Nathaniel

Shockey

Read Nathaniel's bio and previous columns here

May 27, 2009

How Does ‘Diversity’ Make You a Better Supreme Court Justice?

In lieu of President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, it may be time to ask how much stock we ought to place in diversity.

For the sake of simplifying this discussion, let’s assume that Obama was not trying to secure the Hispanic vote for upcoming elections. Additionally, let’s also throw out the possibility that Obama is attempting to convince himself and everyone else of his great worldliness and magnanimous respect for diversity. And finally, in order to make this discussion fair, we have to do away with the possibility that Obama selected U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor based solely on her professional qualifications, which include:

·                    graduated summa cum laude from Princeton in 1976

·                    earned a law degree from Yale Law School in 1979

·                    nominated by George H. W. Bush as a federal judge in 1991 – a position that made Sotomayor the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York

·                    nominated by Bill Clinton for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1997

Clearly, she is an accomplished judge with some history of bipartisan support. And were it not for certain remarks such as the following, one could easily make the mistake of crediting Sotomayor with being qualified for reasons apart from her gender and skin color:

·                    “Judge Sotomayor meets three very important standards in filling this Supreme Court vacancy – excellence, moderation and diversity.” – Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

·                    “Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways – the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.” – Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.

·                    “With eight men, one woman and no Hispanics currently sitting on the court, President Obama listened to voices like former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in recognizing that diversity on the bench is essential.” – Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

·                    “The Supreme Court should reflect the diverse population of the U.S. to ensure the highest court understands the unique circumstances of all Americans.” – Brent Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens

·                    “I certainly think that ultimately we want a Supreme Court that is reflective of the incredible variety of the American people.” – President Obama

I must assume that this high value of “diversity” can only practically mean relatability. Diversity for diversity’s sake makes little to no sense at all. Would you buy a car because it was a different brand than your previous selections? “I’m totally unconvinced it will survive the winter, but at least it’s different from my previous cars.” Sounds like stupidity to me. I’d diversify my car choices only if my previous ones had been proved unwise.

There remains an opinion floating around out there that the sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. If this were true, we would be forced to assume that Senators Schumer, Specter and Boxer, as well as Brent Wilkes and President Obama, somehow think that the skin color impacts an individual’s ability to both read and comprehend. I believe that would qualify the aforementioned people as racists, so that can’t be what they mean.

What they seem to mean is that, as long as the person is well qualified – not necessarily the most qualified, but well qualified – it’s really important that they visually represent the racial and sexual diversity of the population they serve. I’m trying to understand this as it relates to our current situation.

When Obama was elected, a lot of black people were really happy. To them, it represented American progress, which I can certainly understand. And similarly, if Congress confirms Sotomayor, Hispanics, and more specifically Puerto Ricans, may feel a sense of pride. But what Obama’s election may have taught me is that when the dust of cultural pride and progress settles, reality slams us in the face in the form of weighty decisions and political soap operas.

The alternative to including race as a valued characteristic – excuse me, I mean, “diversity” – is to hire people solely based on their accomplishments and aptitude.

Obviously, certain politicians are concerned that these criteria might render a group that doesn’t visually represent the U.S. population, which may cause certain minorities to feel marginalized. They may, in turn, remove themselves from the national scene, vote less, care less about the strength of our country and perhaps be less inclined to fight for our country if necessary.

It makes sense. But I’m not sure it makes enough sense to affect who we choose to sit on the country’s highest court, or for that matter, the presidency.

At the very least, I hope we realize what we’re actually talking about – what it is what we claim to value and also what we’re willing to sacrifice – when we ascend our soap boxes and blabber on about the importance of diversity.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # NS171. Request permission to publish here.