My Grandfather's Son."

Morial: Yeah. It was an advertorial for Clarence Thomas and perhaps for the book.

Tavis: You can't say that about "60 Minutes." (Laughter) They don't do advertorials. They do tough, hard-hitting interviews.

Morial: Yeah, and that's what was missing. He wasn't challenged by Steve Kroft on his record - on his hostile record towards advancement, and I came away from it with this. He was a man expressing a great pain at discrimination and the legacy of discrimination as directed towards him - the confirmation hearings, his early life, his experience at Yale - who seems to have forgotten that he stands not by himself, but he stands amongst many who've experienced discrimination, who've experienced the pain of racial injustice.

Yet, not at a single point in his career has he used the power of his office, either at the EEOC, on the D.C. circuit, or on the Supreme Court, to help those he professed to be concerned about. And that's the point; there was an element of a disconnect - even almost a hypocrisy present where you wanted to say the justice has experienced what so many of us know has been part of the legacy of this country.

Yet, when he is in a position to make a change and make a difference, he hasn't used his power to do that.

Tavis: Professor Griffin, what'd you make of it last night?

Griffin: Well, I thought that it wasn't an interview. I was expecting the traditional "60 Minutes" interview; Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley. It was nothing like that. There were no follow-up questions; there was no presentation of alternative views. So in that way, it was very disappointing. I also felt that Justice Thomas used it as yet another opportunity to vilify Anita Hill.

And I had to question some of the things he claims to have learned from his grandfather, who I also liked as a result of this. So I think those are my concerns about that interview.

Tavis: Dr. West?

West: Yeah, I think that CBS and "60 Minutes," they really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Because you get another example of debased journalism where there's no Socratic energy, no tough questions raised. I have nothing against staying in contact with the humanity of Brother Clarence Thomas, and we did see humanity, his story, his relation to grandfather, and so forth.

I don't want to demonize the brother, but he needs to be criticized, and they presented this story as if those of us who are critics, Black, White, Red, or whatever, have no good reasons to be critical of him siding with the strong against the weak and the powerful against the relatively powerless. And so it's right, as Professor Griffin, my dear sister, said, there's no dialogue taking place.

And I thought "60 Minutes" was all about journalism. What has happened to journalism these days, where all you get is puff pieces that constitute advertisement for a book? Especially with somebody like Clarence Thomas, who's been the lightning rod of this fascinating debate, not just in Black America but among all Americans concerned about truth and justice on the court and in our society.

Tavis: We have the balance of this show to jump into some of the particulars for those who did not see the "60 Minutes" piece last night on Clarence Thomas, or certainly with Clarence Thomas - Justice Thomas. Let me just play two clips. The first clip I want to play - give you some sense of what he had to say last night.

The first clip, he's responding to Steve Kroft, the correspondent who did the conversation, conducted the conversation, responding to him about the role that race - the impact that race has had on his life. Here's Justice Thomas.

[Clip]

Tavis: Is he right about that, Dr. West?

West: No, he's not right at all. If you look at his record, you can see that he has very little sensitivity to the disadvantaged. He has some of the most cold-hearted, mean-spirited decisions that side with the powerful against the weak. So when he talked about disadvantage and justice, it's just not true. "60 Minutes" should have asked that question.

And it's sad that they didn't. When he talks about being 5'8.5", I don't know of American history where they enslaved people who were 5'8.5". I don't know of American history where they lynched people who were 5'8.5". I'm glad they didn't, but let's be honest about this. The legacy of White supremacy is real. You could see it in the brother's soul.

I sympathize with him to the degree to which the brother's so wounded, he's so scarred.

Morial: Incredibly wounded.

West: He's so bruised, you know what I mean? And you can see he's after - like all of us, he wants to be loved. Frustrated and neglected. Love is the very heart and soul of our suffering. The question is whether we choose to be wounded healers or wounded hurters. He has chosen, unfortunately so far, to be a wounded hurter when it comes - not just to Black people - poor people, working people, across the board.

Tavis: Marc, do you believe him when he says that his race - that he really believes that his race has had no more impact on his life than his height or his being a male. Do you believe that?

