If my theory is true -- that anyone's life can be boiled down to a gravestone inscription -- these words could well appear on Juan Williams' marker: "Here lies the man who introduced Clarence Thomas to the world."

That's not literally true, of course. When Williams, a Washington, D.C.-based writer and journalist, profiled Thomas in The Atlantic Monthly in 1987, the future Supreme Court justice was already being noticed by policy wonks and civil rights leaders. Thomas was chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at the time, and was the second-highest black appointee in the Reagan administration. But the average citizen -- specifically, me, since I'm about as average as they come -- had no idea who Clarence Thomas was until Williams told us.

I've long wanted to congratulate Williams on a fine, and still relevant, piece of writing and reporting (which can be found at www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/ thomas). After 17 years, I finally got the chance.

Williams was in Raleigh last week to promote his most recent book, "This Far by Faith: Stories from the African-American Religious Experience." After his public appearance, he visited The N&O building for a chat with a handful of staff members. I took that opportunity to ask Williams an obvious question: Had his 1987 opinion of Thomas, which was largely favorable, changed now that the name "Clarence Thomas" has essentially become interchangeable, at least in the black community, with "Uncle Tom"?

No and yes, Williams said. No, because "what I always admired about Thomas was his independence," and Thomas has certainly declared his independence from the African-American mainstream. But also yes, because Williams believes there's truth behind the charge that Thomas embraced an affirmative action system that he'd now like to see discarded. "Race was a consideration [in Thomas' success]," Williams said. "There's no getting away from it."

That's when the conversation got a little weird. I found myself disputing Williams on this matter, declaring that Thomas had often resisted affirmative action right from the beginning -- and citing Williams' own profile of Thomas to reinforce my argument.

Note to self No. 1: Don't tell a writer what he meant to say with something he wrote.

Note to self No. 2: Remember that any word spoken in defense of Clarence Thomas carries a definite set of risks.

I spent the rest of the afternoon involved in a series of small skirmishes regarding Thomas, with me asserting that despite his flaws there are things to admire about him and others responding that Thomas sits at the right hand of Satan (otherwise known as Antonin Scalia). As is usually the case in such matters, no one's mind was changed.

It was a reminder, as if one was needed, that we live in an age when nuance and moderation get no traction. Seventeen years ago, when Williams published his piece, it was possible to comfortably hold seemingly contradictory opinions about Thomas: that he was an admirable, spectacularly flawed guy. But those days are gone. Now, you're either fer him or agin' him. As is the case with so many other issues, the middle ground is dead and buried.

Feels like it's time for another grave inscription.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.