Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas says he wasn’t bothered much that he was virtually excluded from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture during its inaugural year, suggesting it may have been a symptom of society getting too “comfortable” with limiting ideas.
Justice Thomas now appears in an exhibit that was installed in September, shortly before the museum’s one-year anniversary. Previously, the conservative justice only appeared in brief mentions about his contentious Senate confirmation hearings, irking conservatives who suspected the omission signaled an ideological bias among Smithsonian officials.
In a rare interview aired Wednesday, the Supreme Court Justice told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that he really didn’t care that he was initially excluded.
“People who cared about me obviously did [care], but no, not really,” he said. “I grew up in a time when I was just exposed to a wonderful range of ideas in a segregated library.”
Justice Thomas spoke about the Carnegie Library in Savannah, Georgia, where he said he was exposed to everyone from Booker T. Washington to W.E.B. Du Bois.
“So you had this range of ideas, and I think we’re getting quite comfortable in our society limiting ideas and exposure to ideas,” he said. “And maybe that’s a symptom of it. I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s good for the next generation and the people who will be learning.”
“I think that today we seem to think that everything has to be one-size-fits all and people can’t have opinions that make us uncomfortable or ideas that make us uncomfortable or that we don’t agree with,” he said.
Citing the national anthem protests in the NFL, Ms. Ingraham asked Justice Thomas if he was surprised that the U.S. political climate is still so rancorous concerning “foundational issues.”
“No, I’m not surprised,” Justice Thomas answered. “I mean, what binds us? What do we all have in common anymore? I think we have to think about that.
“When I was a kid, even as we had laws that held us apart, there were things that we held dear and that we all had in common. And I think we have to — we always talk about E pluribus unum. What’s our unum now? We have the pluribus. What’s the unum?” he asked.
“I think it’s a great country,” he continued. “Some people have decided that the Constitution isn’t worth defending, that history isn’t worth defending, that the culture and principles aren’t worth defending. And, certainly, if you are in my position, they have to be worth defending. That’s what keeps you going. That’s what energizes you.”
• Jessica Chasmar can be reached at jchasmar@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.