Morial: I think that he contradicted himself, because his legacy of his grandfather and studying to be a priest and how he feels about being at Yale and the difficulty with getting a job means he has internalized the pain of exclusion and discrimination. Yet when asked about it directly, he diminishes it. He sets it aside as though it is only like being 5'8" or only like being male and American.

As Dr. West said, those have not been badges of discrimination. So it's almost - the logic that he expressed was tortured. It just was not consistent. If I were to look at his discussion of his own personal experiences, what would flow from that is here is someone who would necessarily and philosophically be the most aggressive and passionate supporter of civil rights, of affirmative action, of those who are economically disadvantaged.

And I think for public people, it is not simply about whether I, quote, am concerned in my own heart about the disadvantaged, but whether I express that in my public work. This is a justice of the Supreme Court who has a vote on important cases. There'll be a number of important cases that come before the court this year.

The photo ID required to vote in Indiana will be before the court. The retaliation against someone who files an employment discrimination complaint, that will be before the court this year. The true barometer of Justice Thomas is how he votes and opines on issues of the day.

Tavis: Farah, Professor Griffin, the reason why Marc Morial is disappointed that Justice Thomas has not built a career, to paraphrase Marc, around fighting for the least among us is because he said to Steve Kroft last night, paraphrasing, of course, here, that he feels stigmatized by race. He said to Steve Kroft last night that his Yale law degree - Yale law degree - is somewhere in the basement of his house.

He won't take it out, he won't put it on the wall, because a Yale law degree means one thing for Bill and Hillary; it means something else for him. And so he's ashamed of that Yale degree because he's stigmatized by it because he got in as an affirmative action student, and he don't want nothing to do with his Yale law degree. To that, to his stigmatism - the stigmatizing that he feels about and by race, you say what?

Griffin: Well, he claims that it was affirmative action that made him feel this sense of being stigmatized, but he doesn't talk about the ways that he not only benefited from affirmative action simply by getting into Yale, getting into Holy Cross, but the way he rose up the ranks through conservative politics. I daresay that had he not been a Black man, that he would have been appointed the head of the EEOC without the level of experience that he had.

So at every point, race has been significant in his life, and it has been significant in him advancing in the ways that he's advanced - even being chosen for the Supreme Court, right? So that I think that those are all very disingenuous, those disconnections.

Morial: I want to make this point, because this is an important point about affirmative action. While on one hand he said, "I felt devalued because I may have been admitted based on affirmative action," here's a man who, what I heard last night, finished in the middle of his class at Yale. Did very well at Holy Cross. What proves the point of affirmative action is when people are admitted and they do well.

And we shouldn't leave that point away. The idea of stigmatization is in his head. It's in his perception of the world. Yet, here's a man who's achieved the highest rank that one could achieve in American society - the presidency, a Supreme Court justice are probably the highest ranks. And historically, there's only been one other African American, the great Justice Thurgood Marshall, on that court, who somehow still feels that he's been limited.

It doesn't - you see, Tavis, for me, these things don't - it doesn't add up. It doesn't compute, his feelings and his public actions and his career. It just doesn't compute.

Tavis: But let me jump in, though, Doc, on that point. Why, though, is he not entitled to perceive the world the way he wants to? If that stigmatization is in his head, it's his head. He has a right to feel any way he wants to feel in his head. If he wants to take the public positions that he's taken, if he wants to be a Republican, if he - whatever he wants to do, he did say, "I'm a man."

You and I think of ourselves as free Black men.

West: We are free Black -

Tavis: Why can't he think of himself as a free Black man and have his own style?

West: Because you can be a free Black man and still be captive in certain illusions, because you're not free enough to confront those illusions. He's free to say whatever he wants. What he's not free is to assault Black peoples' critical intelligence and integrity and dignity and say we follow liberals like cattle, and he's the only one exercising critical intelligence. That's a lie, Brother Clarence. We need a dialogue.

We have better arguments than you. That's why the masses of Black critical about you. "60 Minutes," they don't even consider what the arguments are. They could have gone to Ted Wells - Ted Wells that ran against the president for Black Student Association at Holy Cross - against Clarence then. Fine legal mind.

