ken goal, but even Jesse Jackson talksrnabout affirmative action, not quotas, andrnequal opportunity, not equal results.rnThe distinction between “opportunity”rnand “results” is, moreover, simply a matterrnof time. Yesterday’s opportunitiesrnare today’s results, which become today’srnopportunities. For example, the equalrnopportunity to be president of the companyrnrequires equality going backwardsrnin time. Equalizing opportunities andrnresults, then, is effectively the samernthing. That is why the left has neverrnhad to champion “equal results”; “equalrnopportunity” is quite enough to wreckrnany system of merit.rnThomas had no lack of privileged opportunity,rnand he was made assistant secretaryrnfor civil rights at the Departmentrnof Education in 1981, where he opposedrnthe Reagan administration’s attempt tornintegrate black colleges. “Integration forrnits own sake,” Brock writes of Thomas’srnvievy, “should not take precedence over”rneducating “young blacks.” Yet at thernsame time, Thomas wanted to integraternwhite colleges on the grounds that theirrnvery existence violated the 14th Amendment’srn”requirement that states treatrnpersons equally regardless of race or color.”rnThomas also attacked the administrationrnfor resisting the removal of BobrnJones University’s tax-exempt status becausernthe school discouraged interracialrndating. So, as Brock describes Thomas’srnviews on race and education: whiternschools should be integrated; blackrnschools should be segregated; and interracialrndating should be tolerated at predominantlyrnwhite schools. Did everyonernagree with him? No, said Thomas:rn”There are a lot of racists in the administration.”rnThomas was then promoted to thernchairmanship of the Equal EmploymentrnOpportunity Commission,rnone of the most dangerous bureaucraciesrnin D.C. With one phone call from an officialrnvictim, the EEOC can attack anyrnbusiness in the country, force unqualifiedrnpeople onto its payroll, fine andrnsmear its executives, and drive it into thernground. Clearly, such an agency is incompatiblernwith a free society, butrnThomas was in his element. He “professionalizedrnthe agency,” says Brock,rnwith “people who were skilled in a lawrnenforcement model.” As libertarianrnClint Bolick of the Institute for Justicerntold Brock, “His view was ‘nail the discriminatorrnand make it hurt.’ Quotasrndon’t hurt. The EEOC changed fromrnan advocacy group into an effective lawrnenforcement agency.” (Libertarians arernsupposed to believe in freedom of association,rnbut the D.C. variety are racialrnstatists.)rnAt EEOC, some liberals charged,rnThomas did not prosecute enough cases.rnBrock refutes that notion: “The nunrberrnof discrimination charges considered forrnlitigation authorization rose from 401 inrn1982 to 764 m 1988. The number ofrncases where litigation authorization wasrngranted rose from 241 to 554 in the samerntime period. More monetary relief forrncharging parties was won during Thomas’srntenure; in 1980 the figure was $78rnmillion for the year, while in 1984 it wasrn$145 million.” Clearly Thomas had arnpassion for race-police brutality. EvenrnThomas’s vaunted opposition to quotas.rnBrock writes, didn’t “prevent him fromrnapplying them as a remedy in casesrnwhere a company had a proven record ofrndiscrimination.” And the “previouslyrncritical” Washington Post “ran whatrnamounted to an editorial retraction, takingrnback its eadier judgment that Thomasrnhad dismantled the EEOC and guttedrnits effectiveness.”rnBrock points out that Thomasrn”clashed repeatedly with the Reagan JusticernDepartment, which wanted to rollrnback affirmative action plans already inrnplace around the country.” Moreover,rn”he also fought the orders of the Administrationrnthat he rewrite the agencyrnguidelines that required employers torntake race and sex into account in makingrnhiring decisions.” At the EEOC, Thomasrndiscriminated against white males,rnpracticing what Brock calls “a kind ofrnvoluntary affirmative action in his ownrnstaffing, going out of his way to give qualifiedrnwomen and minorities a chance.”rnMeanwhile, Thomas publicly complainedrnthat the Reagan administrationrnwasn’t promoting “a positive civil rightsrnagenda” that took “into account thernviews of its own black appointees,” accordingrnto Brock. Thomas even denouncedrnthe administration that hadrnraised him to high office in a speech atrnthe Heritage Eoundation. “It oftenrnseemed that to be accepted within conservativernranks and to be treated withrnsome degree of acceptance, a black wasrnrequired to become a caricature of sorts.”rnHe was then caricatured onto the federalrnappeals court for the District ofrnColumbia.rnDuring his confirmation hearings forrnthe Supreme Court, Thomas shockedrnmany conservatives with his strategy.rnWhen Hill accused him of sexually harassingrnher, he could have simply deniedrnit. He could have called her a liar. Herncould have called her a politically motiyatedrnliar. Instead, he cried racism. Thernattack on him was a “high-tech lynching”rnof an “uppity black man,” he claimed.rnHe said that his opponents—who workrnunceasingly to put blacks in the economicrnand cultural catbird seat—hatedrnhim because he was black. Yet Thomasrnwas replacing another “uppity blackrnman” on the Supreme Court. Owing torn”civil rights,” in fact, uppity black menrnare among the most sought-after groupsrnin the country. He was nominated to arnseries of high positions precisely becausernhe was an “uppity black man.” And howrndid conservatives respond to this racialrnvictim story? Some loved seeing liberalsrnget a taste of their own poison. Othersrnwere shocked when Thomas gave conservativerncredibility to a liberal racket.rnBut as we have seen, this was no anomaly:rnit was Thomas’s lifelong record. Becausernhe is black, Thomas knew he couldrnexpect deference from guilt-riddenrnwhites. And conseryative whites can bernthe most guilt-ridden of all, because theyrnhave been called racists all their lives.rnThomas’s strategy worked, of course.rnAnd now, in his brief time on thernSupreme Court, he has shown us whatrnsort of Justice he is. He leans back in hisrnchair when others lean forward. He barelyrnopens his mouth in a forum where thernquestions and interjections of the otherrnJustices are incessant. He reads no newspaperrnor magazine, only the newsletter ofrnwhat the Wall Street ]ournal calls hisrn”beloved Dallas Cowboys.” Nevertheless,rnhis opinions by and large haye notrnbeen embarrassing because others havernhad a hand in choosing his clerks. Thatrncould change, of course.rnSince the line between a conservativernracial victimologist and a liberal one isrnthin, we should not be surprised ifrnThomas proves to be Thurgood Marshall’srnsuccessor in unexpected ways. Asrnfor the “real” Anita Hill, in regard tornwhom Brock has done an impressivernamount of homework, the most plausiblernstory remains that both she andrnThomas were lying. Still, it is his accountrnof Clarence Thomas’s life thatrnwill be David Brock’s most enduringrncontribution to a sordid chapter in thernrecent political history of the AmericanrnRepublic. crnNOVEMBER 1993/31rnrnrn