Attempting to comprehend the High Court’s most contentious and complicated figure, Clarence Thomas, is not a feat many would be able to undertake, yet such is the exact endeavour both Supreme Discomfort by Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher and Dean Martha Minow of Harvard Law School wished to engage in. Be that as it may, the conceptualization of a man whose image is riddled with contradictory politics, sexual harassment allegations, and a bitter-sweet public response, was different across two different portraits, geared towards two different audiences, constructed by two different types of individuals. Although the perception of Thomas as an individual was different on many personal and emotional degrees between both academic works, the
…show more content…
With this in mind, both pieces had to obtain the thoughts of a man who hates the work of such a “malignant” business. Moreover, Thomas ardently dislikes oral argument and presentation, but instead made the exception of being interviewed by a room full of Harvard Law students. The supreme court judge also wholeheartedly denied to be questioned by the two Washington Post writers, but the reporters managed to gain enough resources to paint a vivid picture. These were the troublesome circumstances both the article and video interview underwent.
Contextual evidence directing at a man of traditional values was unmistakable in the HSL interview and clearly stated in Supreme Discomfort. The section of Washington Post article labeled ‘The Right Kind of Affirmative Action’ hints exactly at the principles Myers Anderson was aiming to convey to his disadvantaged grandson. Comparatively, the Harvard Law School Interview includes experiences where the same beliefs were revealed. Thomas’ upbringing was one of hard work and many years of strenuous effort for a black american. The moral education he received from his grandfather, his only fatherly figure, was one which saw, as stated in the HSL interview, “leisure as foolishness” and …show more content…
It chooses to depict him as a professional man with casual childhood conversation, rather than ask him about the lifelong feud he’s had with virtually all types of people. His depiction as a conservative man was certainly very clear across the two portraits. Cases like Missouri v. Jenkins, Hudson v. McMillan, Adarand Constructors v. Pena, and many more show that Thomas is part of the right-wing, and the experiences listed in the Harvard Law School interview show that he was taught those principles. Their talk of constitutional vs statutory vs administrative cases, existing precedents, and workplace relations displays how he works as a judge. There is little sentiment of criticism from Harvard Law School, hence the misunderstood man remains misunderstood. Due to Harvard’s restraint, the American audience merely learns slightly more about the attitude of a conservative man in a workplace environment. Supreme Discomfort excels in avoiding avoiding bias by providing many differents bias points of view; as a result, the reader manages to learn why conservatism hurts him as a black man and why he is
With this in mind, both pieces had to obtain the thoughts of a man who hates the work of such a “malignant” business. Moreover, Thomas ardently dislikes oral argument and presentation, but instead made the exception of being interviewed by a room full of Harvard Law students. The supreme court judge also wholeheartedly denied to be questioned by the two Washington Post writers, but the reporters managed to gain enough resources to paint a vivid picture. These were the troublesome circumstances both the article and video interview underwent.
Contextual evidence directing at a man of traditional values was unmistakable in the HSL interview and clearly stated in Supreme Discomfort. The section of Washington Post article labeled ‘The Right Kind of Affirmative Action’ hints exactly at the principles Myers Anderson was aiming to convey to his disadvantaged grandson. Comparatively, the Harvard Law School Interview includes experiences where the same beliefs were revealed. Thomas’ upbringing was one of hard work and many years of strenuous effort for a black american. The moral education he received from his grandfather, his only fatherly figure, was one which saw, as stated in the HSL interview, “leisure as foolishness” and …show more content…
It chooses to depict him as a professional man with casual childhood conversation, rather than ask him about the lifelong feud he’s had with virtually all types of people. His depiction as a conservative man was certainly very clear across the two portraits. Cases like Missouri v. Jenkins, Hudson v. McMillan, Adarand Constructors v. Pena, and many more show that Thomas is part of the right-wing, and the experiences listed in the Harvard Law School interview show that he was taught those principles. Their talk of constitutional vs statutory vs administrative cases, existing precedents, and workplace relations displays how he works as a judge. There is little sentiment of criticism from Harvard Law School, hence the misunderstood man remains misunderstood. Due to Harvard’s restraint, the American audience merely learns slightly more about the attitude of a conservative man in a workplace environment. Supreme Discomfort excels in avoiding avoiding bias by providing many differents bias points of view; as a result, the reader manages to learn why conservatism hurts him as a black man and why he is