What is your critique of Clarence? A Leon Higginbotham, towering figure. He's got a long letter, critical arguments against Clarence. He could have gone to Edward P. Jones, who graduated with him at Holy Cross - just won the Pulitzer Prize for literature. He's got his own critiques. Let's have an argument. But if we're cast as just cattle and he's the only free Black man - no, you not the only free Black man. You a free Black man and wrong on a lot of issues.

Tavis: All right, to the point you're making now, what did you make then of the fact that they did not - "60 Minutes," Steve Kroft - respectfully, did not showcase any of the voices about this controversial figure, did not jump into his 300-plus case record, but instead chose to use old footage of Al Sharpton at a rally with a bunch of folk holding up Uncle Tom signs as the voice - ostensibly, the voice in absentia in the piece for people critical of Clarence Thomas?

West: No, I have nothing against my dear brother Al Sharpton; I've been critical of him, but I love him deeply. That's one particular moment of Black people expressing their critique. There's other ways that Black people have expressed their critique, in chapters in books, whole books, articles. There's a number - through music - there's a number of different ways Black people express their critique.

"60 Minutes" had the gall to represent Black dignity and critical intelligence with just a rally? You see, that's insulting to any - insulting to any American, it seems to me.

Morial: Tavis, I'm going to say this. "60 Minutes" owes the public a second piece, to give equal airtime to those of us who want to offer a completely different analysis and a different point of view. I think that the piece was as though Justice Thomas' public relations firm edited the piece, controlled the piece. They devoted, what, an hour?

Tavis: Forty-five minutes.

Morial: Forty-five minutes - unprecedented time. And Steve Kroft, great journalist, did not challenge him. Public people - and a Supreme Court justice is public people - have to be judged on their public record.

West: That's right.

Morial: Their public decisions, their public votes, their public discourses, for good and for bad. And none of that was challenged.

Tavis: Farah, you want to say something?

Griffin: Yeah, what I thought was problematic about the rehearsal of the history is that they really didn't take seriously the history of peoples' responses to him. How can you talk about Clarence Thomas and not talk about the great Toni Morrison having felt it was necessary to edit a book about the hearings with top intellectuals, Black and White?

So there was a very one - even the one-sided history that was rehearsed, it was his side. It was his side.

Tavis: What did you make of the conversation last night - there was some, of course, about Anita Hill. They didn't spend a lot of time on it. I got the sense Clarence Thomas thought that was old news, but he does have some stuff to say about Anita Hill in this book.

Griffin: Well even in that interview he called her immature, he called her egotistical, he called her ambitious, he made it seem like she was hysterical; this hysterical Black woman, a stereotype that we've seen over and over again. And what I really find interesting is that he might have felt all those things, yet he facilitated her career.

So at what point in those references and recommendations did he call her ambitious and immature?

Morial: It doesn't compute.

Griffin: Right.

Morial: There's some missing pieces of the story, but here's the thing.

Tavis: But he said, though, he said thought - I want to hear your response, but he did say that she was not the kind of person, given her personality. His words last night were, and I'm paraphrasing again, that she was not the kind of person, Marc, to wait 10 years to come forward with something like that, if he had done that.

Morial: That was his characterization -

Tavis: Of her. That she's not the kind of person that would have waited 10 years.

Morial: And it sounds like he knew her well. And that he knew her well enough to advance her career. But what he does in attacking her is he dishes out the very same invective and rhetoric he accuses his critics of directing towards him. He's in the game of finger-pointing, name-calling -

West: Name-calling, that's right.

Morial: Conclusory comments about peoples' personalities and character. So in that sense, he diminished himself, in my own mind. He diminished what it seemed like he sought to do by just getting down and saying, “Okay, I'm going to attack her first.”

Tavis: Let me take that point that Marc makes, though, Dr. West, and ask you, though, whether or not, with all due respect to my friend Marc Morial, that we're being a little unfair here. This is a guy, like him or loathe him, agree or disagree, who has, for the most part, sat silent for what, 16 years, about this matter. He's approaching the age of 60.

He has been demonized, he has been vilified. And again, like or loathe him, I'm trying to be Socratic here, to use your word - agree or disagree, the cat had - the brother has sat silent for a long time. Why is he not entitled to speak his mind, to express himself, 16 years later?

West: Oh, no, he's entitled to express himself six years, six minutes, 16 years, or whatever.

