I think the problem is that Thomas denies that he has benefitted from it. There's a sort of willful ignorance to his position, if not necessarily hypocrisy.

Doesn't seem so - he is the one who apparently said he benefitted from it.

From what I gathered from Matt's post below, it doesn't seem that that's clear. It appears that there is a relectance to admit having benefitted from it. Conservatives generally point to Thomas as an example of why we don't need affirmative action. If he can do it, anyone can, the argument goes.

Of course, the very fact that Thomas's story is unique is the exception that proves the rule. I'll grant that affirmative action isn't working as well as predicted or hoped, but that means that we need to make it better, not do away with it. As they say, "Mend it, don't end it."

The big difference is that you can "opt out" from affirmative action by declining to state your race on a college application form (for instance). You can't opt-out from white privilege. That's why we have affirmative action in the first place.

I found it really odd that Thomas's (law school) opinion specifically referenced the experience of African-Americans. In what seemed to be a pretty subjective way. I can't ever see Scalia saying "well I know Italians or Catholics are X". I think the point about AA's negative stigma effect is a good one and illustrated definitely by people who think that Thomas benefited from AA particularly where those views are not supported by any actual knowledge of the fact that he did or that he admitted to it.

texas holdem