Apparently, not any time soon.
It is telling that those who label themselves "progressives" consistently act in a regressive manner. They constantly tell us that what matters most (not only) in selecting a public servant, student, coach, etc. is the candidate's race or gender, never his qualifications. This is why we always hear about how we must have "diversity" in public office or the workplace, why we must support affirmative action (also known as anti-White discrimination), and why we have the Rooney Rule in the NFL (which states that any team hiring a head coach must interview at least one minority [read Black or Hispanic] candidate, even if the team has its sights set on one particular coach). I thought what matters most is a person's credentials and competence. Of course, I realize that not all people have the same opportunities to develop their skills, but the way to solve that is not by promoting or hiring people to positions for which they are not qualified. But Maureen Dowd plays the race and gender cards in her July 15, 2009 op-ed, in which she describes a "gaggle of white Republican men...out to trip her [Judge Sonia Sotomayor] up." (Ironic, is it not, that in the city where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the day when his children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" these vile words were written?)
Lest one think I am taking this comment out of context, try this one: "It was a disgrace that [former President George] W. [Bush] appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men." Can one get more racist and sexist than that? What is the difference as to an appointee's race and gender for public office, university, or sports coach? If I were to ask Ms. Dowd if she believed race should be a factor in appointing and hiring, she would have only one of three answers: 1) yes, in which case she is no different than the 1960s Southern racists she so (correctly) deplores, except in the reverse, 2) no, in which case there is no way to defend what she wrote, or 3) no, except for Blacks and Hispanics, because the "system" has shortchanged them for many years, and this is a way to level the playing field. I suspect the answer is #3.
A second problem with Ms. Dowd's "stocked with white men" comment is that it implies that all white men think alike. After all, why else would there be a problem? Does anyone honestly think she would have been happier had President Bush appointed a Black male conservative, such as Ken Blackwell or Thomas Sowell? How about a White female conservative, like Sarah Palin or Kay Bailey Hutchison? (I realize none of the above are jurists, but my point is that she is not really concerned with diversity, but rather getting more liberals on the High Court. Which is fine with me, by the way. I just wish she would admit it.)
A third problem - how far does diversity extend? As of July 16, 2009, the Court had:
- 5 Catholics (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), 2 Protestants (Stevens and Souter [Episcopalian]), and 2 Jews (Ginsburg and Breyer). Considering Protestants represent more than 50% of all Americans, Catholics fewer than 25%, and Jews fewer than 2%, should not Ms. Dowd be concerned with the Court's 55% Catholic representation, 22% Protestant representation, and 22% Jewish representaton? Are my "Jewish views" represented by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg? No, but my conservative views are well-represented by Catholics Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. And, if given the choice of having a Jew or a Red Sox-loving, Yankee-cursing conservative replace any of those four, give me the Sox fan any day of the week.
- 2 West Coasters (Kennedy and Breyer), 2 Midwesterners (Stevens, Roberts), 4 Northeasterners (Scalia, Alito, Souter, Ginsburg), and 1 Southerner (Thomas). Looks like the North has 66% of the Justices! Might Ms. Dowd be interested in some more Southerners? What's that you say? Southerners tend to be conservative? But I thought we want diversity!
So let's just stop this talk of desiring "diversity." Ms. Dowd, you want liberals, I want conservatives. Have a great day.
Don't like the bias of the NYT? So buy the WSJ! Minorities who have been disenfranchised by the system in the past don't have the option to e.g. have their own judicial system. No one pretends that affirmative action is the ideal, it is simply supposed to be a temporary measure to restore balance to a system that has actively discriminated against minority groups.
ReplyDeletecyberdov - Thank you for reading and commenting. I have 2 questions for you:
ReplyDelete1) Why is it that since I do not like the bias of the New York Times, I should buy the Wall Street Journal? What does one have to do with the other? Should I only read those papers/news sources with which I agree? On a regular basis, I read the New York Times and the New Yorker, and listen to NPR. I also listen to talk radio. How many conservative news sources do you monitor on a regular basis?
2) You say that affirmative action is a "temporary measure"? On what do you base this? I have *never* heard a supporter of affirmative action claim this. The solution to the "discrimination" against minority groups is not to discriminate against other groups. The answer is to improve the opportunities of minorities. How can we do that? How about vouchers, so parents can choose to send their kids to a better school than the public schools that are available to them. Why do most liberals oppose vouchers, while the elites send their kids to private schools? Because, among other reasons, of the possibility that the vouchers will be used for religious schools, and they claim this would violate the Establishment Clause. Huh? Are you kidding me? And liberals continue to claim they care about minorities?
i agree about the NYT/WSJ (and BTW I do read conservative sources). I simply meant to demonstrate that there are certain areas in which individuals have choice, like newspapers, and certain areas in which they do not, like the judicial system.
ReplyDeleteI think that every supporter of AA would say that once the bias is eliminated, there will be no need for AA.
Cyberdov -
ReplyDelete1) I am curious as to which conservative sources you read. This is not a challenge - just a query.
2) On what basis do you state that supporters of affirmative action would support ending it when bias is eliminated? Where is your evidence? How can we determine when we have achieved that? Can we ever honestly say that bias has been eliminated? Who will be the arbiters? Who may raise objections that bias has been eliminated? Who may not? I believe your argument is flawed - it will be impossible to declare that bias has been destroyed, so affirmative action will stay forever. Which is what I believe its supporters want.
3) How would you feel if you were the 1 minority guy brought in for an interview with an NFL team, knowing they had their sights set on someone else?