The Diversity Argument

I'm never sure what to make about articles like this one by Ruth Marcus in today's Washington Post, but usually they make me laugh. Since the article is in favor of "diversity" in whatever form the author advocates, the writer, as in this case, usually starts off by highlighting a group of people he/she believes is overrepresented.

Well, that certainly mixes things up. The first Supreme Court vacancy went to a white Catholic judge who went to Harvard College and Harvard Law School. The second, chances are, will be filled by a white Catholic judge who went to college at Princeton and law school at Yale.

At this rate, a WASP male from Stanford is going to look like a diversity pick.

Next step, in the interest of attempted credibility, the author disclaims any bad feelings he/she may hold for that group that is causing "diversity" to be destroyed. Why? Because a person in favor of "diversity" MUST be OK with every viewpoint, race, color, creed, etc. If one is left out, "diversity" is impure.

Now, I have nothing against white guys, Catholics, judges or Ivy Leaguers -- or Stanford WASPs for that matter. And I thought the president made a mistake in nominating Harriet Miers to take the place of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Miers pick represented the elevation of gender over quality; instead of adding to the sense that it is normal and appropriate to have women on the high court, the choice made it look as if presidents have to make sacrifices to scrounge up female nominees. Like almost every woman I know, of every ideological stripe, I was relieved when she withdrew.

A thin veneer of credibility thus established, the author then feels free to spend the remainder of his/her piece bashing the group, viewpoint, etc. he/she originally disclaimed any animosity toward...but in a veiled fashion so as not to come right out and say that the bashee is bashw-worthy (thus destroying the carefully constructed "credibility").

To test this notion, just imagine an all-male, all-white Supreme Court. No president looking at a high court vacancy would consider that acceptable in this day and age, nor should he -- or she. A court with a lone female justice -- or, for that matter, a lone African American justice, or no Hispanic justice at all -- isn't all that much better.

Simple question: what if the best minds and most qualified were all white, male Catholics? Should they be excluded because of their skin color/religion? To use a similar mind experiment to Ms. Marcus's, just imagine a Supreme Court that, instead of choosing the best and brightest legal minds of the age, instead had specific slots for the "black" justice, or "the gay Hispanic" justice, or the "female 'Native-American'" justice, or the "moderate male Sino-Indian-American" justice. That's just ridiculous.

I understand what Ms. Marcus is getting at. There are pros brought to the table by having more than one viewpoint. But where do we draw the line? Gender is an obvious trait, and women make up half the population. Democrats and Republicans are similarly split. Should there always be a 5-4 split based on party ID? Should there be a number of justices equal in proportion to the general population that are left-handed? Why aren't there more Hispanic justices? Where is the Asian guy/gal behind the bench? There seem to be quite a few of them out there, but no real outcry for their seat.

What exactly is diversity other than interest group politics? Do these people want a Supreme Court that puts out a great product, one that makes our legal system an example to the world? Or do they want a nice looking class photo that makes them feel cozy and warm inside?

Ms. Marcus spends most of the tail end of her piece lamenting the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with another [boring] white male jurist. Like Chicken Little, Ms. Marcus claims the sky is falling and feels that is some great step backward in the movement toward equal rights for women (and I'm guessing this is meant as another indictment of the evil Republican bigots and their Hitlerian leader, President Chimpy McLamebrain).

I submit that Ms. Marcus hasn't spent much time in the business world. Certainly, women are not running the show on equal footing with men. We wouldn't expect this, since women tend have kids at some point during their careers, retarding their progress. But they are making great strides. I have seen this myself. In the eight years I have worked in the private sector since graduating from college (mainly in the financial industry), I have worked directly for a male during only half of those years. Furthermore, during each of those four years, though my direct superior was a man, the head of the overall group was a woman. That's basically eight for eight...and we're talking about five major employers during those eight years.

Just because this time around, we have another white male nominee doesn't mean the rights of any particular interest group have been sent back to the stone age. There is nothing to indicate that Judge Sam Alito won't be anything but a stellar justice. There is equally nothing to indicate that Judge Alito intends to crush the hopes of any minority group or even will do so unintentionally. Anything you read to the contrary is hype.

Representation on the Supreme Court by one, two, three more women (I'm talking concurrently) is just around the corner. Just look at our law schools that are graduating women at a higher rate than men. It's inevitable, but now just might not be the time. Same goes for minority groups. Our first black/hispanic/asian president will likely be in office within the next five elections. (I'm hoping this fine man is the first.)

Be patient. The sky isn't falling, and the court is still in good hands.