c) Especially when higher positions are truly diverse, it keeps everyone in check. When a workplace is completely filled with one race, it’s easier for despicable acts to pass un-noted. Police brutality (especially against one race) is an easy example. Cases like Rodney King’s wouldn’t have gone to trial because few, if any, whites would have gone to denounce their own[2].

But the reverse also happens. By having a “token” minority[3], it’s harder to objectively criticize without getting frantic accusations of discrimination. During university, the capstone course required a group project, and when we assembled the group, it ended up being 3 guys and 1 female. The course professor insisted on teams to be either all females, all males or 2 males/2females. But I had worked with them previously (and separately), so I knew they were good. To make the long story short, the female wasn’t working on par on this project, and then tries to do a month of work on 3 days. On the last day, we’ve been working for several hours without stop before I decide to take a quick bathroom break to get ready for the final presentation. Upon my return, I saw our project burned down[4].

Sometime later that day[5], I came to talk to her about her performance and actions and she quickly counters that the other 2 guys where being “mean” to her because they weren’t letting her do her work. Talking privately with them, they had objections on most of her work because it was untested and rushed, something I could attest to. However, I felt that I was on a “damn if you do, damn if you don’t position”: I couldn’t openly criticize her, because she could allege we were discriminating against her, but I couldn’t let her continue to destroy what was left of our project.

Upon much reflection, had we followed the professor’s advice, a second female would have had a neutralizing effect on our criticism towards her. A bonus, if the other female had brought her the complains, she couldn’t allege gender discrimination as strongly.

——
[2] The feeling of betraying your own is not limited to white people, but in all overwhelming situations.

[3] By token, I mean only, or one of very few. Not to diminish their capability.

[4] Not figuratively. Literally the project was burned down.

[5] I needed to vent off and approach everything as objectively as possible.

What the opinion written by Justice Kennedy establishes is new law on how to handle these situations.

As for your questions:
1) Most Republicans are doing their best work to stay out of the real (albeit non-polarizing) issues (like the eminent domain issue). Many are betting on the Ricci case being it, but it might turn out to be not polarizing enough.

Democrats have been happy to stay out of the real issues to keep ammo out of the Republicans hands.

2) Fighting against diversity and/or Affirmative Action is a mistake. I have two reasons for it:

a) When selecting a group, you select what you need, not who’s best. Going for a sports analogy, if you are selecting players for your (established) team, you need to assess the team weaknesses and select the best player to counter that weakness. Many times it might be the best player available, but what if it isn’t? What if the best player available is a catcher, a position you already have a pretty good player and your weakness is in first base? Selecting the best player always will yield (in this example) a team with two excellent catchers competing for the same spot and no one covering adequately first base[0].

b) Especially on decision making groups, you need different perspectives. Different perspectives bring new questions, which might bring new light, solutions and problems. In several teams I’ve been involved with this type of dynamic, I’ve always appreciate those who think different, and work hard to question my assumptions.

Some time ago, I was asked to check on why some custom made software we made for an office wasn’t working very well. I talked with several users and most (shyly) nitpicked a couple of things, and I saw other issues, but nothing troubling. My surprise came when I opened the door to talk with the last person. As I entered to explain why I was there, he was screaming and cursing at the computer on how the software was useless for him. Among the curses and screams, I was able to pick up why the software wasn’t working: it actually worked if you understood the software, but a typical user couldn’t grasp it easily. Had we had someone outspoken, with the day to day experiences of the typical worker from this office, to point out these faults on the early days, they wouldn’t had to put up to several years of a (for them) suboptimal software[1].

Would this work for the Supreme Court? Of course! You need people with diverse backgrounds to challenge each other, and they (collectively) will arrive to a better conclusion than a group of similar backgrounds will. You don’t stop at gender and race diversity, but also all sort of life experiences diversity.

—-
[0] Before someone says “then one of the catchers should play first base!”: It’s possible, but dangerous, especially if the catcher-turned-into-first baseman wants to remain a catcher.

[1] Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. We were able to adapt (and expand) the software to become a central piece of their work, not something they had to fight with.

I have two questions for Daniel: 1. Don’t you suppose that pushback against the “Sotomayor is racist” argument is unnecessarily narrow and a distraction given all the issues that are brought to the forefront with this nomination, including but not limited to the Ricci case?

2. At what point should the GOP and the mainstream Right fight against the “smelly orthodoxies” of diversity or affirmative action if not here?

Absolutely. Her record on this is one of the worst things I have seen reported about her rulings.

It’s probably smart for conservative attack dogs to go after Sotomayor on ‘affirmative action’ type issues. Affirmative action is very unpopular with white Americans, who are still a big part of the electorate.

Political junkies tend to forget that most swing voters aren’t political junkies. That applies to Latinos as much as any other group, I would think.

In 2010 I expect some Democratic candidates will try to hang Rush Limbaugh around the necks of their opponents, as Obama did with McCain. But that example shows that Rush was already unpopular with Latinos. And the other attack dogs are under the radar. I’ve never heard of this Jeffrey Lord person before.

I’m reminded of the huge fuss Hillary supporters made over the Michigan and Florida primaries. If Obama didn’t do as they said, he was handing both states to the Republicans. But in November Obama won both states, and the primary controversy wasn’t even mentioned. Literally, I didn’t see a single mention, on TV or the internet.

