I thought that the discussion was very interesting. One thing that came to my mind during the discussion about whether Clarence Thomas is a part of the Black community is the idea of an intentional community. I was watch a set of lectures on Wondrium on the History of Christianity and the professor kept pointing out that early Christians are an intentional community, something that I had never thought about. They could walk away at any time. With the exception of those who can "pass" because they are of mixed race, African-Americans have no choice but to be part of the Black community. It is not an intentional community. Now being a Democrat is intentional, being a Republican is intentional, but not being Black. (I recognize that there are exceptions to this.)
The comments of Professor Kennedy reminded me of an article I saw several years ago about Justice Scalia's jurisprudence. (It was before he died.) The author seemed to be criticizing Justice Scalia based on his personal policy preferences or views rather than upon any legal principles. In my opinion one thing that this approach misses is that a policy based upon a judicial decision is fundamentally different from one based on legislation, even if on the surface they appear to be the same. This follows from the difficulty of making changes if problems with the policy are discovered down the road. And with the Federal Courts, it prevents state legislatures from making policy adjustments, sometimes even if they are only minor.
I thought that the discussion was very interesting. One thing that came to my mind during the discussion about whether Clarence Thomas is a part of the Black community is the idea of an intentional community. I was watch a set of lectures on Wondrium on the History of Christianity and the professor kept pointing out that early Christians are an intentional community, something that I had never thought about. They could walk away at any time. With the exception of those who can "pass" because they are of mixed race, African-Americans have no choice but to be part of the Black community. It is not an intentional community. Now being a Democrat is intentional, being a Republican is intentional, but not being Black. (I recognize that there are exceptions to this.)
The comments of Professor Kennedy reminded me of an article I saw several years ago about Justice Scalia's jurisprudence. (It was before he died.) The author seemed to be criticizing Justice Scalia based on his personal policy preferences or views rather than upon any legal principles. In my opinion one thing that this approach misses is that a policy based upon a judicial decision is fundamentally different from one based on legislation, even if on the surface they appear to be the same. This follows from the difficulty of making changes if problems with the policy are discovered down the road. And with the Federal Courts, it prevents state legislatures from making policy adjustments, sometimes even if they are only minor.
"With the exception of those who can "pass" because they are of mixed race, African-Americans have no choice but to be part of the Black community."
This is only true if dark-skinned individuals are excluded from others' communities, which hasn't been true except in tiny pockets for a while.