It's The Color Of Your Money...
Stuart Taylor has a wise take on race-based preferences, writing at National Journal:
The young Sotomayor, raised in modest circumstances in the Bronx, N.Y., had shown special promise and drive by becoming valedictorian at a competitive Catholic school. And, by her own account, her test scores were not terribly "far off the mark" set by more privileged applicants from better schools.In short, while Princeton's admissions office no doubt considered her ethnicity, she was an ideal candidate for the kind of class-based affirmative action that crusading liberal Justice William O. Douglas -- who saw race-based preferences as unconstitutional -- advocated for extraordinarily promising students of all races in his 1974 dissent in DeFunis v. Odegaard.
The case involved law school admissions. Douglas called for "evaluating an applicant's prior achievements in light of the barriers that he had to overcome" -- not his or her race. He explained:
"A black applicant who pulled himself out of the ghetto into a junior college may thereby demonstrate a level of motivation, perseverance, and ability that would lead a fair-minded admissions committee to conclude that he shows more promise for law study than the son of a rich alumnus who achieved better grades at Harvard. That applicant would be offered admission not because he is black, but because as an individual he has shown he has the potential [to excel].... Such a policy would not be limited to [racial minorities], although undoubtedly [they] may in practice be the principal beneficiaries of it. But a poor Appalachian white, or a second-generation Chinese in San Francisco, ... may demonstrate similar potential and thus be accorded favorable consideration."
This is exactly as I think it should be. Taylor continues:
Contrast Douglas's vision with the quota mentality displayed by Sotomayor's complaint in 2001, in one of her "wise Latina" speeches, that "we [Latinos] have only 10 out of 147 active [federal] Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active District Court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population [emphasis in original text]."Sotomayor ignored the fact that the talent pool for judicial appointments is not the general population but rather the population of lawyers with the experience and accomplishment to qualify. By that measure, Latinos were overrepresented in the federal judiciary, as Ed Whelan, head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has documented. "According to the ABA," he wrote, "in 2000 the percentage of lawyers who were 'Hispanic' was only 3.4 percent [and] the very numbers that Sotomayor complained about equate to 6.8 percent of federal Appellate judges ... and 5.1 percent of District judges."
Listen, I hate to go all liberal on you, but... I think there probably is some kinda "Latina wisdom" out there, and the United States would do well to incorporate it into the highest levels of jurisprudence. That's not to say this person has wisdom of any description, but most old white guys don't have it either... Even the ones of academic and lawyerly achievement. (Remember John Edwards and the swimming pool lawsuit?)
I like old white guys... I'm becoming an old white guy, with many good friends. But it's a cohort that hasn't spotlessly ennobled the court over the last two centuries.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 2, 2009 4:58 AM
I don't want judges incorporating Latina wisdom, or European or Sharia law, or voodoo. I want judges who will follow and interpret the laws, as they are written and were intended by the legislatures.
In my opinion, those who voted for Kelo should be impeached. Theft is theft.
MarkD at August 2, 2009 6:31 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/08/its-the-color-o.html#comment-1660795">comment from MarkDI don't want judges incorporating Latina wisdom, or European or Sharia law, or voodoo.
The law should be blind, not a "wise Latina."
Amy Alkon
at August 2, 2009 6:49 AM
Youse guys is too glib. Do you think most of the judges in American history weren't proud of delivering "old white guy wisdom"? Of course they were.
This was a mildly distasteful remark. Did you really expect sexual & racial integration of the courts to happen without things like this?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 2, 2009 10:26 AM
At a place I used to work - at one point there was six software developers - 3 men and 3 women. One woman left and the other two women demanded that the next software developer hired be another woman. The team needed to reflect the population. Of course, like most areas, male software developers heavily out-number female ones - perhaps 10:1. Didn't matter as everyone was laid-off before another was hired. I was always surprized at how these two could not understand that the talent pool was different then the general population.
The Former Banker at August 2, 2009 12:45 PM
"One woman left and the other two women demanded that the next software developer hired be another woman."
That is the best way to CREATE sexism in men. Make them loathe to work with you and those like you. A man is not likely to be pissed that a woman was hired, but the reverse, as in the above story, is exactly the attitude that guarantees an employer will want to do exactly the opposite.
Employers don't care about demographics, (except in marketing) employers don't care about equal representation (except for pr), employers care about filling the necessary slots with the necressary talents and turning a profit as a result.
If I had an employee demand I hire a specific gender, that employee would be in the unemployment line for attempting to impose discriminatory hiring policies and insubordination.
Robert at August 3, 2009 8:32 AM
"Latina wisdom"
What is that exactly?
The law is the law, this is the U.S. Not Panama, not Nicaragua, not Mexico. We have our own laws, our own legal traditions, and our own traditions of justice. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, nothing involving people will ever be perfect.
BUT, I damned well expect that any judge appointed to the U.S. court system, be it civil or criminal, state or federal, or any element or combination thereof, will make their rulings based on the rules of law in THIS land. Not "the old country" whatever country that may be, my mother's Panama, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's Scotland...American law and American legal rules and traditions must reign supreme within America.
Robert at August 3, 2009 8:40 AM
Leave a comment