On the federal bench, women skew to the political left, while men are more evenly distributed. This makes it problematic to use simple models of statistical analysis and samples of limited size. If, for example, researchers are looking at federal sex-discrimination cases during a particular period, there may be too few conservative women to know whether their presence on a panel would have had the same effect as that of a more liberal female judge.

Relevant in the sense that the issue here should not be “identity politics” but the unapologetic “skew to the political left.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2220220/pagenum/all/#p2

Mike

I don’t want to live in a country where I’m not permitted to say that my Norwegian (or my Minnesotan, or my Protestant) heritage gives me certain positive attributes other people might not have.

Again – I don’t see race as the primary issue of the ‘wise Latina’ comment. That you are Norwegian is part of the reason why (I am 1/4 by the way – I was just in a Norwegian clothing shop in Alaska last week). No one cares about that fine of distinction in this context. White, black, and Latina are the relevant factors when the predicate involves the legal context of the word ‘better’ (as in better decision). The racial issue might sort of factor in when we consider that ‘Latina’ could be replaced with pretty much anything other than ‘white’ and still make political sense.

Which is why I sort of don’t understand the cultural–even decentralized–justification Daniel is providing here, as if this is only the question of the expression of appreciation for one’s heritage (which might be the issue if we were using terms like Norwegian, Mexican, or even Kansan). I bring up Rorty because he constantly uses the 1st person plural and that ‘we’ has nothing to do with the kind of community that Daniel has been referring to in his Sotomayor posts. And it has everything to do with what Sotomayor calls ‘landscape.’

I could very well be wrong. But, at the very least, the legal philosophy involved is not ‘bizarre.’ One can plausibly argue that in this situation it is exactly Sotomayor (and Obama) that are the universalists.

I read a couple of days ago 5 questions that Republicans should ask Judge Sotomayor (no, not Newt’s 5 rehash tragedy), and none were on highly visible, highly polarizing issues[2]. They were on important, current issues and on the Constitution, but nothing that they fuel the mobs.

@Hal Jedoux: You don’t get the point of this post. You are acting exactly how Larison is saying that conservatives shouldn’t, by attacking the person instead of the work. If any of these accusations had any base, it would have been reflected on her work.

Blindness is certainly the ideal, but judges has been, to be optimistic, un-blind at times. If blind justice was an attainable attribute, we wouldn’t have an appeals court, and much less a Supreme Court.

Also, read the whole address. I’ll make it easy to you to find: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml

[1] Thankfully, the pundits haven’t used this issue. The bucket of worms they’d be opening is not worth touching with a 20 yard stick.

[2] Sorry for the vagueness, but I’m writing from a different computer from where I read it.

He can defend the same-sex movement without aknowledging the hard work done by the women’s rights movement, much of the results of which are enjoyed by the gay community. He can publicly recognize the folly of the Iraqi adventure (although I doubt his sincerity), but can simultaneously endorse the aggravation of any other intervention. He can espouse the mantra of “Change” just early enough to be hip, but he cannot allow himself to get on board with any of the policies that go along with it.

He’s a very smart and well-versed poseur, but his professed opinions do offer a service; one should always opposed whatever it is that Sullivan is hocking in order to be both well-respected and morally-secure.

Why are so many of you defending this?

I don’t want to live in a country where I’m not permitted to say that my Norwegian (or my Minnesotan, or my Protestant) heritage gives me certain positive attributes other people might not have.

I don’t see anything attractive about a civil society where people are stigmatized for talking about being proud of their background. For me though, as I’ve probably overstated, my understanding of the issue hinges on my belief that “Latino” isn’t really a “race,” but I suppose there’s a lot of disagreement on that. As long as everyone is being generally positive and we all have humility about our failings, I don’t see the problem. It’s when you make people drink at the water fountain X because their skin is darker than a grocery bag that this becomes a problem, and when Sonia Sotomayor proposes Mestizo jury nullification, then I’ll be against her. But that’s not even remotely on the table.

I wouldn’t presume to put words in the crunchy con’s mouth, but I would venture that a good conservative reading of the issue would focus on how culture influences the individual, and how there can be good things and bad things about a culture, and if you don’t permit people to extoll the virtues of their culture, you can’t reasonably engage in debate about the negative aspects of their culture. If Sotomayor wants to talk about the virtues of being a “wise latina,” then she should consider it fair to hear criticisms of her participation in La Raza and other cultural organizations, etc. I don’t necessarily agree with this reading, but it seems much more honest to me than what we have been hearing from the Right on this.

I will be very disappointed if one of the Republicans in the hearing doesn’t ask her how being “a wise latina” has helped her in judging. The answer will be very enlightening, particularly if she repudiates her previous statement. Of course, all of this smoke that the pundits are throwing up has almost guaranteed that the lucky senator who asks this question will be branded a racist, because the conservatives making these arguments have happily conflated race with heritage in order to score their points.

But you must have a grand battle – something like what is going on between Detroit and Pittsburgh in their rinks – to cover the fact that there are NO issues being discussed, at least none of importance (did anyone else notice here hair style?).

Gingrich has noted Obama has failed, and I forget which democrats said the same of Bush an equal length into his term, and Clinton before that…

Nothing substantial changes. And it won’t until something like the Ron Paul revolution matures.

There may be reasons Sotomayor ought to be confirmed, or not confirmed, but instead we get noise, and even the meta-discussion on the noise like here is too busy to analyze things, not that anyone would pay attention to it, but it might limit what might otherwise be surprises to each side.