I don’t have any “ideological priors” here except that I was quite surprised to see Thernstrom (a serious scholar) indiscretely lumped in with the likes of Malkin and Horowitz (you’ll notice that I don’t disagree with your characterization of them as hacks).

As I’ve explained before on this blog (in the post Henry quotes here, as a matter of fact), I save my serious thoughts for serious interlocutors. Thanks for playing, though!

81 is a useful clarification, however—some people might have thought that when you accused Thernstrom of the “pretense that she was citing Guinier in those scare quotes,” and of “fabricated quotes,” that means that Guinier never actually used the words quoted. But apparently you were just being sloppy again, and you really meant that Thernstrom wasn’t summarizing accurately, or something like that.

OK, then. I’m going to have to look up Guinier, because I still strongly suspect that your interpretation of Guinier (and hence your accusation against Thernstrom) is wrong. After all, amongst a certain liberal crowd, it’s as common as dirt to argue that black politicians don’t really count as “black” unless they authentically represent the black population (Google “Clarence Thomas” or “Ward Connerly” before pretending to find these sentiments unfamiliar). So it wouldn’t be at all surprising if Guinier did write such a thing; but, as I say, I’ll have to look up the articles.

Good question, Matt. The answer is (b), and to clarify (a), here’s what Thernstrom actually wrote (it’s the passage I cite in my book):

[I]n Guinier’s world, black constituents can lack representation even if their elected officials are black. If the officeholders are not “community-based,” “culturally rooted” and politically and psychologically “authentic,” then they’re “tokens”– contaminated by white support. Thus neither Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder nor Andrew Young counts as a “black advocate”; they are too “assimiliated” into the political mainstream. The authentic black has a “distinctive voice” and a level of group consciousness incompatible with white enthusiasm.

As you can see, the scare quotes are almost random, and no “quotation” is longer than two words. It’s a cut-and-paste exercise, the kind Horowitz himself has done with my own work.

What I am saying, however, is very simple: 1) Berube accused Thernstrom of completely fabricating those quotes; BUT 2) Berube himself has proven in this very thread (oh what a selfless gift to his detractors!) that he himself is sloppy and inaccurate when it comes to quotations; 3) Therefore, Berube very well may have been unfair to Thernstrom; 4) Therefore, Henry should take a grain of salt before accusing Thernstrom of being a fraudulent hack.

Understand?

The content of Thernstrom’s claim was ludicrous, bearing no relation to Guinier’s actual writing; but what was really astonishing about this hit job (as opposed to similar items by Clint Bolick and Paul Gigot in the Wall Street Journal) was Thernstrom’s pretense that she was citing Guinier in those scare quotes. Apparently, TNR was familiar with fabricated quotes and intellectual fraud long before anyone heard of Stephen Glass.

The great fear here seems to be that people will be ambushed by some preposterous lie that D. Ho tells that they will not be able to refute on the spot. Easy to believe; Cornel West makes $35,000 a hour? I’ve seen West speak, and damned if he’s worth a penny more than $12,000. The thing is, if Horowitz has a history of saying ridiculous things like this – and he does – cherry-pick a few of the most ridiculous and easily-refuted and hit him with them. Hit him pre-emptively. Before he says anything, hit him with what is this about West making $35,000 an hour? Make him either defend the claim or disown it. Either way, he undermines his own credibility in a way that is perfectly fair, clear to the general public, and not relying on some special deference to academics.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19029