Tavis: Sixty minutes. (Laughs)

West: And keep in mind - in 60. But keep in mind that none of us - we don't believe in demonizing Brother Clarence at all. If Clarence is beat the way Rodney King is beat, I'm supporting him against the White policemen, because I'm against White supremacy across the board. We're not vilifying him in any way. We are criticizing and condemning his policies, his decisions, his actions and his words when he's not telling the truth.

That's the thing about it. And if you actually look at the hearings, we got tremendous scholarship on this, when you actually look at how he gained access to the Supreme Court, the various ways in which George Bush claimed this was the most qualified judge in the land, that's a lie. You see what I mean? So we just have to be honest about that. And to say that's a lie is not to vilify Clarence Thomas, it's to say it's Clarence Thomas.

Morial: He has a right to speak, but we have an obligation to challenge him.

West: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Morial: As people who are concerned about civil rights and racial justice, we have an obligation to challenge him and to challenge his record, and to challenge twisted and tortured logic which he uses to support his positions and his decisions on the court. So let the debate begin anew. Let the debate begin anew about the Constitution, about racial justice, and about this point in history.

Tavis: Near the end of the conversation last night, Farah Jasmine Griffin, he made it clear to Steve Kroft that he felt that what was behind what he called the high tech lynching of a Black man was the issue of abortion. That they came after him in the way that they did, so aggressively, because they could not abide the thought of one person, any person, much less a Black man, taking the place of the late, great, Thurgood Marshall, who might be in a position to overturn Roe v. Wade.

And his argument was last night, his feeling was - or is - that it was all, this whole thing, was all about abortion. Your response?

Griffin: Well, certainly there are people who are pro-choice who were concerned about his being on the bench, but that wasn't the only constituency that was concerned. And so I found it very interesting to make that easy argument that Anita Hill was a kind of pawn of the feminists. He never mentioned the Black civil rights establishment that was against him, right?

But I think that it's easy to point to pro-choice feminists as the villains, right, so that I'm not surprised that he would go about doing that that way.

Tavis: Do you think that he - let me say my point of view. I think Clarence Thomas, again, like him or loathe him, sold a whole lot of books last night. I think he sold a whole lot of books. I'm looking for him to be at the top of all the bestseller lists because of the way the story went down last night, this conversation notwithstanding.

Do you think he gained any ground, Dr. West, though, in addressing, in changing, adjusting, the legacy, the image, the perception of him?

West: No, because there were no counter-arguments against arguments that have been put forward that are critical of him. What we had, I think, for the most part was that reinforcing of the divide. A reinforcing of that fissure between those against and those support without the kind of critical exchange that we have.

I'll tell you this, Tavis, though, brother, just in terms of preserving my own dignity as a Black man in America, yesterday, I was so glad that you were on "Meet the Press" to exemplify Black critical intelligence and dignity and integrity. Because by the time I got to "60 Minutes" that night, even as a Christian, I needed a little cognac, though, brother. (Laughter)

I'll tell you that right now, because that thing hit me so hard. And I was depressed partly because I could feel his pain.

Morial: Yeah.

West: And as a Christian, I sympathize with his pain. As a human being, I do. On the other hand, I could see that what he's doing is reinforcing more pain, especially among poor working people and Black people.

Tavis: Just a few - thank you for the compliment. Just a few seconds, Marc. Did he make any headway in changing our image of him?

Morial: In the short run, I think those that saw the piece that may not have known much about him may have felt somewhat sympathetic towards him. But what it does is it - as Dr. West says, it reinforces the divide, but it also opens up another conversation in this country. So you haven't heard the last, and there will be a new debate about Clarence Thomas.

Tavis: Farah, did it change your mind about him at all?

Griffin: (Laughs) Oh, no, not at all, not at all. But I do think there will be people who will be a little more sympathetic, but I'm very grateful that you've given us this opportunity to begin this dialogue.

West: Absolutely, absolutely.

Griffin: Because it is a dialogue that needs to continue.

Tavis: And I'm sure it will. The new book by Clarence Thomas is called "My Grandfather's Son," as if you didn't know, and it will, in fact, kick up a huge conversation, certainly at the start of this new Supreme Court term.

That's our show for tonight.