Civil Rights Group Opposes Thomas, Jewish Groups Largely Uncommitted

Jewish organizations were visibly absent when the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights announced Wednesday that it “strongly opposes the confirmation” of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Ralph Neas, the conference’s executive director, announced the 185-member umbrella organization’s decision at a news conference at which he was flanked by representatives of black, labor, senior citizens and women’s organizations.

Only two of the 19 Jewish organizations that are members of the conference have come out against Thomas, who is currently a federal appellate court judge. They are the National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Labor Committee.

Agudath Israel of America, which is not a member, has announced its support of Thomas, the black conservative nominated by President Bush to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall, the high court’s first African-American.

Most Jewish organizations traditionally do not take positions on Supreme Court nominations. Neas said that for that reason the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish War Veterans asked that they not be listed as joining in the league’s statement.

But some Jewish groups, including the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the American Jewish Congress, are expected to decide soon whether to take a position and, if so, whether to do it before Sept. 10, when the Senate Judiciary Committee is to begin confirmation hearings.

Meanwhile, Rabbi David Saperstein, co-director of the UAHC’s Religious Action Center here and the only representative of a Jewish organization on the conference’s 25-member executive committee, said he supported the committee’s decision when it was made Monday.

He explained, in a telephone interview, that because of the conference’s central role in the civil rights movement, “it was appropriate for the Leadership Conference to be out in front even if my own organization has not yet made a decision.”

‘HOSTILITY’ TO CIVIL RIGHTS RULINGS

Saperstein said that the umbrella group “deals primarily with the issue of civil rights on which this candidate’s record is clearly an extreme one.”

But Jewish organizations have a very broad agenda, of which civil rights is an important — but not exclusive — part, Saperstein said.

At the news conference, Neas said that Thomas, as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982 to 1989 had “repeatedly and unilaterally decided to enforce those laws and court decisions with which he agreed and to ignore or defy those with which he disagreed.”

Neas also said that Thomas, “in his speeches and in his articles, has demonstrated a consistent hostility to many of the Supreme Court’s most fundamental civil rights decisions.”

While the National Council of Jewish Women came out against Thomas last month, the Jewish Labor Committee announced its opposition Aug. 1 in a statement from Martin Lapan, its executive director.

“Judge Thomas’ biases, including his attacks on affirmative action programs, his endorsement of anti-abortion positions of fellow conservatives and his support for ideological positions that embrace unfettered markets and private property as sacrosanct, make him incapable of rendering the impartial justice that we expect of the Supreme Court,” Lapan said.

One issue that has not yet been raised is Thomas’ view on the separation of church and state. But the ADL, AJCommittee, AJCongress and other organizations have sent suggested questions to Judiciary Committee members, including questions on church-state issues, which they expect the senators to quiz him on.

FARRAKHAN CONCERN DIMINISHING

Thomas is also expected to be asked about speeches he gave praising Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan.

But this issue, at one time thought potentially damaging to Thomas’ support within the Jewish community, seems to have disappeared as Jews who know Thomas stepped forward to assure Jewish organizations that he does not share Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic views.

Recently, Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director, said he received assurances that Thomas understands the danger of voicing any support for Farrakhan. These assurances were communicated in writing by Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), who is marshaling support for Thomas’ confirmation by the Senate.

Foxman expressed concern when it was revealed that Thomas had praised Farrakhan in a 1983 speech for his espousal of black economic self-help.

When the speech was revealed, Thomas said that he opposed anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry.

But Foxman warned at the time of the “danger in attempting to distinguish elements of a bigot’s program which might be considered positive from an overt message of vicious racism and anti-Semitism.”

In response to Foxman’s concerns, Danforth wrote him that “in recent conversations, Judge Thomas informed me that he understands clearly that praise of any portion of Farrakhan’s message is dangerous and inappropriate” because it “risks legitimizing Farrakhan’s overall message of hate.”