It is not right to judge Justice Scalia on one statement during a hearing of the Court.

The only way anyone could criticize Justice Scalia of racism is to examine his writing and find consistency.

Grutter v. Bollinger (click here)

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."

In Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Scalia voted with the minority of judges.

But in City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson, (click here) Justice Scalia voted with the majority.

I think it is important fairness is carried out in any claim of racism. If people believe racism has been a trend for him, then the words spoken recently validates that finding. However, if Justice Scalia is inconsistent in his writings then the disturbing statement only indicates a personality specialty of Justice Scalia to gain attention or wake the audience up in the courtroom.