WHEN CLARENCE THOMAS,nour newest Supreme Court Justice,nasked to be sworn in a week before thenofficial ceremony, so he could go onnthe payroll early, it summed up thenwhole affair for me. Why are conservativesncheering his ascent to the judicialnoligarchy? Yes, it’s fun to beat liberalnsenators, but not with a virtual ringernfor one of their guys. Here was one ofnthe most privileged characters in modernnAmerican society moaning aboutndiscrimination. He lofted through privatenschool. Holy Cross College, YalenLaw School, and increasingly importantnposts in the Reagan and Bushnadministrations, and to the SupremenCourt itself at the age of 42. Why? Asneveryone knows but refuses to say,nbecause of his race.nJustice Thomas is not only a racialnvictimologist, but a pre-1975 liberal. Innhis first set of hearings, for exarnple,nThomas traduced the South of hisnyouth, calling it “totalitarian,” andnwhined about what a tough life he’dnhad because of his “black skin.” Becausenof racism, his grandfather wasncalled “boy,” and his family had ann”unworkable and unusable” outhouse.nThe old South was one of the mostncourteous societies on Earth. Especial-n/ly in interracial dealings, people werenpunctilious. That doesn’t mean somenboor didn’t insult his grandfather, onlynthat it wouldn’t have been the norm.nAs to the outhouse, a fixture for manynwhite and black Southerners of thentime, there is only one way it cannbecome “unworkable and unusable”:nwhen nobody cleans it out. The conditionnof the Thomas family outhousenwas not the white man’s fault.nWhen he wasn’t discussing thenplumbing, Thomas repudiated the endorsementsnof private property hisnghostwriters had prepared for him, andncalled “the self-evident fact that allnmen are created equal” the “centralnnotion of our regime.” Earlier, he hadnwritten that we should impose “inherentnequality” through “aggressive enforcementnof the civil rights laws andnequal employment opportunity laws.”nWhich begs the question: if equality isnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSninherent, why does it need to be enforced?nIn fact, it is self-evident thatnmen are not created equal — in intelligence,nattractiveness, will, talent, vigor,nparents, opportunities, etc. The greatnprinciple of the human race is radicalninequality. As Ludwig von Misesnpointed out, inequality is what makesnthe division of labor and society itselfnpossible. If we were identical, therenwould be no comparative advantagenand no reason to cooperate.nThomas also claimed, under oath,nnever to have talked about Roe v.nWade. Conservatives who were outragednby Joe Biden’s plagiarismnthought Thomas’s perjury was charming:nhis lying was justified to attainnpower. Thomas’s lack of intellectualnfootprints also seemed untroubling tonmany conservatives. The WashingtonnPost reported that on a courtesy visitnto Senator Howard Metzenbaumn(Democrat-Ohio), Thomas was askednabout natural law. “Senator,” he said,n”do you believe it’s right for one humannbeing to own another?” “No,”nsaid Metzenbaum. “Well, that’s naturalnlaw.” “Can a person own an animal?”nasked Metzenbaum. Thomasnsaid he would have to check the naturalnlaw authorities on that toughie. Yet then”conservative” Thomas was endorsednby the Washington Post because henwould bring “diversity to the court”:nhe was raised by the “functionallynilliterate.”nThomas’s way was made smooth.nThen came the llth-hour speedbump:n”sexual harassment.” It’s notnoften that I feel I’m getting my money’snworth from the federal government,nbut that weekend I did. Whonwas telling the truth? Law professornAnita Hill, who claimed Thomas hadncrudely propositioned her when shenhad worked for him? Or Thomas, whonfuriously denied the charge?nOne theory is that both were tellingnthe truth, and both were lying, i.e., thatnthey had an affair. That would be whynThomas promoted her at the civilnrights office of the Department ofnEducation, and why he demoted her atnEEOC when he replaced her withnnnwhat he described as a “lighter-skinnednwoman.” It would explain why at thentime he drove Hill home at night,nstopped in “for an hour or so,” andnwhy he set up her stereo. This relationshipnwould explain why the Oral Robertsnlaw school dean said they were sonfriendly at breakfast, “laughing” andn”laughing at laughing.” It would alsonexplain her telephone calls to him overnthe years, which only ceased with whatnwere probably sarcastic congratulationsnon his marriage.nUnder this scenario, Thomas mightnhave made the famous remarks, but asnhis version of sexual banter to hisnmistress. Even if it wasn’t banter, however,nverbal sexual harassmentnshouldn’t be a federal case, for FirstnAmendment and other reasons. But itnis wrong. And surely if federal regulationsnare to be applied to anyone, itnshould be to the federal officials whoncreated them, Clarence Thomasnamong them, with special force.nAt work (if I may use that wordnabout D.C.), Hill said Thomas wouldntell her tales of the dirty movies he hadnwatched the night before, usually involvingnorgies or bestiality. Some YalenINCO^RECraESJnJANUARY 1992/5n