The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel attracted a lot of scorn last week for an editorial in which the editors wrote, “In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America” — so much scorn, in fact, that they addressed the issue in a letter from the editors today (reg. req.). As you might expect, the editors argue that they said nothing wrong and it’s all conservative talk radio’s fault. (via MB reader Patrick D.):

The central point of the editorial was Alito’s nomination and various red flags this raised, but we reserved judgment on whether he should be confirmed until hearings are completed.

How will the JS editorial board come down on this one? I’m on the edge of my seat.

Conservative talk radio seized on this last clause, and many respondents said they felt the line was racist, contending that we were implying Thomas is not black enough. Not at all. The sentence only meant to call attention to the lack of diversity the court will have if Alito is confirmed, a position that many others have stated as well. With the asterisk comment, we did indeed call attention in particular to Thomas, the sole African-American on the court.

But why? Please phrase your answer in the form of a total non-sequitur:

That’s because, though much progress has been made, we continue to believe that the condition of black Americans, particularly here in the Milwaukee area, remains quite dire in many important respects and deserving of acute attention and sensitivity at all levels of government.

So are you saying that Thomas is insensitive to the problems of African-Americans? Do all black Americans have to advocate the same solutions even when they’ve proven ineffective?

That Thomas’ stances while on the Supreme Court are outside the black mainstream is fairly evident, we believe, on such matters as the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action, diluting black voting power, proving discrimination and on what constitutes “cruel and unusual.”
The single sentence in this editorial did not say Thomas is not black because he departs from other views on these or other topics. It did not, as some respondents contended, insist that all black people must think alike. We are well aware that there is diversity of thought in the black community, but we are also aware that there are some fairly evident common themes derived from common experiences among African-Americans in the United States.

“Fairly Evident Things” Blacks Should Agree On:

Voting Rights Act

Affirmative action

Black voting power (should not be diluted)

Proving discrimination

What constitutes “cruel and unusual”

Things Blacks Are Allowed to Disagree On:

Which Democrat to vote for in the primary

I guess that settles it. Clarence Thomas definitely deserves an asterisk.*

* Although, in Vonnegutian sense, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel just won Asterisk of the Year.